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. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• Abdul Majeed and another vs Ghulam Haider and others2001 SCMR 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-29
  temporary injunctionprima facie caselimitationcondonation of delaywrong forumspecific performancesuit by deceased person
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought leave to appeal against a Sindh High Court order that dismissed an appeal as time-barred. The petitioners had initially filed an appeal in the wrong forum (the District Court instead of the High Court) based on legal advice, and later sought to exclude the time spent in the wrong forum under the Limitation Act 1908. The High Court, relying on precedent, held that ill-advice by a lawyer does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court, however, declined to decide the limitation issue, focusing instead on the merits of the underlying suit. The Court upheld the trial court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction, noting that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case. Specifically, the suit was filed by a deceased person (petitioner No. 1), the relief sought was merely for a declaration rather than specific performance of the sale agreement, and the petitioners' agreement was unregistered compared to the respondents' registered sale deed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of an appeal in a wrong forum due to legal advice constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a suit filed by a deceased person be maintained?
  • Is a suit for declaration maintainable when the proper remedy is specific performance of a sale agreement?
  • Does the existence of a registered sale deed in favour of a third party defeat a claim based on an unregistered sale agreement for the purpose of a temporary injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Communication2001 C.L.R. 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  contractual liabilityarrears of land revenuewrit jurisdictiondisputed factsrecovery of government duesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two constitutional petitions challenging notices issued by the provincial government directing the petitioners, who are contractors, to pay alleged outstanding amounts under threat of recovery as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners contended that the amounts were not legally due and that the government lacked the authority to recover contractual liabilities as arrears of land revenue under the relevant land revenue statutes. The core legal question was whether disputed contractual claims could be summarily recovered as arrears of land revenue without prior determination of liability. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable because they involved disputed questions of fact regarding contractual obligations and alleged outstanding payments, which cannot be investigated under the writ jurisdiction of Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed the principle that an amount can only be recovered as arrears of land revenue after the dues have been fixed, ascertained, and established, and that disputed claims cannot be recovered through such summary proceedings without prior adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed contractual claims be recovered as arrears of land revenue without prior determination?
  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable when the case involves disputed questions of fact?
  • Does the government have the authority to recover alleged contractual liabilities as arrears of land revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Haq Nawaz alias Akram alias Akoo and 3 others2001 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-11-14
  leave to appealmurder trialacquittalreappraisal of evidenceeyewitness testimonycriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges relating to the murder of the deceased husband of Mst. Nasreen Akhtar. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents under Section 302 and Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death and imprisonment for life. The petitioner challenged the acquittal, arguing that the statements of the deceased's son and daughter implicating the mother and co-accused should not have been ignored, particularly as the incident occurred inside the house. The respondents contended that the witnesses had initially supported the FIR version before changing statements under the influence of their grandparents. The Supreme Court observed that the daughter's testimony, despite her young age, provided a detailed account of the occurrence and indicated she had witnessed it. Finding that a reappraisal of the evidence was warranted, the Court granted leave to appeal and issued bailable warrants against the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal for the reappraisal of evidence in a criminal case where the High Court has acquitted the accused?
  • Can the testimony of a minor eyewitness be relied upon despite prior contradictory statements made under pressure?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq Bhatti vs Muhammad Aslam and others2001 SCMR 1510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-07-25
  contempt of courtlocus standiservice matterspromotion quotaconsent order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal original petitions filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, alleging non-compliance and contempt of a previous consent order passed by the Supreme Court regarding the promotion quotas of Booking Clerks, Goods Clerks, and Parcel Clerks within Pakistan Railways. The core legal question is whether a retired petitioner, who has already secured his personal promotion, possesses the requisite locus standi to maintain contempt proceedings or agitate grievances on behalf of unspecified and unrepresented co-employees. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having achieved promotion and retired, has no personal cause left and lacks locus standi to pursue contempt proceedings or espouse the grievances of other unspecified employees who have neither authorized him nor approached the court themselves. The key principle laid down is that contempt proceedings for non-implementation of a judgment cannot be maintained by a petitioner who has no personal surviving grievance and lacks explicit legal authorization to represent third parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petitioner who has retired from service retain locus standi to pursue contempt proceedings for non-implementation of a judgment?
  • Can a party maintain contempt of court proceedings on behalf of other unspecified and unrepresented employees without express authorization?
  • Whether contempt proceedings are maintainable when the primary grievance of the petitioner regarding promotion has been satisfied?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid and 3 others vs Syed Abdul Qadir and others2001 PLD Supreme Court 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-08-09
  ejectmentlandlord and tenant relationshiprent defaultchange of ownershiptitle disputesummary procedureres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  The appeals challenged a High Court judgment ordering the ejectment of appellants from premises due to rent default and personal requirement. The core legal question concerned the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship where the tenants disputed the landlords' title, citing a previously dismissed suit for title cancellation by the former owner. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the Rent Controller possesses the authority to determine the landlord entitled to receive rent and seek ejectment, even if they cannot conclusively adjudicate complex title disputes. Furthermore, the Court established that once a tenant is served with a notice of change of ownership under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, they are legally obligated to pay rent to the new landlord rather than initiating inquiries into the validity of the title transfer. As the appellants failed to pay rent despite proper notice, their ejectment was justified. The Court also noted that the previous owner’s failure to revive his dismissed suit precluded further litigation on the same cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a suit for cancellation of a sale deed for non-prosecution preclude the plaintiff from challenging the title in subsequent proceedings?
  • Is a tenant obligated to pay rent to a new landlord upon receiving notice of change of ownership under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance?
  • Can a Rent Controller determine the landlord-tenant relationship even when the landlord's title is disputed by the tenant?
  • Does the failure to produce original title documents before a Rent Controller necessarily invalidate a claim of ownership in ejectment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid And 3 Other vs Syed Abdul Qadir And OtherK.L.R. 2001 S.C. 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-08-09
  relationship of landlord and tenantejectmentdefault in payment of rentchange of ownershipregistered conveyance deedres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an identical judgment of the Sindh High Court directing the ejectment of the appellants from disputed premises on grounds of default and personal requirement. The respondents sought ejectment as landlords following a registered conveyance deed executed by the previous owner, Jamiluddin, who subsequently challenged the sale-deed by filing a civil suit that was later dismissed for non-prosecution and never revived, though he joined the rent proceedings. The Rent Controller and High Court concurrently found the relationship of landlord and tenant established. The Supreme Court examined whether the dismissal of the title suit per se operated as res judicata and whether the landlords established their title. The Court held that once a tenant is served with a notice of change of ownership, it is incumbent upon them to pay rent to the new landlord and not embark on an inquiry into title, and that the Rent Controller is competent to decide who is the landlord entitled to receive rent. The appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the dismissal of a civil suit for cancellation of a registered sale-deed for non-prosecution operates as res judicata in subsequent rent proceedings?
  • Is it incumbent upon a tenant, upon receiving notice of change of ownership, to pay rent to the new landlord without embarking on an inquiry into title?
  • Can a Rent Controller decide the question of who is the landlord entitled to receive rent and seek ejectment?
  • Whether a tenant who admits tenancy can withhold rent on the basis of a disputed title when the rival claimant failed to pursue their civil suit challenging the transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Mehmood and others2001 SCMR 1316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-27
  leave to appealex parte decreefraud and misrepresentationwant of jurisdictioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sindh High Court dismissing his High Court Appeal, which had upheld the dismissal of his application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction to warrant setting aside the judgment and decree under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner merely repeated pleas on the merits of the case and failed to demonstrate any actual fraud, misrepresentation, or jurisdictional defect, having previously litigated the same matters up to the Supreme Court. The court affirmed the High Court's findings, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, establishing that merely mentioning the words fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction is insufficient without meeting the legal requirements of section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere mentioning of the words fraud, misrepresentation, and want of jurisdiction sufficient to invoke section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be maintained when the same pleas on merits have already been agitated and dismissed up to the Supreme Court?
  • Does a judgment and decree suffer from jurisdictional defect merely due to the re-agitation of previously resolved factual and legal contentions?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed CH vs Ch. Sardar AliK.L.R. 2001 S.C. 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-08-29
  leave to defendcivil procedurebank guaranteesecurityconsent orderappellate modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which was subsequently converted into an appeal by consent of the parties. The core legal question concerned the conditions imposed upon the petitioner for obtaining leave to appear and defend a suit. Specifically, the Trial Court had initially granted the petitioner leave to defend the suit subject to the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the parties reached a consensus to modify this condition. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the requirement of a bank guarantee should be substituted with a requirement to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The key principle established is that appellate courts may, by consent of the parties, modify procedural conditions imposed by lower courts regarding the grant of leave to defend a suit, provided the substituted condition remains within the court's discretion to ensure the security of the claim.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court modify the conditions for leave to defend a suit based on the consent of the parties?
  • Is it permissible to substitute a bank guarantee requirement with general security to the satisfaction of the Trial Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Ahmad And OtherK.L.R. 2001 S.C. 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-01-04
  leave to appealsale deedappreciation of evidencepublic importanceSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's findings regarding the invalidity of a sale deed dated 14.10.1978, which were based on an in-depth analysis of the evidence on record, warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the High Court and concluded that the lower court had properly evaluated the evidence concerning the execution of the sale deed by the respondents, Ahmad and Rehmat. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any point of public importance that would justify the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, finding no legal infirmity in the appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, thereby upholding the lower court's determination regarding the invalidity of the disputed sale deed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with High Court findings based on an in-depth analysis of evidence in the absence of a point of public importance?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 when no question of public importance is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas vs Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and 2 others2001 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-24
  stay of trialabsconding co-accusedproclaimed offenderjudicial enquiryleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a criminal matter where the petitioner, facing trial for murder along with other co-accused who had absconded and were declared proclaimed offenders, sought a direction to stay his trial until the arrest of the absconding co-accused and prayed for a judicial enquiry on the ground of innocence. The core legal questions pertained to whether a trial Court is mandated or empowered to stay the trial of an arrested accused pending the apprehension of absconding co-accused, and whether a judicial enquiry can be ordered under the criminal procedure framework. The Supreme Court held that there is no provision of law under which a trial can be stayed merely because co-accused have absconded, noting that evidence against absconders can be recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that an arrested accused cannot indefinitely await the appearance of co-accused. Furthermore, the Court held that no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code permits ordering a judicial enquiry of the nature sought. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial Court can stay the trial of an arrested accused until the arrest of absconding co-accused?
  • Can a judicial enquiry be ordered under the Criminal Procedure Code to determine the innocence of an accused?
  • How is evidence recorded against absconding co-accused during a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Mehmood vs Sardar Muhammad Abbad Dogar and another2001 C.L.R. 1558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-01-27
  election lawnomination paperswillful defaulterwrit jurisdictionelection eligibilityWAPDA dues
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the rejection of the nomination papers of the respondents for the offices of Nazim and Naib Nazim. The Returning Officer and District Returning Officer had rejected the nominations due to outstanding electricity dues owed to WAPDA by the respondents' industrial unit. The High Court, however, found that the respondents had leased the premises to a third party during the relevant period, supported by evidence of a criminal case registered by WAPDA against the lessee for electricity theft and ongoing proceedings before the Electric Inspector. Consequently, the High Court held that the respondents could not be classified as willful defaulters. The Supreme Court, upon review, declined to interfere with the High Court's decision. The Court reasoned that the respondents appeared prima facie qualified to contest the election and that detailed findings on the intricate controversy were unnecessary at this stage, as such issues could be appropriately adjudicated by an Election Tribunal if the election results were challenged.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate be disqualified for outstanding utility dues if the premises were leased to a third party during the relevant period?
  • Is the High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction appropriate when determining the eligibility of a candidate whose nomination papers were rejected?
  • Should the Supreme Court provide authoritative findings on factual controversies regarding election eligibility that are subject to future adjudication by an Election Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Aacher and others vs Dur Muhammad Usto and others2001 SCMR 958 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-22
  Waqf-alal-AuladAuqaf propertiesland reformsconstitutional petitionpossession and accountsIslamic repugnancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from appeals against an order of the High Court of Sindh concerning the rights of beneficiaries under successive Waqf-alal-Aulad created in 1916, 1920, and 1923, and their interaction with various land reforms and auqaf legislations. The core legal questions involved the competency of a constitutional petition for restoration of possession and rendition of accounts following protracted litigation, and the extent to which land reform laws applied to the waqf properties given intervening statutory changes and declarations of Islamic repugnancy. The Supreme Court held that while the beneficiaries were entitled to the usufruct and possession of the property as previously determined, their claims and the competing rights of purported tenants or haris must be confined to the lands and holdings lawfully retained under applicable land reform declarations and laws. The Court modified the High Court's order, directing that accounts be rendered only to the extent of ascertained and retained holdings, and leaving pending matters regarding land entitlements to be finalized by the respective land commission authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is competently filed for the restoration of possession and rendition of accounts of waqf properties after protracted litigation under special enactments?
  • How do declarations of repugnancy to the Injunctions of Islam regarding land reform laws affect previously passed decrees and pending proceedings?
  • Whether beneficiaries of a waqf are entitled to unrestricted possession of properties that are concurrently subject to intervening land reform declarations and resumption laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Memon and others vs Pakistan Water and Power2000 SCMR 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-16
  Service Tribunal jurisdictionArticle 212terms and conditions of serviceWAPDAconstitutional petitionbar of jurisdictionvoluntary acceptance of appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the dismissal of constitutional petitions by the High Court of Sindh, wherein the appellants sought appointment as Junior Engineers (BS-17) in the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The appellants, having initially accepted appointments as Technical Upper Subordinates (BS-12) and served for several years, challenged their non-appointment to the higher grade, alleging favouritism and discrimination. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate these grievances, or whether the matter fell exclusively within the domain of the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants' grievances were inextricably linked to the terms and conditions of their service. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is barred by Article 212 in such matters. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellants had voluntarily accepted the lower-grade appointments and participated in subsequent promotion processes, precluding them from challenging their service status through constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding the terms and conditions of service of an employee of a statutory body?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Can an employee who voluntarily accepts an appointment in a lower grade and participates in subsequent promotion processes challenge their initial appointment status via a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Memon and others vs Pakistan Water and Power2000 PLC (C.S.) 1042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-16
  service matterwrit jurisdictionWAPDAterms and conditions of serviceFederal Service TribunalArticle 212voluntary acceptance of appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the dismissal of Constitution petitions by the High Court of Sindh regarding the appointment of the appellants as Junior Engineers (BS-17) in the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The appellants, having initially accepted appointments as Technical Upper Subordinates (BS-12) in 1987, later challenged these appointments, alleging favoritism and claiming entitlement to the higher-grade posts. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate these grievances, or whether such matters were barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' grievances, arising from their service terms and conditions, were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court correctly dismissed the petitions. The principle laid down is that where a dispute relates to the terms and conditions of service, the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applies, precluding the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction, particularly when the aggrieved parties have voluntarily accepted and continued in their service positions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate service disputes involving terms and conditions of employment?
  • Is a dispute regarding the initial appointment grade of a WAPDA employee subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Does the voluntary acceptance of a lower-grade post by an employee preclude them from later challenging the terms of their appointment in a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Zila'council Sheikhupura vs Muhammad Ar1f2000 C.L.R. 774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-04-04
  withdrawal of appealSection 12(2) CPCfresh appealcivil proceduredecreeprocedural remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a dispute over interest payments claimed by the respondent, Muhammad Arif, against the petitioner, Zila Council, Sheikhupura. The trial court initially decreed the respondent's claim. The petitioner subsequently filed a Regular First Appeal, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge the withdrawal order, which the High Court dismissed, stating that Section 12(2) was inapplicable and that there was no provision for returning an appeal for refiling. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could pursue a fresh appeal after the initial appeal was withdrawn and the subsequent challenge under Section 12(2) was rejected. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition by observing that the High Court's order did not preclude the petitioner from filing a fresh appeal against the original trial court decree. The Court held that if the petitioner is so advised, it may seek its remedy by filing a fresh appeal before the High Court, thereby clarifying the procedural path for the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a Regular First Appeal preclude the appellant from filing a fresh appeal against the original trial court decree?
  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 an appropriate remedy to challenge an order allowing the withdrawal of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zikar Muhammad vs Mrs. Arifa Sabir and anothers2000 SCMR 1328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-06
  rent disputestriking off defenceejectmentwillful defaultdeposit of rentlandlord and tenantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a rent dispute challenging the Lahore High Court's judgment in F.A.O. No. 227 of 1997, which had upheld the Rent Controller's order striking off the tenant's defence and directing ejectment. The Rent Controller had ordered the tenant to deposit future monthly rent before the fifth of each succeeding month, but the tenant committed repeated delayed payments for eight months during 1995. Consequently, the Rent Controller struck off the tenant's defence due to willful default. The petitioner argued that the landlord filed the application belatedly without earlier objection, and that the High Court erred in deciding the appeal on merits in the absence of the petitioner rather than dismissing it in default. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined leave to appeal, holding that the tenant committed willful default and negligence without any reasonable explanation, fully justifying the striking off of the defence. The petitioner was granted four months to hand over vacant possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the defence of a tenant can be struck off for willful and negligent delay in depositing monthly rent despite specific directions from the Rent Controller?
  • Whether a landlord's delay in objecting to repeated late deposits of rent bars an application for striking off the tenant's defence?
  • Whether an appellate court is precluded from affirming an ejectment order on merits when the appellant is found to have committed willful default in depositing rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ziaul Rehman vs The State2000 SCMR 528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-01-17
  extra-judicial confessioncorroboration of evidencediscovery of factcriminal appealmurder convictionQanun-e-Shahadat Orderadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his two minor children. The prosecution's case rested primarily on an alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to witnesses, claiming he threw the children into a canal. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death, which the High Court later commuted to life imprisonment. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court held that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession, standing alone without independent corroboration, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellant's act of pointing out the location where the bodies were allegedly thrown was inadmissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, as it did not lead to the discovery of any incriminating fact. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, emphasizing that one weak piece of evidence cannot corroborate another, and technical delays in filing appeals may be condoned to prevent grave injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient to maintain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can the act of pointing out a location be considered admissible evidence under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order if it does not lead to the discovery of an incriminating fact?
  • Can one weak piece of evidence corroborate another similar piece of evidence to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs Mst. Rukhsana Kausar and 4 others2000 SCMR 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-01-24
  minor custodywelfare of minorguardians and wardsfather's custodycustody abroad
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition against the appellate court's order denying him the custody of his minor son. The core legal question concerned the determination of the welfare of the minor child regarding custody between the father, who resided and worked abroad as a labourer and had contracted a second marriage, and the mother and maternal grandparents, with whom the minor had been living and well-adjusted. The Supreme Court held that since the father was absent abroad and sought custody merely through his parents as a counterblast to maintenance proceedings, and given that the minor was well-cared for by the maternal grandparents under the mother's supervision, the welfare of the minor did not lie in handing over his custody to the father. The key principle laid down is that a father residing abroad who cannot personally supervise or look after the minor is not entitled to custody when the child is happily settled with the mother or maternal grandparents, and financial superiority alone does not override the paramount consideration of the minor's welfare.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a father residing and working abroad is entitled to the physical custody of his minor child through his parents?
  • Does the mere financial better-off status of a father override the welfare of a minor child living with the mother and maternal grandparents?
  • Whether custody of a minor can be denied to a father when he fails to provide maintenance voluntarily and initiates custody proceedings as a counterblast?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs Mst. Rukhsana Kausar & 4 Other(K.L.R. 2000 S.C. 340) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-01-24
  child custodywelfare of minorGuardians and Wards Actpaternal custodymaternal custodyremarriage of parentsnon-resident father
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a child custody dispute under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The petitioner (father), residing abroad, sought custody of his minor son, who had been living with his mother and maternal grandparents following the parents' divorce. The Guardian Judge initially granted custody to the father, prioritizing the paternal right to custody. However, the Appellate Court and the Lahore High Court reversed this decision, emphasizing the minor's welfare and his established adjustment in his current environment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petition. The Court held that a father’s right to custody is not absolute and must be subordinated to the welfare of the minor. It determined that the father's absence, his lack of personal involvement, and his failure to provide maintenance were critical factors weighing against transferring custody. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the minor's emotional stability and current living arrangements are paramount, and that custody should not be transferred to a parent residing abroad when it disrupts the child's well-being.

