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.

• Supreme Court of Pakistan] Abdul Wahid and another_s vs Commissioner, Afghan Refugees, N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others1999 SCMR 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-26
  temporary occupationcompulsory acquisition chargesland acquisitioncompensationexecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court addressed the question of whether compulsory acquisition charges can be allowed in respect of property acquired for temporary occupation and use for a public purpose. The relevant land was temporarily occupied for an Afghan Refugees Camp under section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. In execution proceedings, landowners claimed compulsory acquisition charges and interest. The High Court disallowed the claim, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that compulsory acquisition charges under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are applicable exclusively to permanent acquisitions of land and cannot be extended to temporary occupations governed by section 35. The Court established that statutory compulsory acquisition charges are not permissible for temporary land occupation where no permanent acquisition has taken place, though landowners retain remedies for damages under section 36 or may resume possession upon the expiration of the temporary occupation period. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether compulsory acquisition charges can be allowed in respect of property acquired for temporary occupation and use for any public purpose?
  • Are compulsory acquisition charges under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 applicable in cases of temporary occupation of land?
  • What is the remedy available to landowners for damages done to land temporarily occupied under section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Jehangir and another vs The State1999 SCMR 2422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-25
  criminal petitionmurdercommon intentionmotiveinjured witnessappraisal of evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal and jail petitions filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the petitioners' convictions and sentences under sections 302 and 324 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved whether a failure to prove the alleged motive or a weak motive casts doubt on the entire prosecution case, and whether the testimony of an injured, independent eye-witness and a related eye-witness was rightly relied upon by the courts below. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the failure or falsity of an alleged motive does not automatically render the prosecution case doubtful, but merely requires the court to exercise heightened scrutiny over the witnesses' credentials. The Court found the ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and affirmed the convictions, establishing that an unrelated injured witness is worthy of complete reliance and that delay in lodging the FIR is inconsequential when the culprits are well-known.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure or falsity of an alleged motive render the prosecution case inherently doubtful?
  • What is the legal effect of an unproved or far-fetched motive on the testimony of eye-witnesses?
  • Whether delay in lodging the first information report is consequential when the accused are already known to the complainant?
  • Does the relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased automatically render them an interested witness requiring corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Irshad vs The State1999 SCMR 1453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-11
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencesodomymurderrecovery of dead bodychemical examiner reportthrottlingcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the appellant's conviction under Sections 302, 364-A, and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence involving an eight-year-old child who went missing and was later found murdered. The prosecution relied upon 'last seen' testimony from the victim's uncle, the recovery of the victim's dead body from a buried ditch pursuant to the appellant's disclosure in police custody, medical evidence confirming death by throttling following sodomy, and chemical examiner reports establishing semen stains on the victim's swabs and the appellant's clothing. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the chain of circumstantial evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Applying established precedent, the Supreme Court held that the inculpatory circumstances were fully proven and incompatible with the innocence of the accused or any other reasonable hypothesis. Finding no merit or flaw in the lower courts' appraisal of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Can the testimony of a close relative providing 'last seen' evidence be relied upon without independent corroborative witnesses?
  • Whether recovery of a victim's dead body from a hidden location upon the pointation of an accused constitutes sufficient circumstantial evidence of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Hameed and another vs Nafeesa1999 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-12
  ejectmentpersonal requirementlandlord and tenantleave to appealrent restrictionbona fide need
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which affirmed the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller granting ejectment of the petitioners from two shops on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent-landlady and her son. The core legal questions involved whether a landlord's bona fide personal requirement can be negated by the timing of the ejectment application following the purchase of the property, and whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need can be interfered with. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment applications were filed after a sufficient interval, that the time of filing alone does not negate bona fide need if proved, and that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the personal requirement of the landlady and her son suffered from no infirmity. The petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, subject to a one-year grace period for handing over vacant possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the timing of filing an ejectment application after the purchase of property negates a landlord's bona fide personal requirement?
  • Can concurrent findings of lower courts regarding personal requirement be interfered with by the Supreme Court without showing legal infirmity?
  • Whether age alone is a ground to infer that a landlady is incapable of running a business such as a boutique?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Fazal vs Kaura through Legal1999 SCMR 1870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-20
  pre-emptionco-sharerregistered sale-deedtransfer of propertytenancymutationsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court which reversed concurrent decisions of the Trial and first Appellate Courts and dismissed the appellant's suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor could claim a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer when the underlying share was acquired through a mutation of sale rather than a registered sale-deed in an area where Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 applies, and whether the vendee had proved his tenancy. The Supreme Court held that in areas where Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is enforced, a superior pre-emptive right as a co-sharer cannot be acquired unless the sale creating the co-sharership has been made by a registered sale-deed. The Court laid down the principle that an unregistered sale-deed does not confer valid title or co-sharership to sustain a suit for pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 where Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is applicable.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unregistered sale of land confer valid title or co-sharership to maintain a suit for pre-emption in areas where Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is applicable?