  Questions settled

  • Does a father have an absolute right to the custody of a minor child upon the child reaching the age of seven?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in determining custody disputes between parents?
  • Can a father residing abroad be granted custody of a minor child when the child is well-adjusted with the mother and maternal grandparents?
  • Does the failure of a father to pay maintenance to his minor child impact his claim for custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Ullah and 13 others vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and others2000 SCMR 826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-20
  Service TribunalCivil ServantContract EmployeeWorkmanService of PakistanStatutory InterpretationMaintainability of Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of appeals filed by employees of a corporation before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the appellants' claims, reasoning that because they were employed on a contract basis or classified as workmen, they fell outside the definition of 'civil servant' under Section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected this interpretation. The Court held that Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, created a legal fiction by declaring all persons holding posts under corporations or organizations controlled by the Federal Government to be civil servants for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act. The Court clarified that Section 2-A does not distinguish between regular employees, contract employees, or workmen. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to the remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal regardless of their employment status. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication, establishing the principle that Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, provides a comprehensive remedy for employees of such organizations, overriding restrictive definitions found in other statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, exclude employees working on a contract basis from the definition of civil servant?
  • Are workmen employed by a Federal Government-controlled corporation considered civil servants for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act?
  • Does the definition of civil servant in Section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, limit the scope of the legal fiction created by Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs City Superintendent, Post Office, Peshawar and anothers2000 SCMR 1560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  disciplinary proceedingscompulsory retirementservice tribunalnatural justicedue processmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld the compulsory retirement of a postal clerk following disciplinary proceedings. The appellant contended that he was denied due process because he was not provided with relevant material evidence (specifically Registration Books and Register PT-3 entries) to defend against charges of financial irregularities and causing loss to the government exchequer. Additionally, the appellant questioned the competency of the authorized officer to impose a major penalty. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the Tribunal had already determined, as a matter of fact, that the requisite documents were supplied to the appellant, while others were denied due to irrelevancy. The Court noted that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the Tribunal misread the evidence or record. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, and the findings of the Tribunal regarding the supply of documents were conclusive. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to supply certain documents during disciplinary proceedings vitiates the penalty imposed?
  • Can a service tribunal's finding of fact regarding the supply of documents be challenged in the Supreme Court without demonstrating misreading of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs City Superintendent, Post Office, Peshawar and another2000 PLC (C.S.) 1031 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-02
  service tribunalcompulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingsnon-supply of documentscivil servantmaster and servantsupreme court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, by leave of the Court, challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal against his compulsory retirement from service. The appellant, a postal clerk, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, suspended, and eventually compulsorily retired following allegations of issuing fictitious motor vehicle registration certificates and causing financial loss to the government. The core legal question raised was whether the appellant was denied a fair inquiry due to the alleged non-supply of relevant material evidence, specifically certain registers, and whether the authorized officer was competent to impose a major penalty. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal had correctly found on facts that the requisite documents were indeed supplied or made available for inspection, while irrelevant documents were rightly withheld, and that the record was not misread. The key principle laid down is that where a service tribunal properly examines the record and finds that relevant inquiry documents were provided to the accused civil servant, allegations of denial of fair opportunity will not invalidate departmental disciplinary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-supply of inquiry documents to a civil servant vitiates disciplinary proceedings where the service tribunal finds the documents were actually provided or rightly denied as irrelevant?
  • Does compulsory retirement from service stand justified when a civil servant is found involved in financial irregularities causing loss to the government exchequer?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with factual findings recorded by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the supply of material evidence without a clear case of misreading of record?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority and others vs Shamshad-Ul-2000 PLC (C.S.) 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-09
  WAPDA service rulesinvalid pensionpermanent disabilitymedical reimbursementqualifying servicework-related injuryservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute between the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and a former employee, Shamshad-ul-Haq, who suffered permanent disability (paraplegia) while performing official duties. The core legal questions were whether the respondent was entitled to pensionary benefits despite failing to complete the minimum qualifying service period, and whether he was entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses incurred after his discharge from the WAPDA hospital. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent’s disability, specifically paraplegia, fell under Rule 5, Chapter IV of the WAPDA Pension Rules, 1977, which provides independent protection for involuntary disability regardless of the minimum service requirements governing optional retirement under Rule 3, Chapter III. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the employer's obligation to provide adequate medical treatment, rejecting the appellants' challenge to the reimbursement of medical expenses. The judgment establishes that employees suffering involuntary permanent disability during service are entitled to pensionary benefits under the specific provisions of the WAPDA Pension Rules, 1977, irrespective of the general minimum service criteria.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee who suffers permanent disability during service entitled to pensionary benefits even if they have not completed the minimum qualifying service period?
  • Does the WAPDA Pension Rules, 1977, distinguish between optional retirement due to disability and involuntary retirement due to disability for the purpose of pension eligibility?
  • Are WAPDA authorities liable to reimburse an employee for medical expenses incurred for treatment of a work-related injury after discharge from a WAPDA hospital?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs The State2000 SCMR 1815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-10
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular evidencerecovery of weaponbenefit of section 382-Bappreciation of evidencenatural witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a criminal conviction where the appellant challenged a Lahore High Court judgment maintaining his conviction and life imprisonment sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the defense's arguments regarding the non-examination of certain child witnesses and the alleged unreliability of related prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's evidence, consisting of consistent ocular testimony from natural witnesses present at the scene, was corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the blood-stained murder weapon (kulhara) at the appellant's instance. The Court found no misreading of evidence by the lower courts. Consequently, the conviction was upheld. The Court affirmed the principle that where prosecution witnesses are natural, consistent, and withstand cross-examination, their testimony is reliable, and the failure to examine other potential witnesses does not necessarily create reasonable doubt if the guilt is otherwise proven. The Court did, however, grant the appellant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine certain child witnesses necessarily create reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused?
  • Is the testimony of related witnesses reliable if they are natural witnesses present at the scene of the crime?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it was not extended by the trial or appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• University of the Punjab through Vice Chancellor, Lahore and anothers2000 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-22
  leave to appealre-evaluation of answer booksmedical educationsubordinate legislationretrospective operationconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the University of the Punjab against a judgment of the Lahore High Court directing the re-evaluation of answer books of a medical student who had exhausted his permissible chances for the first professional M.B.,B.S. examination under the regulations framed pursuant to the Medical Council Ordinance, 1962. The core legal question concerns the effect of the deletion of Regulation 23(b), which previously empowered the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation, and whether its deletion operates prospectively or retrospectively regarding examinations whose results were declared post-deletion. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the legal effect of the deletion of Regulation 23(b) on the examination held in March 1997, the result of which was declared after the notification of deletion on April 26, 1997, and suspended the operation of the impugned High Court order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the deletion of a regulation permitting the re-evaluation of answer scripts has retrospective or prospective effect?
  • Does the Vice-Chancellor retain the power to order re-evaluation of examination scripts after the deletion of the enabling regulation?
  • What is the legal effect of the deletion of Regulation 23(b) on examinations whose results are declared after the notification of deletion?
  Read full judgment →
• University of Karachi vs Muhammad Wali Khan Durrani and 2 others2000 SCMR 1244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-29
  service lawdeputationisttermination of serviceservice tribunal jurisdictiondepartmental appeallimitationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, the University of Karachi, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal which had allowed the respondent's appeal against the termination of his services as Registrar. The respondent, originally an Army officer on deputation, had his services terminated by the University on the premise that he ceased to be on deputation following his retirement from the Army. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision on three primary grounds: first, that the respondent, as a deputationist, was barred from approaching the Service Tribunal under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973; second, that the respondent failed to exhaust the mandatory departmental appeal process; and third, that the appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred. Conversely, the respondent contended that his appointment was for a fixed three-year term under the University of Karachi Act, 1972, and that he had complied with procedural requirements. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the respondent's status as a deputationist precluded his access to the Service Tribunal and whether the appeal was maintainable regarding limitation and exhaustion of departmental remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deputationist precluded from approaching the Service Tribunal under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal maintainable if the requisite departmental appeal was not preferred?
  • Does the termination of a deputationist's service, based on the cessation of deputation, constitute a matter reviewable by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited and others vs Mian Manzooz Ahmed and Otherss2000 SCMR 749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-02-21
  service matterwrit jurisdictioninterim injunctionjurisdiction of High CourtFederal Service Tribunaldisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil petitions arising from interim orders passed by the Lahore High Court in writ petitions involving service matters. The petitioners, United Bank Limited, challenged the High Court's jurisdiction, arguing that under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, exclusive jurisdiction over the respondent's service dispute lies with the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioners contended that the High Court erred in granting an interim injunction restraining the finalization of disciplinary inquiry proceedings. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim orders at this intermediate stage, adhering to its policy of avoiding interference with High Court interim orders absent exceptional circumstances. Instead, the Court directed the Registrar of the Lahore High Court to expedite the disposal of the pending applications regarding jurisdiction before the Judge in Chambers, mandating a final decision within fifteen days. The petitions were disposed of with these directions, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution of jurisdictional challenges in service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition in a service matter where the employee is deemed a civil servant under the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court at an intermediate stage of proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Private) Limited vs Pakistan Agro2000 SCMR 1703 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-06-07
  territorial jurisdictionconcurrent jurisdictionconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictioncause of actionfederal government agencycontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal against a High Court judgment regarding a contractual dispute over the forfeiture of bid bond money by the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP). The petitioner challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, arguing that both parties were based in Karachi and the contract was executed there. The core legal question was whether the Rawalpindi Bench possessed concurrent jurisdiction given that the Ministry of Commerce (a federal entity based in Islamabad) was a party to the dispute and had exercised control over the decision-making process. The Supreme Court held that since the relief was sought against both the TCP and the Ministry of Commerce, the cause of action arose in Islamabad, thereby granting the Rawalpindi Bench concurrent jurisdiction alongside the High Court at Karachi. The Court affirmed the principle that where a federal agency or ministry is a party to a dispute, the High Court within whose jurisdiction that federal entity operates possesses concurrent jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in a matter where the relief is sought against a federal ministry located within its territorial limits?
  • Can a constitutional petition be filed in a High Court if the cause of action arises from a decision made by a federal ministry located within that court's jurisdiction?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a government corporation when the underlying decision-making authority resides with a federal ministry located in a different jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• The State/District Magistrate, Lahore vs Hamza Shahbaz Sharif and2000 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-31
  habeas corpuspreventive detentionjurisdictionalternate remedyleave to appealfamily interviews
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a habeas corpus petition filed before the Lahore High Court concerning the detention of Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, Captain Safdar, Abbas Sharif, and Hussain Nawaz. The High Court passed an interim order directing the production of two detenus held under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, sought production of warrants and custody details for the other two detenus detained under the National Accountability Ordinance, and permitted weekly family interviews. The Advocate-General, Punjab challenged the High Court's jurisdiction, arguing against the power to order the production of detenus under preventive detention when an alternate remedy of representation to the Home Secretary existed, and cited various precedents. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the jurisdictional pleas, suspended the operation of the impugned order regarding the production of the two detenus, and directed the appeal to be listed before a larger Bench due to the importance of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction in a habeas corpus petition to direct the production of detenus held under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance when an alternate remedy of representation to the Home Secretary is available?
  • Can the High Court order the production of detenus held under preventive detention to examine the justification of their detention?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Deputy Director, Anti Narcotics Force, Karachi vs Mobin2000 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-09
  narcotics controlstatutory delaybail cancellationnon-obstante clauseprohibitory clausecriminal procedurestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order granting bail to an accused charged with narcotics offences involving 10 kilograms of heroin. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail on the ground of statutory delay, given the specific provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Supreme Court held that Section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, contains a non-obstante clause that expressly excludes the application of Sections 496 and 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in cases involving offences punishable with death. Since the offence under Section 9(c) of the Act carries a potential death sentence for quantities exceeding one kilogram, the statutory delay provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, are inapplicable. The principle laid down is that the special provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, override the general bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, effectively barring bail based on statutory delay for offences punishable by death under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, exclude the application of the statutory delay provisions in Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can bail be granted on the ground of statutory delay for an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, that carries a potential sentence of death?
  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, override the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• The Secretary, Railways Board, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad and otherss vs Muhammad Zubair Rana2000 PLD Supreme Court 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-09-14
  service tribunalbasic pay scalecivil servantdepartmental representationfinance division advicecompetent authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17-4-1999 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the respondent's service appeal regarding the grant of Basic Pay Scale 15 (BPS-15) from an earlier date was accepted. The core legal question was whether a basic pay scale granted to a civil servant by the competent authority could be subsequently modified or delayed to his disadvantage based on an advisory opinion from the Finance Division. The Supreme Court held that once a basic pay scale has been allowed to a civil servant by the competent authority with effect from a specific date, it cannot be altered or changed to his disadvantage merely on the basis of subsequent advice from the Finance Division. The Court established the principle that orders of a competent authority granting financial benefits cannot be arbitrarily undermined by departmental advisory opinions, and dismissed the petition as it involved an individual grievance without any substantial question of public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a basic pay scale granted to a civil servant by the competent authority can be modified or changed to his disadvantage on the basis of an advice from the Finance Division?
  • Does an individual service grievance regarding pay scales without involving a substantial legal question of public importance warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to the higher pay scale from the date sanctioned by the competent authority notwithstanding subsequent negative departmental opinions?
  Read full judgment →
• The Province of Punjab through Secretary, Health Department, Lahore2000 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-17
  service tribunalpromotionequivalence of foreign qualificationsseniorityprovincial selection board
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals concerning the promotion to the post of Professor of Pharmacology in the Punjab Health Department, involving a dispute over seniority and the recognition of foreign qualifications between Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan and Dr. Farooq Javed. The core legal question was whether an Equivalence Committee's adverse opinion regarding a foreign Master of Philosophy degree could legally exclude a senior civil servant from being considered for promotion by the competent selection authority. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals, holding that the determination of equivalence and fitness for promotion falls within the domain of the appointing and selection authorities, and an adverse opinion by an ad-hoc Equivalence Committee cannot arbitrarily bar an eligible and senior candidate from being considered for promotion. The key principle laid down is that senior candidates possessing requisite qualifications and experience cannot be bypassed for promotion based on collateral expert opinions not sought by the competent selection authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Equivalence Committee's opinion can legally exclude an eligible and senior civil servant from being considered for promotion?
  • Does the determination of equivalence of foreign qualifications rest with the appointing authority and the selection board?
  • Can a senior candidate be ignored for promotion to the post of Professor on the basis of non-recognition of a foreign degree by a committee not constituted on the request of the selection authority?
  Read full judgment →
• The Province of Punjab through Secretary Health, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and anothers vs Muhammad Anwar2000 SCMR 657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service appealex parte decreeabatement of suitPunjab Service Tribunals Actleave to appealcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's application to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree passed against it in a service dispute. The core legal question involved whether the civil court's proceedings were barred by abatement under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and whether the ex parte decree ought to be set aside due to the non-appearance of the Government Pleader. The Supreme Court held that the civil suit was competent because the cause of action arose prior to 1st July 1969, making it exempt from the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Act, and that the petitioner could not benefit from its own negligence in failing to appear after service. The key principle laid down is that matters concerning departmental orders passed before 1st July 1969 do not abate under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and a party cannot be permitted to penalize the opposite side for its own counsel's failure to appear.

  Questions settled

  • Whether suits regarding departmental orders passed before 1st July 1969 abate under section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Can a party have an ex parte decree set aside on the ground of its own counsel's failure to appear despite service?
  • Whether an appeal is competent before a Service Tribunal against an order of a departmental authority made before 1st July 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• The Province of Punjab and anothers vs National Industrial2000 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-02
  cooperative societieslegislative judgmenttrichotomy of powersjurisdiction of Supreme Courtex post facto hearingwinding upfinancial scandalconstitutional validity
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan resolves a series of civil appeals arising from the Lahore High Court concerning the constitutionality and legality of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Ordinance XX of 1992 and its successor Act I of 1993. The legislation was promulgated to address a massive financial debacle involving defaulting cooperative societies that accepted public deposits and subsequently failed to return billions of rupees. The core legal questions involved whether the legislation constituted a 'legislative judgment' violating the trichotomy of powers, whether it infringed upon fundamental rights and principles of natural justice without prior notice, and whether the Provincial Legislature was competent to appoint a Supreme Court Judge as a Cooperatives Judge and provide an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the legislation was not a legislative judgment and provided adequate ex post facto safeguards to the affected societies, thereby sustaining the validity of the dissolution and liquidation framework. However, the Court ruled that section 22 of the legislation, which provided for an appeal to the Supreme Court, and the provisions attempting to enlarge the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, were ultra vires the powers of the Provincial Legislature. The key principles laid down affirm that in extraordinary situations requiring emergent legislative action, a statute affecting rights without prior notice is permissible provided it contains provisions for ex post facto hearing, and that Provincial Legislatures lack the competence to confer additional appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Ordinance XX of 1992 and Act I of 1993 amount to unconstitutional legislative judgments that usurp judicial powers?
  • Can a statute enacted to meet an extraordinary financial emergency be sustained without a provision for prior notice, provided adequate ex post facto remedies and safeguards are available?
  • Is a Provincial Legislature competent under the Constitution of Pakistan to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or provide for an appeal to it?
  • Whether the appointment of a Judge of the Supreme Court as a Cooperatives Judge by a provincial enactment is within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature?
  Read full judgment →
• The Member, Board of Revenue vs Farooq Ahmed and others2000 SCMR 706 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-09-13
  condonation of delaylimitationtime-barred petitionadministrative delayleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against a judgment and order dated 3-9-1998 passed by the Lahore High Court in W.P. 44-R of 1993. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the delay of 235 days in filing the petition could be condoned based on the explanation that the delay was caused by the involvement of various government departments in processing the case. The Supreme Court held that the internal administrative processing of a case by government departments does not constitute a valid or sufficient ground for the condonation of such a significant delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as being time-barred, affirming the principle that administrative lethargy or bureaucratic delays within government departments do not provide a justifiable basis for extending the limitation period for filing appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Does the internal processing of a case by various government departments constitute a valid ground for the condonation of delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal that is filed 235 days late liable to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• The Hub Power Company Limited (Hubco), through Its Chief Executive Syed Khurshid Hussain and another vs Pakistan WAPDA through Its Chairman and others2000 C.L.R. 1514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  international commercial arbitrationpublic policyarbitrability of fraudPower Purchase Agreementseparability doctrinecontractual fraudstay of arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against High Court orders regarding the arbitrability of disputes arising from a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between HUBCO and WAPDA. The core legal question was whether allegations of fraud, corruption, and illegality in the procurement of amendments to the PPA rendered the dispute non-arbitrable as a matter of public policy, thereby precluding resolution through international arbitration. The Court, by a majority, held that where the validity of a contract is challenged on grounds of criminal fraud and corruption, such disputes involve matters of public policy that are not arbitrable and require judicial determination by domestic courts. The holding establishes that while arbitration clauses are generally separable from the main contract, this doctrine does not extend to cases where the very existence of a binding contract is contested due to allegations of criminal acts. Consequently, the Court restrained HUBCO from proceeding with arbitration, emphasizing that matters involving serious allegations of corruption and misuse of public power must be adjudicated by the courts rather than private tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether allegations of fraud and corruption in the execution of a contract render the dispute non-arbitrable?
  • Does the doctrine of separability allow an arbitration clause to survive when the main contract is challenged as void ab initio due to fraud?
  • Can a dispute involving allegations of criminal conspiracy and corruption be referred to international arbitration, or is it a matter of public policy reserved for domestic courts?
  Read full judgment →
• The Hub Power Company Limited (Hubco) through Chief Executive and anothers vs Pakistan WAPDA through Chairman and others2000 PLD Supreme Court 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-06-14
  arbitrabilitypublic policyfraud and corruptionpower purchase agreementinternational arbitrationseparability of arbitration clausecriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a dispute between the Hub Power Company Limited (HUBCO) and the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) regarding amendments to a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). WAPDA contended that certain amendments to the PPA were procured through fraud, corruption, and criminal conspiracy, rendering them void ab initio and contrary to public policy, thereby precluding resolution of the dispute through international arbitration. HUBCO invoked the broad arbitration clause of the PPA, relying on the doctrine of separability. The core legal question was whether allegations of fraud, illegality, and criminality in procuring contract amendments render the dispute non-arbitrable as a matter of public policy. By a majority of 3 to 2, the Supreme Court held that where prima facie evidence of fraud, corruption, and misuse of public power in procuring amendments exists, the dispute regarding the validity of such documents is not arbitrable and must be adjudicated by a court of law on grounds of public policy. The Court laid down that allegations touching upon criminality and public policy in the procurement of core contract modifications take the matter out of the scope of arbitration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether allegations of fraud, corruption, and illegality in procuring contract amendments preclude the resolution of a dispute through arbitration as a matter of public policy?
  • Does an arbitration clause survive when the validity of subsequent contract amendments is challenged on the grounds of being void ab initio?
  • Whether disputes involving criminal acts and misuse of power by public functionaries can be legitimately subjected to international commercial arbitration?
  Read full judgment →
• The Executive Engineer (E), WAPDA and 2 others vs Rahat Shah and 122000 PLC (C.S.) 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-14
  WAPDA service mattersprobationary periodtermination of serviceprocedural irregularitydue processreinstatementSection 17(1-A)
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the termination of probationary employees by WAPDA, who were removed from service citing alleged procedural irregularities in their initial appointments and the terms of their probation. The core legal question is whether the Authority can terminate probationary employees for its own procedural lapses or for 'unsatisfactory conduct' when performance was admittedly satisfactory, and whether such action complies with statutory requirements. The Supreme Court upheld the Service Tribunal's order of reinstatement, ruling that an employer cannot benefit from its own procedural irregularities to terminate an employee. Furthermore, the Court held that termination during probation is only permissible if work or conduct is found unsatisfactory, which was not the case here. Additionally, the Court clarified that while Section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 grants removal powers, it requires adherence to due process, including notice and an opportunity to show cause, which was not followed. The Court affirmed that the Authority's discretion is not absolute and cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer terminate a probationary employee on the grounds of procedural irregularities in the appointment process committed by the employer itself?
  • Is an employer entitled to terminate a probationary employee for unsatisfactory work when the employee's performance was admittedly satisfactory?
  • Does Section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 permit arbitrary removal of employees without following the prescribed procedure of notice and show cause?
  Read full judgment →
• The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Muhammad Halim through Legal Representatives and others2000 PLD Supreme Court 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-10-22
  suspensionsubsistence allowancereinstatementback benefitsrailway employeeindustrial relationspayment of wages
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the entitlement of a reinstated railway employee to back benefits for a period of suspension. The core legal question was whether a suspended employee, upon reinstatement, is entitled to full salary for the suspension period or to the salary minus the subsistence allowance already received. The Supreme Court held that a reinstated employee is entitled to all arrears of salary for the suspension period minus the amount of subsistence allowance previously paid under the applicable rules, as paying full salary without such deduction would amount to double payment of the same claim. The key principle laid down is that while a suspended employee remains entitled to full salary upon reinstatement, any subsistence allowance already disbursed during the suspension period must be deducted to prevent unjust enrichment and double recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Is a reinstated railway employee entitled to full salary for the suspension period without any deduction for subsistence allowance already received?
  • Does the order of suspension of a civil servant or railway employee constitute a penalty?
  • Whether payment of full salary along with a previously received subsistence allowance for the period of suspension amounts to a double payment?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab vs Mst. Raj Bibi and others2000 SCMR 961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-02
  Waqf propertyremand orderlocus standiframing of issuesAuqaf Departmenttenancy-at-willappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, sought leave to appeal against a High Court order remanding a case to the District Judge, Kasur, regarding the takeover of property alleged to be Waqf. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its appellate jurisdiction to remand the matter after the trial court failed to frame issues on the fundamental controversy: the location of the respondents' houses and the Waqf status of the disputed land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the remand order. The Court held that the trial court had failed to frame necessary issues, preventing a proper adjudication of the dispute. It affirmed that an appellate court possesses the jurisdiction to remand a case when the lower court has failed to address material controversies, thereby ensuring that parties have a fair opportunity to lead evidence on the actual points of contention. The decision emphasizes that judicial determination must be based on clearly defined issues to avoid arbitrary outcomes in property disputes involving the Auqaf Department.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the jurisdiction to remand a case when the trial court fails to frame issues on material controversies?
  • Can a court of appeal order a remand to allow for the production of evidence on issues that were not previously framed by the trial court?
  • Is a notification issued under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1961 subject to challenge by parties claiming possession of the property?
  Read full judgment →
• The Bakkarmandi Union (Regd.), Lahore vs Metropolitan2000 SCMR 1716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-06-05
  civil petition for leave to appealnecessary partyproper partyunauthorized occupantlocus standiland acquisitionpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the possession and recovery of compensation for land situated in Lahore. The suit land, owned by the predecessor of the respondents, had been temporarily occupied without following proper acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and without paying compensation. The trial court decreed the suit for possession and compensation, which was upheld by the High Court in part. The petitioner union, claiming to be in possession of the land for running a cattle market, sought leave to appeal on the ground that they were condemned unheard and deprived of their livelihood. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner union had no valid title, no lease deed, and lacked locus standi to be impleaded as a necessary or proper party, having the status of merely an unauthorized occupant. The Court laid down that mere possession without a lawful excuse does not confer any legal right to retain disputed land, and an unauthorized occupant cannot claim to be a necessary or proper party to litigation over title and possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unauthorized occupant of land have the locus standi to be impleaded as a necessary or proper party in a suit for possession?
  • Does mere possession of property without a lawful justifiable excuse confer any legal right to retain the land for an indefinite period?
  • Whether failure to follow the mechanism of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 invalidates the rightful owner's title to seek possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Tayyab Hussain Shah vs The State2000 SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-08
  murderextra-judicial confessionrecovery of weaponSection 103 Cr.P.C.ballistic expert reportabscondencebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the Lahore High Court judgment confirming the appellant's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder. The prosecution's case rested entirely on an alleged joint extra-judicial confession made before a retired police officer, the subsequent recovery of a 12-bore gun matching an empty cartridge found at the crime scene, and the appellant's alleged abscondence for over two years. The Supreme Court evaluated the evidence and found the extra-judicial confession untrustworthy, concocted, and lacking independent corroboration, notably because the key witness hosting the confession was withheld. The Court held the weapon recovery doubtful due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 103, Cr.P.C. without reasonable explanation, thereby rendering the matching ballistic expert report insignificant. Furthermore, mere alleged absconsion could not form the sole basis for conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on an uncorroborated retracted extra-judicial confession made to an untrustworthy witness?
  • What is the evidentiary effect of failing to associate private witnesses from the locality under Section 103, Cr.P.C. during the recovery of a crime weapon?
  • Does a positive ballistic expert report retain evidentiary value if the recovery of the firearm itself is rendered doubtful?
  • Can the mere abscondence of an accused person who was not named in the initial F.I.R. form the sole basis for conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Tawab Khan and 8 others vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company2000 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-18
  Service Tribunals Actlimitation periodstatutory corporation employeesleave to appealservice lawtime-bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to determine whether the Federal Service Tribunal correctly dismissed an appeal on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question is whether the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, impacts the calculation of limitation periods for appeals filed by employees of statutory corporations. The Court, in granting leave to appeal, seeks to resolve the inconsistency or legal uncertainty regarding the application of the limitation bar in light of previous judicial precedents, specifically referencing cases such as Muhammad Afzal v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and Syed Aftab Ahmad v. K.E.S.C. The Court directed that the appeals be fixed for hearing following the summer vacations to address whether the Tribunal's dismissal based on time-bar was legally sound following the statutory amendment. This decision establishes the necessity for a definitive ruling on the interplay between the statutory inclusion of employees under the Service Tribunals Act and the procedural requirements of limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973 affect the limitation period for filing appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Was the Federal Service Tribunal correct in dismissing an appeal as time-barred following the enactment of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Tawab Khan & 8 Other vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd.(K.L.R. 2000 S.C. 313) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-18
  Service Tribunals Actlimitation periodstatutory corporation employeesleave to appealservice jurisdictionSection 2-A
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal correctly applied the law of limitation following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which brought employees of certain statutory corporations within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the Tribunal's dismissal in light of established precedents, specifically referencing cases such as Muhammad Afzal v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and Syed Aftab Ahmad v. K.E.S.C. The Court directed that the appeal be fixed for hearing alongside other similar matters involving the same legal issue regarding the bar of limitation arising from the statutory amendment. The holding establishes that the legal implications of the insertion of Section 2-A regarding limitation periods require further judicial consideration by the Supreme Court to ensure consistent application of the law across similar service-related disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act 1973 create a bar of limitation for appeals filed by employees of statutory corporations?
  • Was the Federal Service Tribunal correct in dismissing an appeal as time-barred following the legislative changes introduced by Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 22000 SCMR 1044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-10
  service tribunaldismissal from serviceunauthorized absencetime-barred appealpolice disciplinary proceedingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by an ex-constable against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed his service appeal in limine. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's departmental dismissal for prolonged unauthorized absence and his appeal before the Tribunal, which was grossly time-barred by nearly two years, were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless as the petitioner failed to explain each day's delay in filing the service appeal and his service record reflected numerous bad entries. The Court established the principle that a service appeal filed significantly out of time without sufficient cause explaining the daily delay cannot be entertained, and departmental concurrent findings based on unsatisfactory service records and proven unauthorized absence do not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal filed beyond the prescribed period of thirty days without explaining each day's delay is liable to be dismissed?
  • Can concurrent departmental findings regarding dismissal from service for unauthorized absence be interfered with when the service record is unsatisfactory?
  • Does a service appeal raise a substantial question of law when the petitioner fails to justify prolonged absence from duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Shahid vs Shaukat Ali and anothers2000 SCMR 501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-01
  post-arrest bailstatutory baildiscretionary reliefmurder caseexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against an order of the High Court, which granted post-arrest bail to the respondent, Shaukat Ali, in a murder case registered under F.I.R. No. 164 of 1997. The High Court had exercised its discretion to grant bail on statutory grounds, specifically noting that the respondent did not fall into the category of a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The petitioner challenged this exercise of discretion, arguing it was wrongly granted. Upon review, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretionary order regarding the grant of bail. The Court upheld the decision, reasoning that the High Court had properly applied the relevant statutory criteria. To balance the interests of justice, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with a specific direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial proceedings within a period of three months.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting statutory bail?
  • Is the character of an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' a relevant factor in granting statutory bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Din and 8 others vs Karim Bakhsh and 11 others2000 SCMR 1463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-16
  mortgage redemptionde facto guardianminor property rightslimitation periodextinguishment of rightmortgagee rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment upholding the 1st Appellate Court's decision, which decreed the respondents' suit for declaration that the right to redeem the mortgaged property stood extinguished by efflux of time. The core legal questions involved the validity of a redemption deed executed by a de facto guardian on behalf of a minor and whether the right of redemption had expired. The Supreme Court held that a de facto guardian has no authority to deal with the immovable property or rights of a minor, rendering any such transaction void ab initio. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that upon the expiry of the 60-year limitation period without redemption, the mortgagor's rights stand extinguished. The key principles laid down are that de facto guardians cannot alienate or affect a minor's property rights, and the statutory period for redemption, once expired, extinguishes the right to redeem.