  • Can a pre-emptor claim a superior right of pre-emption on the basis of co-sharership acquired through a mutation of sale without a registered instrument?
  • Is a High Court justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact regarding tenancy without pointing out any misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Aslam Khan vs The State1999 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-30
  Criminal AppealMurderOcular EvidenceMedical EvidenceInterested WitnessesCorroborationBenefit of DoubtAcquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the intense enmity between the parties, the reliance on interested witnesses, and the apparent contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses despite the occurrence taking place in a busy area. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the firing distance, evidenced by the recovery of wads from the body, contradicted the ocular account provided by the witnesses. The Court held that in cases of deep-seated enmity, testimony from interested witnesses requires unimpeachable independent corroboration to sustain a conviction. Finding the prosecution’s case tainted by doubt and lacking such corroboration, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that where medical evidence falsifies the ocular account, the prosecution's case cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the testimony of interested witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal consequence when medical evidence regarding firing distance contradicts the ocular account of the occurrence?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce independent evidence when an occurrence takes place in a public, busy area?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Ashraf and others vs Federation1999 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-19
  service lawpay scalediscriminationbinding precedentcivil servantgood governanceequal protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a consolidated order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which denied relief to railway guards seeking the same pay scale benefits granted to their colleagues. The petitioners argued that they were identically placed with other employees who had already received specific increments, and that the denial of these benefits constituted discriminatory treatment. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to extend the benefit of a previous Supreme Court judgment, which had recognized the entitlement of similarly situated employees to these increments, to the current petitioners. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the Tribunal's refusal to follow the binding precedent of the Supreme Court was legally flawed. The Court emphasized that decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are binding on all courts in Pakistan under Article 189 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that where a judicial decision establishes a point of law regarding civil service terms, the dictates of justice and good governance require extending such benefits to all similarly situated employees to avoid discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decision of the Supreme Court binding on the Federal Service Tribunal even if the Tribunal perceives it to be based on legal technicalities?
  • Does the denial of service benefits to one group of employees, while granting them to identically placed colleagues, violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Should the benefit of a judgment regarding the terms of service of civil servants be extended to other similarly situated civil servants who were not parties to the original litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of Pakistani Mst. Akhtar Begum and others vs Nawabzada1999 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-15
  adverse possessionlicenseemesne profitsres judicatapermissive possessionlimitationevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a long-standing property dispute concerning the possession of and mesne profits for a residential property. The petitioners, previously adjudicated as licensees of the respondents in earlier rent litigation, sought to resist a subsequent suit for possession and mesne profits by claiming adverse possession and arguing that the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court addressed whether a party, having been judicially determined to be a licensee, could subsequently assert a plea of adverse possession, and whether such a plea was inconsistent with prior final findings. The Court held that the petitioners' claim of adverse possession was fundamentally inconsistent with the final, un-challenged judicial finding that their possession was permissive (as licensees). Consequently, the plea of adverse possession was rejected. The Court further affirmed that once the petitioners asserted their own title and refused to vacate, their possession became wrongful, rendering them liable for mesne profits. The petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that a claim of adverse possession cannot be maintained where the origin of possession is established as permissive or lawful.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party claim adverse possession if their possession has previously been judicially determined to be permissive or that of a licensee?
  • Is a claim of adverse possession consistent with a prior claim of ownership through gift?
  • Are occupants liable for mesne profits once they assert their own title and refuse to vacate property they previously held as licensees?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of Pakistani Khuda Bakhsh and others vs Mijreed and others1999 SCMR 996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-16
  adverse possessionbenami transactionextinguishment of rightinconsistent pleaslimitationpermanent injunctioncivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged concurrent judgments declaring the respondents owners of land through adverse possession, despite their initial claim of a benami transaction. The core legal question was whether a party can simultaneously plead ownership through a benami transaction and adverse possession, and whether the appellants' right to possession remained enforceable. The Supreme Court held that pleas of lawful title and adverse possession are contradictory and mutually exclusive; a party claiming ownership cannot simultaneously assert hostile possession. Consequently, the respondents' claim for a declaration of ownership based on adverse possession was rejected. However, the Court observed that the appellants' right to recover possession had been extinguished under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as the statutory period under Article 142 had expired following the dismissal of their 1969 suit. The Court affirmed the principle that one cannot claim adverse possession while asserting lawful title, yet upheld the permanent injunction against the appellants because their own right to possession had lapsed by operation of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party simultaneously plead ownership through a benami transaction and adverse possession?
  • Does the assertion of a lawful title preclude a party from claiming adverse possession over the same property?