  Questions settled

  • Does a de facto guardian possess the legal authority to transact or affect the immovable property or rights of a minor?
  • What is the period of limitation for the redemption of a mortgage under the law?
  • Does the expiry of the limitation period for redemption without exercise extinguish the rights of the mortgagor?
  • Can a transaction or redemption deed executed by a de facto guardian be ratified by the minor subsequently?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahid Hussain and anothers vs United Bank Limited and others2000 SCMR 1216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-20
  service terminationretrospective operationcondonation of delayFederal Service TribunaljurisdictionLabour Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the termination of service of the appellants, whose petitions were initially filed before the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, on June 10, 1997, the Labour Court dismissed the appellants' petitions, directing them to approach the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to condonation of delay for the period spent pursuing remedies in the Labour Court and subsequently filing review petitions, given the prevailing judicial uncertainty regarding the retrospective application of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that since the law regarding the retrospective operation of Section 2-A was unsettled prior to the Court's decisions in Saeed Aftab Ahmad v. K.E.S.C. and Muhammad Afzal v. K.E.S.C., the appellants' delay was excusable. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases to the Federal Service Tribunal, directing it to consider the applications for condonation of delay and decide the matters on their merits in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply retrospectively to cases pending before a court on the date of its insertion?
  • Can delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal be condoned when the appellant was pursuing a remedy in a forum that subsequently lost jurisdiction due to a change in law?
  • Is the Federal Service Tribunal required to consider applications for condonation of delay when a case is remanded to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahid Hussain and another vs United Bank Limited and others2000 PLC (C.S.) 927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-20
  service tribunal jurisdictionretrospective operation of lawtermination of servicecondonation of delaylabour court jurisdictionservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the termination of services of the appellants on October 2, 1996, and the subsequent jurisdictional shift regarding their employment grievances. The appellants initially approached the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, on June 10, 1997, the Labour Court dismissed their petitions, directing them to the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to have their cases heard by the Federal Service Tribunal, despite delays caused by pursuing remedies in the Labour Court and subsequent review petitions. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, have retrospective operation, applying to all cases pending before any court on the date of its insertion. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases to the Federal Service Tribunal, directing it to consider the appellants' applications for condonation of delay and decide the matters in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply retrospectively to cases pending before other courts at the time of its enactment?
  • Is the Federal Service Tribunal required to consider applications for condonation of delay when a litigant has pursued a misconceived remedy in the Labour Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Ali Shah and others vs General Pervez Musharraf, Chief Executive of Pakistan and others2000 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-12
  military take-overdoctrine of necessityjudicial reviewouster of jurisdictionprovisional constitution orderoath of officestate necessityconstitutional deviation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the military take-over of October 12, 1999, the Proclamation of Emergency, the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999, and the Oath of Office (Judges) Order No. 1 of 2000. The core legal questions centered on the maintainability of the petitions despite ouster clauses, the validity of the military intervention, and the status of the judiciary under the new oath. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were maintainable under its inherent powers of judicial review, which cannot be ousted. Applying the doctrine of State necessity and the principle of salus populi suprema lex, the Court validated the extra-constitutional intervention as a temporary deviation to prevent chaos and restore stability, noting the absence of constitutional remedies like the repealed Article 58(2)(b). The Court ruled that the Constitution remains the supreme law in abeyance, the judiciary retains its independence and power of judicial review, and granted the Chief Executive a transitional period of three years to achieve declared objectives and hold general elections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court retains its inherent power of judicial review to examine extra-constitutional instruments despite express ouster clauses contained therein?
  • Can an extra-constitutional military intervention be validated under the doctrine of State necessity and the principle of salus populi suprema lex?
  • Does the taking of a fresh oath under a Provisional Constitution Order preclude judges of the superior courts from determining the validity of the military regime?
  • What is the legal status of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 during a transitional period of military rule where certain provisions are held in abeyance?
  • To what extent can the Chief Executive amend the Constitution under the doctrine of State necessity?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Wasim Ahmed vs K.E.S.C. and 3 others2000 SCMR 917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-21
  service lawService Tribunals ActSection 2-Amaintainability of appealcivil servant statustermination of servicejurisdiction of Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the maintainability of a service appeal filed by an employee of the Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation (KESC) following his termination. The appellant was terminated on March 26, 1997, and his departmental representation was rejected on May 26, 1997. He subsequently approached the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that at the time of termination, the appellant was not a civil servant and thus lacked standing. The Supreme Court addressed whether the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, on June 10, 1997, conferred jurisdiction to the Tribunal to hear the appellant's case. The Court held that the amendment deemed the appellant a civil servant for the purposes of the Act. Since the appellant filed his appeal within the statutory limitation period following the rejection of his departmental representation, and because the amendment effectively transferred jurisdiction over such service matters to the Tribunal, the Court ruled the appeal maintainable. The order of the Service Tribunal was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973 confer jurisdiction to the Service Tribunal over employees of corporations controlled by the Government?
  • Is an employee of a corporation deemed a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 following the insertion of Section 2-A?
  • Can an aggrieved employee file an appeal before the Service Tribunal within the statutory limitation period if the Tribunal's jurisdiction was conferred after the initial termination order but before the appeal was filed?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Wasim Ahmed vs K.E. S.C. and 3 others2000 PLC (C.S.) 898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-21
  Service Tribunal jurisdictionSection 2-A Service Tribunals Acttermination of servicecivil servant statusmaintainability of appealcorporation employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of an appeal before the Service Tribunal by an employee of the Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation (KESC) following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The appellant, whose services were terminated in March 1997, sought to challenge this termination before the Service Tribunal after his departmental representation was rejected. The Tribunal initially held the appeal non-maintainable, reasoning that the appellant was not a civil servant at the time of termination. The Supreme Court examined whether the subsequent insertion of Section 2-A, which deemed employees of certain corporations as civil servants, conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal because the amendment brought him within the ambit of the Act. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appeal filed within one month of the departmental rejection was maintainable, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the case for a decision on merits in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973 confer jurisdiction on the Service Tribunal to hear appeals from employees of corporations controlled by the Government?
  • Is an employee of a corporation deemed a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 entitled to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal against a termination order passed prior to the amendment?
  • What is the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal for an employee aggrieved by an order regarding terms and conditions of service following the enactment of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hassan Mehdi vs Secretary, Ministry of Health and others2000 SCMR 1374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-19
  disciplinary proceedingsshow-cause noticereasonable opportunityright to defenseremoval from serviceservice appealprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the removal of the petitioner from his position as a Stenographer at the National Institute of Child Health. The petitioner challenged his removal, arguing that the show-cause notice issued to him was vague and lacked specific allegations, thereby preventing him from preparing an effective defense. Despite his repeated requests for the necessary material to respond to the charges, the respondent authorities proceeded to impose the penalty of removal, interpreting his failure to provide a substantive reply as an admission of guilt. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed disciplinary action as required by the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and whether the denial of access to relevant material vitiates the disciplinary proceedings. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine these procedural fairness issues regarding the right to a meaningful defense in disciplinary matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a show-cause notice that lacks specific allegations satisfies the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity to show cause under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Is an employee entitled to receive relevant material from the employer to prepare a defense against a show-cause notice?
  • Does the failure to provide an employee with material necessary to respond to a show-cause notice render the subsequent disciplinary proceedings liable to be set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Fazalemahbood vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2000 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  statutory appointmentcontractual employmentleave preparatory to retirementservice rulescompetent authorityjudicial reviewbank administration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to the appointment of the Chairman of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (ADBP). The petitioner, appointed on a two-year contract by the Federal Government, faced a High Court judgment declaring his appointment illegal, primarily based on his status as an employee of Habib Bank Limited (HBL) on leave preparatory to retirement (LPR) and alleged violations of internal service rules. The core legal question was whether the appointment of a serving bank employee on LPR as Chairman of another institution, under the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance, 1961, was valid, and whether internal service rules prohibiting outside employment could invalidate a statutory appointment made by the Federal Government. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was valid, ruling that internal service rules of a previous employer cannot override a statutory appointment made by the competent authority under the 1961 Ordinance. The Court further held that the expiration of the petitioner's tenure at his previous employer did not necessitate a new appointment order for his existing contract as Chairman, and that alleged improper conduct in office does not retroactively invalidate the initial appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Can internal service rules of a previous employer invalidate a statutory appointment made by the Federal Government?
  • Does the retirement of an employee from their previous institution necessitate a fresh appointment order for a separate statutory contract position?
  • Does alleged misconduct in the discharge of official duties retroactively render an initial appointment illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Fazal-E-Mahmood vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad And Other(K.L.R. 2000 S.C. 84) · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  contract appointmentchairmandeputationservice rulessuperannuationleave preparatory to retirementstatutory power
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had declared his appointment as Chairman of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (ADBP) to be illegal. The core legal questions involved whether the appointment of the petitioner, made on contract basis under Section 10 of the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance, 1961 while he was on leave preparatory to retirement (LPR) from Habib Bank Limited (HBL), was void ab initio due to an alleged violation of HBL service rules, and whether his continuation in office after attaining superannuation at HBL required a fresh order from the competent authority. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appointment by the Federal Government under the statutory power of the 1961 Ordinance was valid, that internal bank service rules regarding leave and employment could not invalidate a statutory appointment, and that the contract for a fixed two-year period remained unaffected by his intervening retirement from his previous employer. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appointment made by the Federal Government under Section 10 of the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance, 1961 can be invalidated by internal service rules of a previous employer?
  • Does an employee on leave preparatory to retirement (LPR) lack the legal capacity to accept a statutory contract appointment?
  • Whether the retirement of a person from their parent bank upon attaining superannuation automatically terminates a fixed-term contract appointment as Chairman of another statutory bank?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Badaremunir vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 184 others2000 SCMR 1514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service appealseniorityacting charge promotionpromotees quotalimitationremandFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had rejected the appellant's claim for seniority and promotion as an Income Tax Officer. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation, contradictory claims regarding the effective date of promotion, and non-joinder of necessary parties. The appellant contended that his departmental representations were timely and that he was entitled to seniority from the date of his acting charge appointment, provided vacancies existed in the promotees' quota. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal's dismissal relied heavily on technicalities without adequately investigating the factual core of the dispute: whether vacancies in the promotees' quota were actually available on the relevant dates. The Court held that the matter required a merits-based determination rather than a dismissal on procedural grounds. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal with directions to allow the parties to submit further evidence regarding the availability of vacancies in the promotees' quota and to decide the case on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service appeal be dismissed on technical grounds without determining the availability of vacancies in a quota-based promotion system?
  • Is a person holding an acting charge appointment entitled to consideration for regular promotion and seniority from the date of such appointment if they were duly qualified?
  • Does the failure to investigate the availability of vacancies in a promotees' quota necessitate a remand of the case to the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Asif Majeed and 5 others vs A.D.C.(C)/Asc(L), Lahore and 15 others2000 SCMR 998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-23
  lachesconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionevacuee propertyquestions of factland allotmentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioners regarding disputed land allotments. The petitioners challenged an allotment made in 1970 on Khata RL-II 106, alleging fraudulent insertion of land parcels, after discovering the issue decades later. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly dismissed the petition on grounds of laches and whether disputed questions of fact regarding land allotments could be adjudicated under Constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that the petition was rightly dismissed due to significant, unexplained delay (laches) spanning over twenty-five years. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the controversy involved complex factual disputes requiring elaborate inquiry and evidence, which is beyond the scope of Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court also noted the petitioners' failure to provide credible documentation or evidence of their alleged attempts to seek administrative redress, and the fact that the land had since been alienated to third parties, further precluding interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be entertained when the petitioner has failed to explain a delay of over twenty-five years?
  • Is the High Court empowered to resolve complex questions of fact requiring the recording of evidence in its Constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the alienation of disputed property to third parties over a long period preclude judicial interference in a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Anwar Hussain Shah vs Syed Riaz Hussain Shah and anothers2000 SCMR 1519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-13
  mutation of exchangespecific performancedeclaratory decreelimitation periodjoint possessionrevisional jurisdictionproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld concurrent findings of lower courts in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding property ownership. The core legal question was whether a mutation based on an exchange agreement could be declared void when the defendant failed to fulfill the reciprocal obligation of transferring agreed-upon agricultural land, and whether the suit for declaration was maintainable and within the limitation period. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings that the mutation was ineffective and a nullity because the petitioner failed to perform his part of the exchange agreement. The court held that a mutation of exchange does not create title where the consideration, specifically the reciprocal transfer of land, is not provided. Furthermore, the judgment established that a suit for declaration is maintainable by a plaintiff in possession when their title is denied, with the limitation period commencing from the date of such denial rather than the date of the mutation's sanction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mutation of exchange create valid title if the reciprocal transfer of land is not performed?
  • When does the limitation period commence for a suit for declaration regarding property title where the plaintiff is in possession?
  • Is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction maintainable when a party's title is denied based on an unfulfilled exchange agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Anjum Zafar and 8 others vs Syed Abbas Ali Shah and 6 others2000 SCMR 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-08-12
  impleadmentnecessary partyinherent jurisdictioncivil revisionwaqf propertiessubstantive rightinterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute under the N.-W.F.P. Waqf Properties Ordinance 1979, where the District Court allowed the impleadment of private respondents in a petition filed under Section 11 of the Ordinance. The petitioners challenged this impleadment via a civil revision before the High Court, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to proceedings under Section 11 of the Ordinance when no specific procedure is prescribed, and whether the High Court had revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a prescribed special procedure, the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which are based on natural justice, apply unless expressly excluded. Furthermore, the Court ruled that every court or tribunal possesses inherent jurisdiction to implead necessary or proper parties to ensure effective adjudication. Lastly, the Court clarified that revision is a substantive right and cannot be exercised under the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction unless expressly conferred by law.

  Questions settled

  • Do the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to proceedings under a special law when no specific procedure is prescribed therein?
  • Does a court or tribunal possess inherent jurisdiction to implead necessary or proper parties in the absence of express statutory provisions?
  • Can a right of civil revision be exercised under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court if it is not expressly conferred by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of Pakistani Allah Bakhsh and anothers vs The State2000 SCMR 1482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-17
  death sentenceprinciple of consistencysentencingcriminal appealmurderequal culpability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Allah Bakhsh, for murder. The core legal question was whether the death sentence of the appellant could be maintained when co-accused with similar roles had been acquitted or received reduced sentences, specifically regarding the application of the principle of consistency in sentencing. The Supreme Court held that where the guilt of several accused persons is proved to be equal and indistinguishable, it is illogical to impose the death penalty on one while sparing others. The Court found that the medical evidence did not support distinguishing the appellant's role from that of his co-accused, who had received lesser sentences or acquittal. Consequently, the Court reduced the appellant's death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that in the administration of criminal justice, the principle of consistency in sentencing must be applied; where the culpability of multiple accused is equal, the law must reach them in an equal manner to avoid arbitrary sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be maintained for one accused when other co-accused with similar roles have been acquitted or received reduced sentences?
  • Does the principle of consistency in sentencing require equal punishment for accused persons with indistinguishable guilt?
  • Is it permissible to distinguish between co-accused in sentencing when the medical evidence does not clearly attribute a more severe role to one over the others?
  Read full judgment →
• Superintendent oF Police Headquarter, Rawalpindi and others vs Ijaz2000 SCMR 1868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-20
  reinstatement in servicedisciplinary inquirypreliminary inquiryright to defendservice lawfactual controversyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent in service. The respondent had been removed from service based on allegations of misconduct. The Tribunal found that no formal charges were communicated, the inquiry conducted was merely preliminary, and the respondent was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore, the factual allegations regarding illicit relations were unproven and lacked corroboration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that in cases involving factual controversies, holding a regular inquiry is mandatory. The Court noted that the department's failure to conduct a regular inquiry was undisputed and that no question of general public importance was raised. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the department required to conduct a regular inquiry instead of a preliminary inquiry when there is a factual controversy?
  • Does the failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report to an accused employee violate the right to defend oneself?
  • Can an employee be removed from service based on unproved allegations without a formal charge being communicated?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan and anothers vs The State2000 SCMR 1818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-01
  capital punishmentbenefit of doubtforensic evidenceSection 382-B Cr.P.C.corroborationabscondencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment maintaining the appellants' convictions for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions were whether the unexplained delay in transmitting forensic evidence (spent cartridges) to the laboratory vitiated the prosecution's case, whether the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence necessitated the appellants' acquittal, and whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that while the delay in delivering the forensic parcel was deplorable, the prosecution's case remained intact as the parcel was received in a sealed, untampered condition. The Court distinguished the appellants' case from the acquitted co-accused due to corroborative evidence—specifically, the matching of recovered firearms with crime empties and, for one appellant, his abscondence. The Court established that capital punishment is generally inappropriate for younger offenders who may have acted under the influence of elders, and that the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is mandatory and should be granted absent exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the delivery of a parcel containing crime empties to a forensic laboratory automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can the conviction of some accused be sustained when other co-accused charged on the same evidence are acquitted?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for convicts?
  • Should capital punishment be awarded to a younger offender who may have acted under the influence of elders?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies-v, Income-Tax2000 PTD 3741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-08-08
  deductible business expensesgas development surchargeinterest on late paymentpenalty vs interestcommercial expediencyincome tax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which disallowed deductions claimed by the petitioner, a public limited gas company, for the assessment year 1997-98. The petitioner had claimed deductions under Section 23(1)(xviii) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 for interest paid under Section 3(3) of the Natural Gas (Development Surcharge) Ordinance 1967 due to late payment of gas development surcharge, and for interest/financial charges paid to gas supply companies under bilateral agreements for late payment of gas price bills. The tax authorities had disallowed these as penalties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether such payments constituted deductible business expenses or non-deductible penalties. The Court held that the payments were made out of commercial expediency to facilitate the petitioner's business and avoid suspension of supply. Because the payments were compensatory interest rather than fines for criminal infractions of law, they did not constitute penalties. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interest paid on the late payment of gas development surcharge under Section 3(3) of the Natural Gas (Development Surcharge) Ordinance 1967 is a tax-deductible business expense under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Whether interest paid on the late payment of gas price bills under bilateral commercial agreements constitutes a deductible business expense under Section 23(1)(xviii) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • What is the legal distinction between a non-deductible penalty and a deductible compensatory interest payment for income tax purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. and anothers vs Khawaja Muhammad2000 SCMR 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-22
  abatement of proceedingsexecution of decreeservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionpast and closed transactioncivil servant status
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the abatement of execution proceedings following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The respondent, a retired employee of the petitioner company, obtained a civil court decree for money prior to the enactment of Section 2-A. The executing court and the revisional court subsequently held that the execution proceedings had abated under the new provision. The High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, set aside these orders. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the term 'proceedings' in Article 212(2) of the Constitution refers to a pending lis and does not encompass execution proceedings arising from a decree that had already attained finality before the statutory amendment. The Court clarified that execution of a decree constitutes a past and closed transaction rather than a pending proceeding subject to abatement. Consequently, the lower courts acted without jurisdiction in declaring the execution proceedings abated, and the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional discretion to correct this judicial error.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, cause the abatement of execution proceedings for a decree obtained prior to the amendment?
  • Does the term 'proceedings' in Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include execution proceedings of a decree that has attained finality?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to correct judicial errors of lower courts when no other statutory remedy is available and the impugned order is void?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Tariq Aziz, M.N.A. and 6 others2000 SCMR 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-14
  contempt of courtmob attackstorming of supreme courtcriminal contemptstandard of proofacquittalindependence of judiciary
  Summary & questions settled

  This case pertains to contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan following a serious incident of rowdyism and mob storming on 28 November 1997, within and around the premises and building of the Supreme Court, which disrupted judicial proceedings and constituted gross contempt. After a detailed inquiry and subsequent trial where evidence from 53 witnesses and various video cassettes and photographs were examined, charges were ultimately framed against seven respondents. The core legal question was whether the evidence on record established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents had committed contempt of court by aiding, abetting, or participating in the mob attack. The Supreme Court held that while the mob's actions undeniably amounted to flagrant contempt, the oral and documentary evidence produced during the trial failed to specifically and conclusively prove the guilt of the individual respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court acquitted all the respondents. The key legal principle laid down is that contempt proceedings are criminal in nature and conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or where the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether storming the Supreme Court premises and disrupting judicial proceedings constitutes gross contempt of court under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a conviction in contempt proceedings, being criminal in nature, be sustained on the basis of suspicion or without proof beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Whether the failure of eyewitnesses to identify specific culprits during trial entitles the accused to an acquittal despite general evidence of a mob attack?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Director, F .I.A. SBP Circle, Karachi vs Dr. Muhammad Usman2000 SCMR 1219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-01-04
  condonation of delaylimitationbailadministrative negligencestate litigationaccountability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, which was submitted with a delay of 290 days. The core legal question addressed was whether the State's petition, characterized by significant and largely unexplained delay, could be entertained. The Court held that the explanation provided for the delay was wholly insufficient, as a period of approximately ten months remained completely unexplained, and the remaining period was attributed to routine office delays which did not constitute valid grounds for condonation. The Court dismissed the petition on the basis of this delay. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that in cases involving significant delays by the State, it is appropriate not only to dismiss the petition but also to direct the government to conduct internal inquiries to identify the causes of such administrative omissions and to implement measures to prevent their recurrence, thereby ensuring accountability within state departments regarding litigation timelines.

  Questions settled

  • Is a delay of 290 days in filing a petition for leave to appeal by the State, without sufficient explanation, a valid ground for dismissal?
  • Can the Supreme Court direct the government to hold internal inquiries into administrative delays in filing legal petitions?
  • Does routine office procedure constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing a petition?
  Read full judgment →
• State of Pakistan vs Dr. Muhammad Usman Farooqui2000 SCMR 1642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-15
  condonation of delaytime-barred petitionsufficient causedepartmental delaylimitationbail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State of Pakistan against an order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent. The petition was filed with a significant delay of 393 days. The petitioner sought condonation of this delay, citing departmental procedures, including the time taken to obtain a copy of the impugned order and the subsequent administrative processing required to obtain approval from the Law and Justice Division and the Ministry of Interior for filing the appeal. The core legal question was whether these administrative and departmental delays constituted sufficient grounds for condonation of delay under the relevant limitation laws. The Supreme Court held that the grounds provided by the petitioner were insufficient to justify the substantial delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as time-barred, affirming the principle that departmental negligence or procedural delays within government offices do not automatically constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning delays in filing legal proceedings before the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does departmental delay in obtaining approval for filing an appeal constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed solely on the grounds of being time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Soomar and others vs Muhammad Shah and others2000 SCMR 1259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-01-07
  agricultural landland grantcancellation of grantreview powerconstitutional petitionopen katcheryboard of revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court which allowed a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions involved whether the Commissioner had the power to review his earlier order refusing re-grant of state agricultural land and whether administrative restoration orders complied with statutory conditions and delegation rules under the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 and Sindh Land Revenue Act 1967. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider several critical questions of law regarding locus standi, statutory modification powers, and administrative review. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision after considering the specified legal questions. The key principle laid down is that a constitutional petition must address all substantial questions of law concerning administrative competence, statutory conditions, and aggrieved party status before setting aside revenue board orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appellants were aggrieved parties and could competently file a Revision Petition before the Board of Revenue?
  • Whether the Statement of Conditions issued on 20-11-1972 by the Sindh Government under section 10(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 could be modified by the Land Utilization Department through Notification dated 10-6-1975?
  • After having passed an order refusing the request of the respondents for re-grant of the cancelled land and ordering disposal of such lands in open Katchery, whether the Commissioner could pass an order on the administrative side re-granting the lands to the respondents without notice to the appellants?
  Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin Shaikh vs Shakeel Ahmed2000 SCMR 1922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-07
  evictionpersonal requirementres judicatasuppression of material factslandlord and tenantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent orders of eviction of a residential premises on the ground of personal requirement. The core legal questions involve whether the principle of res judicata bars a subsequent ejectment application filed by a co-owner when an earlier application by another co-owner was dismissed for non-examination of the ultimate beneficiary, and whether the non-disclosure of other properties owned by the landlord constitutes suppression of material facts disentitling relief. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the earlier application due to a procedural defect and failure to examine the beneficiary does not satisfy the ingredients of res judicata, and that the omission to mention other non-utilized properties was neither deliberate nor mala fide, distinguishing it from cases where prior possession was parted with. The Court affirmed the eviction order, establishing that personal requirement in good faith was duly established, while granting the tenant a one-year grace period to vacate subject to regular rent payments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of an earlier rent case for non-examination of the beneficiary operate as res judicata against a subsequent eviction application?
  • Does the omission to disclose other properties owned by a landlord in an ejectment application constitute suppression of material facts disentitling relief?
  • Can a co-owner maintain an eviction petition for personal requirement of another family member when an earlier petition by a different co-owner was dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddique Akbar vs Mian Abdul Majeed2000 PLC (C.S.) 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-15
  disciplinary proceedingsnatural justiceinquiry reportmisconductservice lawdismissal from serviceright of defense
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the Federal Service Tribunal's decision upholding the dismissal of State Life Insurance Corporation employees for alleged misconduct. The core legal questions were whether the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally valid and if the findings were supported by sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal orders, holding that the inquiry was fundamentally flawed. The Court established that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, which mandate that an accused employee be provided with a copy of the inquiry report to effectively defend themselves, regardless of whether the relevant regulations explicitly require it. Furthermore, the Court ruled that findings of misconduct cannot be sustained based on hearsay or the testimony of witnesses lacking direct knowledge of the facts. The authority is required to record evidence in the presence of the accused, ensuring they have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense. Consequently, the Court ordered the proceedings to be conducted afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide an accused employee with a copy of the inquiry report violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can a disciplinary dismissal be sustained when the inquiry committee relies solely on hearsay evidence without examining direct witnesses?
  • Is an employee entitled to cross-examine witnesses during disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Province of Punjab, etc.2000 C.L.R. 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-23
  ejectmentdefault in rentrelationship of landlord and tenantrecording of evidencecivil procedure code applicabilityconcurrent findingssecond appealestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two consolidated second appeals arising from concurrent decisions of the lower forums directing the ejectment of the appellants from rented shops on the grounds of default in rent payment, personal need of the landlord, and damage to the property. The core legal questions relate to whether the Rent Controller violated mandatory procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the recording of evidence and whether a tenant can deny the relationship of landlord and tenant after taking possession from the landlord's predecessor. The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply in rent proceedings unless incorporated as principles, that technicalities should not impede the administration of justice, and that a tenant who inducted from a landlord or their predecessor is estopped from denying their title and the relationship of landlord and tenant. The key principle laid down is that Rent Controllers are not bound by the meticulous adherence to procedural codes like the CPC, and concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence will not be disturbed in second appeal absent a material procedural defect affecting the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the recording of evidence apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  • Is a tenant who obtained possession of rented premises from a landlord or their predecessor-in-interest estopped from denying the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower forums in rent matters?
  • Whether technicalities relating to procedural irregularities can be allowed to defeat the ends of justice in rent proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Province of Punjab and others2000 SCMR 1251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-23
  evacuee propertyland allotmentcompensation poolSettlement and Rehabilitation Lawslimitation periodnecessary partycancellation of allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal regarding the status and allotment of land previously classified as evacuee property. The core legal questions presented for the Court's consideration involve the determination of whether the disputed land was effectively transferred under Settlement and Rehabilitation Laws to the Forest Department, thereby removing it from the compensation pool and rendering it unavailable for allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Furthermore, the Court is tasked with determining whether a civil suit challenging the cancellation of a land allotment by the Settlement Authority is barred by limitation, particularly in circumstances where the petitioner, who had acquired the land prior to the initiation of cancellation proceedings, was not impleaded as a party to those proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve these issues, focusing on the interplay between the statutory authority of the Settlement Department and the rights of subsequent purchasers of evacuee land, as well as the procedural implications of failing to join necessary parties in administrative cancellation proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land transferred to the Forest Department under Settlement and Rehabilitation Laws is excluded from the compensation pool for allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Can a suit challenging the cancellation of a land allotment be held barred by time if the petitioner was not made a party to the cancellation proceedings despite having purchased the land prior to the initiation of those proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhamamd and anothers vs Mahmood Bakhsh and 17 others2000 SCMR 672 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  inheritanceShia law of inheritanceSunni law of inheritancecollateralsconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts non-suiting the petitioners in their claim for inheritance of the estate of one Allah Diwaya deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, claiming as collaterals, were entitled to inherit the disputed property, and whether the deceased professed the Shia or Sunni school of thought. The Supreme Court held that under both Shia law (as the deceased was concurrently found to be a follower of Fiqah Jafria) and Sunni law, the estate devolved upon the daughters and sister of the deceased, leaving no share for the collaterals. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower forums as legally unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether collaterals are entitled to inherit the estate of a deceased person under Shia law when the deceased is survived by children and a sister?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the religious persuasion and school of thought of a deceased person be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • Whether the High Court's dismissal of a civil revision upholding concurrent findings of lower courts on inheritance warrants interference?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs The State2000 SCMR 1839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-17
  compounding of offencecompromiseDiyatmurder convictionCriminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1990Islamic provisions of criminal justiceretrospective application
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, convicted for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought to compound the offence following a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased while his appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. The central legal question was whether an offence committed prior to the commencement of the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1990, could be compounded under the Islamic provisions of criminal justice. The Court held that, pursuant to Section 338-H of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the provisions regarding compounding offences are applicable to cases pending before courts at the time of the Ordinance's commencement or to offences committed beforehand. Adopting a liberal interpretation in the interest of justice and public harmony, the Court accepted the compromise, subject to the protection of the Diyat share of minor heirs, and set aside the conviction and sentence. The key principle established is that the compounding of offences under the Islamic provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 extends to cases involving offences committed before the 1990 amendments.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offence committed before the commencement of the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1990, be compounded?
  • Does Section 338-H of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 permit the compounding of offences in cases pending before the Court at the time of the Ordinance's commencement?
  • What is the procedure for protecting the Diyat share of minor legal heirs when a compromise is accepted in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat and anothers vs Mst. Shahnaz Rafiq2000 SCMR 1918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evictiondefault in rentstriking off defencelandlord and tenant relationshiprent deposit orderSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Sindh High Court's dismissal of First Rent Appeals regarding eviction orders. The respondent sought eviction of the petitioners from two shops due to default in rent payment and personal requirement. The petitioners resisted, claiming a third party, Mst. Murad Begum, was the owner and that they were depositing rent in her name, denying the landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent. The Rent Controller had ordered the petitioners to deposit arrears and future rent, which they failed to do, leading to their defence being struck off. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could lawfully deny the landlord-tenant relationship and avoid rent deposit orders based on a pending civil suit by a third party regarding ownership. The Supreme Court held that the mere pendency of a civil suit by a third party does not absolve tenants from their obligation to pay rent to the landlord. The Court affirmed that the defence was rightly struck off due to the petitioners' contumacious non-compliance with valid rent deposit orders, and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit by a third party regarding ownership of a property entitle a tenant to deny the landlord-tenant relationship?
  • Can a tenant refuse to comply with a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent based on a dispute over ownership?
  • Is the striking off of a defence justified when a tenant contumaciously fails to comply with a tentative rent deposit order?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat and 2 others vs Ali Hussain2000 SCMR 1273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-22
  evictiondefault in payment of rentunauthorized sublettingconcurrent findings of factsecond appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the High Court of Sindh, which ordered the eviction of the petitioners from a commercial property on the grounds of default in rent payment and unauthorized subletting. The core legal question concerns whether concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent and subletting can be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or non-consideration of evidence. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact by the courts below cannot be scrutinized or disturbed in second appeal without showing any material misreading or non-consideration of evidence, and that belatedly tendered money orders do not absolve a tenant from default. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent matters unless a clear misreading or non-consideration of evidence on record is established.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the lower courts in a rent matter?
  • Does the tendering of money orders after the statutory period constitute a valid defense against an allegation of default in rent?
  • Whether concurrent findings on default and subletting are open to scrutiny in the absence of misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Abbas vs The State2000 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-05
  leave to appealmurderdeath sentence confirmationsingle injuryinterested witnessesbenefit of doubtco-accused acquittalweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which confirmed the death sentence of the petitioner, Shaukat Abbas, for murder. The case originated from an incident on 12-1-1994 resulting in the death of Khadim Hussain and injuries to others, stemming from a dispute over a house gifted to an Imam Bargah. The trial court convicted the petitioner under section 302 and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced him to death, while acquitting the co-accused. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence. The core legal questions raised involve the reliability of interested witnesses, the legality of relying on discarded evidence for conviction after co-accused are acquitted, the validity of the motive, and whether a single injury without repetition in a non-premeditated attack warrants the mitigation of a death sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these points for the fair administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can prosecution evidence discarded for co-accused be pressed into service to record a conviction against the petitioner?
  • Whether the testimony of interested and closely related witnesses requires corroboration?
  • Does a single injury without repetition in a sudden occurrence warrant mitigation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • How does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence impact the case against the remaining accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamraiz Khan vs The State2000 SCMR 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-09-16
  post-arrest bailinterim bailcorruptiongovernment contractorco-accusedrule of consistencypublic trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Balochistan High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's bail application in a case registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 420, and 109 of the PPC, read with Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, involving the short delivery of government wheat worth approximately fifteen crore rupees. The petitioner, a government contractor, allegedly conspired with eighteen Food Department officials. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the petitioner's interim bail should be confirmed given that seventeen co-accused officials had already been granted bail and a major portion of the embezzled amount was recovered or secured. The Court confirmed the interim bail subject to the deposit of the petitioner's bank securities worth over forty-nine million rupees with the High Court. Crucially, the Court laid down that government assets and funds are held by departments and officials as trustees for the people of Pakistan, strongly disapproving of the administrative exoneration of co-accused officials and the continued awarding of contracts to the accused petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interim bail can be confirmed in a financial embezzlement case subject to the secure deposit of the remaining disputed amount?
  • Does the grant of bail to seventeen co-accused government officials entitle the principal accused contractor to bail under the rule of consistency?
  • What is the legal status of government officials and departments in relation to public funds and state-owned assets?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas Textile Mills Ltd. and others vs Province of Punjab, through Secretary Ministry of Labour, Provincial Secretariat, Lahore and others2000 C.L.R. 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  social security contributionspecial allowancewagesconcurrent legislative listrepugnancyfederal and provincial lawsbeneficial legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses appeals challenging a common judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the legality of demands made by the Provincial Employees Social Security Institution for social security contributions calculated on wages including a special allowance. The core legal question revolves around whether the special allowance payable under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988 is to be treated as part of a workman's wage for computing social security contributions under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, notwithstanding the exemption granted by Section 8 of the 1988 Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the definition of wages in the 1965 Ordinance is comprehensive enough to include the special allowance, and that where inconsistencies arise between provincial and federal/adapted legislation in the concurrent legislative field, the federal law prevails pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The key principle laid down is that beneficial labor legislations must be construed to fulfill their objective, and provincial enactments cannot override conflicting federal or adapted laws occupying the concurrent field.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the special allowance paid under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988 forms part of wages for computing social security contributions under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Does a provincial enactment yield to a federal law in case of inconsistency under Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • What is the effect of Presidential Order No. 4 of 1975 on existing provincial laws concerning labor under the constitutional framework?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Akhtar and others vs M.S. Mental Hospital and others2000 P LC (C.S.) 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-29
  para-medical staffillegal strikedismissal from serviceessential servicesdisciplinary actionabandonment of dutyservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns 47 petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals against their removal from service. The petitioners, para-medical staff at various government hospitals, had engaged in a strike, abandoning their duties despite repeated public notices and warnings from the competent authority to resume work. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of the petitioners for participating in an illegal strike, which resulted in patient suffering and casualties, was justified. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was unexceptionable. The Court reasoned that the petitioners' conduct was irresponsible and violated the Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958, which prohibits such employees from absenting themselves from work and imposes criminal liability for breaches. The Court emphasized that the petitioners had no legal justification for the strike, and their failure to heed repeated warnings rendered the disciplinary action taken by the hospital authorities lawful. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1958 prohibit hospital staff from going on strike?
  • Can government employees be dismissed for failing to resume duties after repeated public warnings during a strike?
  • Does the participation in an illegal strike by essential service workers justify disciplinary dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Akhtar And Other vs M.S. Mental Hospital And Other(K.L.R. 2000 S.C. 310) · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  para-medical staffstrikedismissal from serviceessential servicesdisciplinary actionservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns 47 petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of various para-medical staff from government hospitals. The petitioners had engaged in a strike, abandoning their duties despite repeated public notices and warnings from hospital authorities to resume work. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of these employees, who participated in a strike causing patient suffering and death, was legally justified. The Supreme Court held that the dismissals were unexceptionable. The Court reasoned that the petitioners' conduct was irresponsible and directly violated the Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958, which prohibits such employees from absenting themselves from work and imposes criminal liability for breaches. The Court emphasized that the discretionary power to grant leave to appeal would not be exercised in favor of employees whose strike action caused severe hardship and loss of life to patients, noting that the existence of the Act provided no legal justification for their conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1958 prohibit hospital staff from going on strike?
  • Can employees dismissed for participating in an illegal strike in essential services be reinstated by a court?
  • Is the dismissal of hospital staff who abandoned their duties despite repeated public warnings legally justifiable?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahsawar and 2 others vs The State2000 SCMR 1331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-04-19
  hijackingSection 402-B PPCquantum of sentencedeath sentenceleave to appealjudicial discretionanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was filed against a High Court judgment upholding the conviction and death sentences of the petitioners under Sections 402-B, 365-A, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, for hijacking a commercial passenger aircraft. The legal issue concerned whether the offence of hijacking was complete when the aircraft was forcibly diverted and whether the death sentences warranted reduction. The Supreme Court held that the offence of hijacking under Section 402-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 stands completed as soon as an aircraft is forcibly diverted to a different destination. The petitioners had seized control of the cockpit and compelled the pilot to alter course, making the offence a completed act rather than a mere attempt. The Court further ruled that judicial discretion in sentencing under Section 402-B PPC is not plenary and superior courts will only interfere with sentence quantum in cases of grave miscarriage of justice. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • When is the offence of hijacking under Section 402-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered complete?
  • Under what circumstances will superior courts interfere with the quantum of sentence awarded by trial and appellate courts in criminal matters?
  • Is the judicial discretion conferred on courts regarding the choice between death penalty and life imprisonment under Section 402-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 absolute or subject to factual circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Nadeem and others vs Muhammad Shafi2000 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-13
  ejectmentbona fide requirementlandlord and tenantalternative premisessecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court granting an order of ejectment in favor of the petitioner landlord. The core legal question was whether a landlord's failure to disclose and explain the availability of alternative premises that fell vacant during the pendency of litigation adversely impacts the establishment of his bona fide personal requirement. The Supreme Court held that where alternative shops in the same building fell vacant during the appeal and the landlord not only concealed this fact by denying it but also resisted the tenant's attempts to bring this on record and failed to prove the unsuitability of those premises, his bona fides were rightly found wanting by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that while a landlord generally has the prerogative to choose which premises to occupy, concealing the vacation of alternative premises in the same building during proceedings and failing to establish bona fides when provided an opportunity is fatal to an ejectment application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a landlord to disclose that alternative premises fell vacant during the pendency of ejectment proceedings affect his bona fides?
  • Can a landlord deny the vacation of alternative premises in the same building and subsequently refuse to lead evidence to explain their unsuitability for his needs?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in reversing an ejectment order when the landlord fails to establish his bona fide personal requirement under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Kamal vs State and others2000 PLC (C.S.) 916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-29
  disciplinary proceedingsunauthorized absenceservice tribunalcompulsory retirementleave to appealmisconductEfficiency and Discipline Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the disciplinary action taken against a Junior Clerk but modified the penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement. The petitioner had been proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules for unauthorized absence from duty. The inquiry officer found that the petitioner’s medical leave was a pretext, as he was arrested in Karachi during the period he claimed to be ill, leading to charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner contended that his presence in Karachi was for personal reasons, but he failed to substantiate his claims with evidence, such as a death certificate. The Service Tribunal concluded that the charge of unauthorized absence was established. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the findings of the Tribunal were based on the facts and evidence presented. The Court held that no substantial question of law requiring interpretation arose to warrant its interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a Service Tribunal's factual findings regarding disciplinary misconduct when no question of law is involved?
  • Can a civil servant claim medical leave while simultaneously being arrested for criminal charges in a different jurisdiction?
  • Does the closure of a criminal case due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution amount to an acquittal or exoneration for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs Muhammad Akram2000 SCMR 1135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-21
  petition for leave to appealex parte decreeclosure of evidencelimitationcondonation of delaycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and upheld the lower appellate court's decision dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the trial court's order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree. The core legal questions involve the propriety of closing evidence under Order XVII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the party's failure to produce evidence despite multiple opportunities, and the requirement of explaining inordinate delay in filing an appeal. The Supreme Court held that the impugned orders were unexceptionable, noting that the petitioner failed to provide any explanation for the inordinate delay of over two years in filing the appeal and that the closure of evidence was in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal must provide a satisfactory and plausible explanation for the entire period of delay, and closure of evidence for non-production after repeated opportunities is justified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order closing evidence under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is justified when a party fails to produce evidence despite various opportunities?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal as barred by time when no satisfactory explanation is provided for an inordinate delay in filing?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahabuddin vs Chairman, WAPDA and others2000 SCMR 1549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-23
  service tribunallimitation periodtime-barred appealmove-overdepartmental representationcondonation of delaycivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding the grant of move-over to BPS-19 as time-barred. The appellant had joined WAPDA in 1964, was promoted over the years, and was eventually granted move-over to BPS-19. Dissatisfied with the effective date, he made a departmental representation, which was rejected on 19-7-1993. Instead of filing an appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed thirty days, he filed a second representation, which was dismissed on 16-9-1993, followed by a departmental appeal to the Chairman, WAPDA, before approaching the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether an appeal before the Tribunal was barred by time when computed from the rejection of the first representation, and whether a second representation extends the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that a second representation or departmental appeal is not envisaged by law, and limitation runs from the dismissal of the first representation. Furthermore, unlike the cited precedent, the appellant neither filed a review petition nor sought condonation of delay before the Tribunal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as time-barred and for lacking a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal is to be reckoned from the date of dismissal of the first representation or a subsequent second representation?
  • Does a second representation or departmental appeal extend the limitation period for approaching the Service Tribunal under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can the delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal be condoned when no application or prayer for condonation was made before the Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahab-Ud-Din vs Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and others2000 C.L.R. 1479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-23
  move-overlimitationtime-barred appealservice tribunalsecond representationcondonation of delaydepartmental appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding the effective date of his move-over to BPS-19 as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal runs from the rejection of the first departmental representation or a subsequent second representation, and whether delay could be condoned. The Supreme Court held that a second representation or departmental appeal is not envisaged by law, and therefore limitation is to be reckoned from the date of dismissal of the first representation. Furthermore, since the appellant neither filed an application for condonation of delay nor made a verbal prayer for the same before the Tribunal, and the case did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal is to be reckoned from the dismissal of the first representation or a second representation?
  • Does the law envisage a second departmental representation or appeal for the purpose of extending limitation?
  • Can delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal be condoned when no application or prayer for condonation of delay has been made?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Wali and others s vs Ferozuddin and others2000 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-30
  Karachi Port Trustconstitutional petitionappointment powersFederal Government authorityBoard of Trusteesquo warrantocivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These four civil appeals by leave of the Supreme Court arise from a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh concerning appointments made within the Karachi Port Trust. The core legal questions involved the authority of the Federal Government versus the Board of Trustees of the Karachi Port Trust in making appointments to high-ranking posts under the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, and whether High Court writ jurisdiction could resolve factual controversies or appointments to non-public offices. The Supreme Court held that while the Federal Government exercises overall control and approval powers under sections 23, 24, and 79-A of the Act, the initial power of selection and appointment vests in the Board of Trustees, and the Government cannot bypass the Board to make direct appointments. However, considering subsequent developments including the retirement of the contested appointee, the appeals were disposed of accordingly. The key principle laid down is that statutory powers of appointment vested in a corporate board cannot be usurped by the Federal Government through direct appointment without adhering to the statutory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government is empowered to directly appoint officers of the Karachi Port Trust bypassing the Board of Trustees?
  • Can a factual controversy regarding conflicting resolutions be resolved in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the office of Deputy Manager Stores (Purchase) in the Karachi Port Trust constitute a public office for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto?
  • What is the extent of the Federal Government's power to cancel, suspend, or modify acts of the Board of Trustees under section 79-A of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan and others vs Syed Amjad Ali, Hawaldar and others2000 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-28
  maintenancefamily courtconstitutional jurisdictionappellate jurisdictionscope of judicial reviewsubstitution of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged a High Court judgment that reduced the maintenance amount awarded to the appellants by a Family Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, acted within its authority by substituting its own assessment of maintenance for that of the Family Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. It established that while the High Court possesses constitutional jurisdiction to strike down orders of subordinate courts as without lawful authority, it does not function as an appellate court and cannot substitute its own judgment for the findings of fact made by a competent Family Court, provided there is no misreading or overlooking of evidence. The Court found that the Family Court had already appropriately balanced the respondent's income and obligations. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the original maintenance award determined by the Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the authority to substitute its own judgment for that of a Family Court when exercising constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction analogous to its appellate jurisdiction regarding the assessment of evidence?
  • Can a High Court interfere with a maintenance order passed by a Family Court if there is no misreading or overlooking of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan And Other vs Syed Amjad Ali, Hawaldar And Other(K.L.R. 2000 S.C. 306) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-28
  maintenanceFamily Court jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionsubstitution of judgmentminor childrenscope of writ jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a High Court decision in constitutional jurisdiction which reduced the maintenance amount awarded to minor children by the Family Court from Rs. 300 to Rs. 200 per month per child. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court's judgment was delivered in consonance with law. The Supreme Court observed that assessing evidence and determining the appropriate amount of maintenance falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. Furthermore, when exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, the High Court's powers are not analogous to an appellate tribunal; while it may strike down an illegal or unauthorized order, it cannot substitute its own findings of fact or judgment for that of a subordinate court. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the Family Court, which had properly balanced the father's income and obligations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the original maintenance decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction substitute its own judgment for that of a Family Court regarding the quantum of maintenance?
  • Whether the High Court acts as an appellate court when exercising constitutional jurisdiction over subordinate family law decisions?
  • Does the Family Court possess exclusive jurisdiction to assess evidence and determine maintenance for minor children?
  Read full judgment →
• SH. Muhammad Afzaal and others vs Member, Board of Revenue/Chief2000 C.L.R. 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-16
  evacuee propertyalternate allotmentsettlement lawspending proceedingsleave to appealconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition seeking the allotment of alternate evacuee land. The core legal question revolves around whether successors-in-interest and vendees of an original allottee are entitled to claim alternate land from the Settlement Authorities long after the repeal of the settlement laws, particularly when their application does not qualify as pending proceedings under the repealing statute. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider contentions regarding the entitlement of vendees to alternate land, the effect of withdrawing a prior writ petition based on a departmental report, the bona fides of the claim, and the interpretation of pending proceedings under Section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The holding examines the scope of pending proceedings and the authority of the Board of Revenue post-repeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether successors-in-interest of an allottee are entitled to allotment of alternate land after the repeal of the settlement laws?
  • Does an application for alternate land filed long after the repeal qualify as pending proceedings under Section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  • Are civil court decrees canceling sale deeds binding on the Settlement Authorities when they were not a party to the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of Punjab, Homedepartment, Lahore and anothers vs Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Superintendentdistrict Jail, Lahore2000 SCMR 1546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-15
  service tribunalcivil servantpromotionpay and scaleout of turn promotionleave to appealSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which allowed the respondent's appeal and declared him entitled to the pay, allowances, privileges, and status of the post of Superintendent Jail from the date he commenced working as such. The core legal question concerned whether a civil servant promoted to a higher post against an existing vacancy could be denied the full pay and allowances of that post through the insertion of the condition 'in his own pay and scale' in the promotion order, despite regular approval by the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that the condition restricting pay and scale was foreign to the lis and that the respondent, having been approved for regular promotion and performing duties against an existing vacancy, was rightly held entitled to the full emoluments of the post by the Tribunal. The Court established the principle that a regular promotion to a higher post against a vacancy carries the legal entitlement to the pay and status of that post without unauthorized restrictive conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant promoted to a higher post on a regular basis is entitled to the full pay and allowances of that post despite a restrictive condition in the promotion order?
  • Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to grant the pay and allowances of a higher post based on a concession made by the District Attorney?
  • Whether the insertion of the phrase 'in his own pay and scale' affects the statutory entitlement of a civil servant working against an existing vacancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Education, Ministry of Education and 2 others vs Viqarulhaq2000 SCMR 1780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  termination of servicecivil servantlienparent departmentFederal Service Tribunalreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the termination of service of the respondent, who had been appointed as Principal/Project Director in the Ministry of Education and whose services were subsequently terminated under the terms of his appointment letter. The respondent challenged his termination before the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed the appeal, declared the termination void and in violation of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, ordered his reinstatement, and remanded the case to the department to resolve issues regarding his lien with his parent department in consultation with the Establishment Division. The Supreme Court considered whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the case and whether the termination in terms of the appointment letter was valid. The Court held that the termination of a civil servant without reverting him to his parent department violated the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and that a permanent civil servant's lien cannot be terminated even with consent if it leaves him without a lien on a permanent post. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the termination of a civil servant's service under the terms of an appointment letter without reverting him to his parent department violates the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can a government servant's lien on a permanent post be terminated, even with his consent, if it leaves him without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post?
  • Is the Federal Service Tribunal justified in remanding a case to the department for resolving issues regarding a civil servant's lien in consultation with the Establishment Division?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Hassan through Legal Heirs vs Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and others2000 SCMR 1440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land reformsMLR 115oral giftmutationsupreme court petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the legal heirs of Sayyed Hassan challenging the dismissal of their writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the orders of the Land Commission authorities refusing to exempt certain land from resumption under MLR 115. The core legal question concerned the validity of an alleged oral gift of agricultural land made by the petitioners' predecessor in favour of his sons prior to the crucial date, purportedly evidenced by a written agreement. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities and the High Court regarding the non-genuineness of the stamp paper, the absence of the transaction in the declarant's formal declaration form, and the lack of valid delivery of possession rendered the alleged gift incomplete and invalid under the law. The Court affirmed that concurrent factual determinations regarding invalid land transactions cannot be interfered with, and accordingly dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an oral gift of land can be validated when the supporting agreement is found to be non-genuine and unmentioned in the declarant's official declaration form?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities and the High Court regarding the invalidity of a land transfer be interfered with under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Whether a valid gift of land can be completed without the actual delivery of possession to the donees on the crucial date?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Sappi and 2 others vs The State2000 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-06-09
  interested witnessfalsus in uno falsus in omnibussifting chaff from grainbenefit of doubtminority of accusedQisas and Diyatnon-production of witnessconflict between medical and ocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, brought by leave granting order before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arose from a conviction under Section 302/34 PPC stemming from a fatal shooting. The appellants contended that the ocular account from interested P.Ws was unreliable, uncorroborated, contradicted by medical evidence, and that no adverse inference was drawn from the non-production of an independent witness. The Supreme Court evaluated the evidence, holding that the ocular testimony was natural, consistent, and untarnished in cross-examination, and minor variations regarding distance between ocular and medical evidence do not override credible eye-witness testimony. The Court held that the maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' does not apply, permitting sifting of chaff from grain with independent corroboration. Finding appellant Muhammad Ashraf's role indistinguishable from an acquitted co-accused, he was acquitted on benefit of doubt. Regarding appellant Sarfaraz, as he was a non-adult (under 18 years) at the time of the offense, he was not liable to Qisas under Section 302 PPC; his conviction was altered to Section 308 PPC with 14 years' R.I. and Diyat. In contrast, under the proviso to Section 306 PPC, co-accused Abdul Rashid remained liable to Qisas despite associating with a non-adult.

  Questions settled

  • Does the variation between medical evidence and ocular testimony over distance override credible eye-witness testimony?
  • Can the testimony of an interested witness be accepted without independent corroboration if found trustworthy by the court?
  • Does the non-production of one eye-witness by the prosecution automatically draw an adverse inference against its case?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on the same ocular evidence require the acquittal of all accused persons under the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus?
  • Is a male accused who was under the age of eighteen years at the time of the occurrence liable to Qisas for Qatl-i-Amd under Section 302 PPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Nabeel Wali vs The Additional District Judge/Appellate2000 PLD Supreme Court 829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-03-29
  eviction applicationbona fide personal needburden of prooflandlord and tenantrent restrictionwitness credibilitypower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the rejection of eviction applications filed by a landlord against tenants under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the landlord established a bona fide personal need to occupy the rented land for a nursery, given his failure to appear personally in the witness box and his ownership of adjacent agricultural land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the landlord failed to discharge the burden of proving bona fide need. The Court established that while no absolute rule mandates a landlord's personal appearance, non-appearance without valid justification can adversely affect the claim, particularly when the landlord is best positioned to explain why other available property is not being utilized. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the initial burden of proving bona fide need rests solely on the landlord, and this requirement is not mitigated by the existence of statutory safeguards for tenants under Section 13(4) of the Ordinance. Mere desire is insufficient; the need must be proven as a fact through cogent, trustworthy evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a landlord to appear personally in the witness box to support an eviction application automatically invalidate the claim of bona fide personal need?
  • Does the existence of statutory safeguards for tenants under Section 13(4) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance relieve the landlord of the initial burden to prove bona fide need?
  • Is a landlord's mere desire to occupy rented premises sufficient to establish a bona fide need for eviction?
  • Can a landlord's failure to explain why they are not using other available property for their stated purpose adversely impact the proof of bona fide need?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleemuddin and anothers vs Municipal Committee, Tando Allahyar2000 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-05
  status quo orderviolation of injunctioncontempt of courtcivil prisonconstitutional petitionmaintainability of appealCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment holding the appellants liable for violating a status quo order and ordering their detention in civil prison for six months until they demolished unauthorized constructions and compensated tenants. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Article 185 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court considered whether the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to constitutional proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court held that proceedings under Article 199 concerning civil matters are civil proceedings exercising original civil jurisdiction, making provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable, except those expressly excluded. Consequently, the High Court had the power to issue temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and punish violations under Order XXXIX Rule 2, making the appeal maintainable under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r). On merits, finding the violation established, the Supreme Court conditionally held the prison sentence in abeyance to allow the appellants to demolish the unauthorized construction at their own expense.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to constitutional proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution relating to civil matters?
  • Does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court against an order passed by the High Court imposing punishment for the violation of a temporary injunction in a constitutional petition?
  • Can a sentence of detention in civil prison for violating a court's status quo order be held in abeyance upon an undertaking by the contemnor to demolish the unauthorized construction?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ahmad Khan vs The Chief Secretary and another2000 C.L.R. 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-30
  service lawmisconducttender processfair competitioncompulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingspublic procurement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which upheld the dismissal of the appellant, an Executive Engineer, from service. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s act of issuing a vague and misleading notice regarding the postponement of tender submissions, which effectively restricted competition among contractors and potentially caused financial loss to the state, warranted the major penalty of dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s actions were deliberate attempts to mislead contractors and avoid fair competition, thereby causing wrongful gain to specific contractors and financial loss to the state. The Court affirmed the findings of the Departmental Authorities and the Service Tribunal, concluding that the evidence supported the charges of misconduct. However, while upholding the finding of guilt, the Court exercised its discretion to modify the penalty, converting the dismissal from service into compulsory retirement, considering the circumstances of the case. The judgment reinforces the principle that public servants must ensure transparency and fair competition in procurement processes, and that deliberate obstruction of such processes constitutes serious misconduct.

  Questions settled

  • Does the restriction of competition in a public tender process by a government official constitute misconduct warranting disciplinary action?
  • Can a Service Tribunal's findings of fact be interfered with by the Supreme Court if they are based on evidence and not on surmises or conjectures?
  • Is it necessary to prove a specific monetary loss to the state exchequer to establish misconduct in the context of manipulating a tender process?
  • Does the appellate court have the authority to modify a penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid vs The State and anothers2000 SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-14
  Qatl-i-Khatanegligent actTazirDiyataccidental deathcriminal liabilityloaded firearm
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Peshawar High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction for Qatl-i-Khata under section 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the accidental shooting death of the deceased. The petitioner argued that the facts did not constitute Qatl-i-Khata as defined under section 318 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court addressed whether the petitioner's actions, specifically handling a loaded pistol while embracing the deceased, satisfied the legal requirements for Qatl-i-Khata. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's conduct constituted a negligent act, which falls within the ambit of Qatl-i-Khata. The Court emphasized that carrying a loaded firearm without justification and embracing another person while doing so is inherently dangerous. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence, noting that the petitioner had been treated leniently. The judgment establishes that Qatl-i-Khata can be committed not only through a mistake of act or fact but also through a rash or negligent act, justifying additional punishment as Tazir under the proviso to section 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Does carrying a loaded firearm and embracing another person, resulting in an accidental discharge, constitute Qatl-i-Khata?
  • Can Qatl-i-Khata be committed through a rash or negligent act in addition to a mistake of act or fact?
  • Is an offender liable for Tazir imprisonment in addition to Diyat for Qatl-i-Khata committed through a negligent act?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajeed Khan and 8 others vs Fazal Sattar Khan and 53 others2000 SCMR 1470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-19
  joint propertypartitionshamilatperpetual injunctionrevenue authoritiescivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute regarding a hillock situated in the Malakand Agency, claimed by the respondents-plaintiffs to the extent of 17 out of 160 shares. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge decreed it in favor of the plaintiffs. Upon revision, the Peshawar High Court held that since the property was joint, a perpetual injunction could not be granted, and directed the parties to seek partition before the revenue authorities under Chapter XI of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The petitioners challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that the suit was not competent in its current form and that the nature of the land had changed. The Supreme Court held that the property was indeed joint and unpartitioned, and that the Revenue Authorities possessed the necessary jurisdiction to partition the land under the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Finding that substantial justice had been done, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that joint property must be partitioned through the applicable revenue laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of joint property is maintainable without seeking partition?
  • Can revenue authorities partition joint land in the Malakand Agency under Chapter XI of the Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Whether a decree for perpetual injunction can be granted in respect of unpartitioned joint property?
  Read full judgment →