  • Does the expiration of the limitation period under Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908 extinguish the right to possession of land?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of Pakistani Khuda Bakhsh and others vs Deputy1999 SCMR 1589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-06
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationpotential valueCapital Development Authorityretrospective operation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1968 under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960. The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for their lands in Rawalpindi, arguing that the acquiring authorities and the High Court failed to consider the potential building value of the land, relying on precedents under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal question was whether the authorities were bound to determine compensation based on the land's potential value or the specific statutory definition of 'market value' provided under section 2(k) of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 as it stood at the time of acquisition. The Supreme Court held that since the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding potential value and sections 23 and 24 were only made applicable prospectively via subsequent amendments in 1996, the authorities were legally bound by the explicit statutory formula prevailing in 1968. The Court laid down that compensation for land acquired under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 prior to the 1996 amendment must be strictly determined in accordance with the definition of market value operative at the relevant time, without retrospective application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the potential value of land can be considered for assessment of compensation under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 for acquisitions made prior to the 1996 amendment?
  • Do the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 apply retrospectively to land acquisitions made under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 in 1968?
  • Can the adequacy of compensation provided for by a law protected under Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan be called in question in any court?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of Pakistani Ali Gohar Mazari vs Water and Power1999 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-07
  service lawpromotiondepartmental examinationWAPDAleave to appealservice rulesquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for promotion to BPS-17. The petitioner, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), sought promotion with retrospective effect, arguing that the Pakistan WAPDA (Power Wing) Stores Management Service Rules, 1983, were not applicable to his specific section (Generation Section) at the material time. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion despite not having passed the mandatory departmental examination, based on the alleged inapplicability of the 1983 Rules to his department prior to 1996. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's argument regarding the non-applicability of the Rules was a question of fact that had not been properly raised before the Tribunal or in the petition. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had already secured promotion after passing the required examination. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that it would not entertain factual disputes not raised in the lower forum or the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a claim regarding the applicability of service rules that was not raised before the Service Tribunal can be entertained for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Can an employee claim promotion to BPS-17 without passing the mandatory departmental examination based on the alleged inapplicability of service rules to their specific department?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman and 3 others vs Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad and others1999 SCMR 2009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-09
  land acquisitioncompensationexecution of decreenon-appealing landownersright of appealrestoration of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellants' execution application. The land owned by the appellants was acquired by the Government, and the Land Acquisition Judge assessed compensation. The High Court modified the award on appeals filed by the Federal Government, but the Supreme Court subsequently set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the Federal Government had no right to appeal. The appellants, who had not individually appealed to the Supreme Court, sought to execute the original judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge, but lower courts rejected their applications. The core legal question is whether non-appealing landowners are entitled to the benefit of a judgment setting aside an adverse appellate decree where the appellate forum lacked competence. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court's appellate judgments were void due to lack of competence of the appellants before it, the original judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Judge stood restored for all affected landowners. The Court laid down that it would be unjust to deprive similarly placed landowners of the benefit of a superior court's judgment merely because they were not formal parties to that specific appeal, and good governance demands extending such benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-appealing landowners can derive benefit from a judgment of the Supreme Court that sets aside an appellate decree affecting similarly situated parties?
  • Does an appeal filed by an entity lacking the right of appeal render the resulting appellate judgment void?
  • What is the effect on the original decree of the Land Acquisition Judge when the High Court's modifying appellate judgment is set aside by the Supreme Court?
  • Can a litigant be deprived of the benefit of a restored decree merely because they did not join earlier appellate proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Subedar (Retd.) Fazale Rahim vs Rab Nawaz1999 SCMR 700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-18
  malicious prosecutiondamages for malicious prosecutionreasonable and probable causedischarge under section 169 Cr.P.C.false informationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals by leave of the Supreme Court arise from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 13-4-1994, which dismissed the petitioner's suit and revision for damages for malicious prosecution. The petitioner had previously been discharged under section 169, Cr.P.C., in a criminal case registered upon a report by the respondent, after which the respondent was convicted under section 182, P.P.C. The civil trial court and district judge decreed damages in favor of the petitioner, but the High Court set aside the decree on the ground that evidence regarding the lack of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and actual damages was wanting. The core legal question was whether the High Court's judgment proceeded on correct legal principles governing the grant of compensation in malicious prosecution suits. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the mere failure of a prosecution or a discharge under section 169, Cr.P.C., does not suffice to establish malicious prosecution without proving malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause. The key principle laid down is that the plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution bears the heavy onus of proving all essential ingredients, including malice and lack of reasonable and probable cause.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential elements that a plaintiff must establish to succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution?
  • Does the mere discharge of an accused under section 169, Cr.P.C. establish that the prosecution was malicious and without reasonable and probable cause?
  • Whether a confession made by a respondent during a protracted trial due to delaying tactics can be treated as a valid confession simpliciter for civil liability?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Amin1999 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-27
  narcotics smugglingrecovery witnessesSection 103 Cr.P.C.official witnessescriminal appealcustoms actheroin recoveryacquittal reversal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the State challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the High Court in a narcotics smuggling case. The respondent was originally convicted by a Special Court for attempting to smuggle 3.325 kilograms of heroin from Quaid-e-Azam International Airport. The High Court had acquitted the respondent, primarily questioning the validity of the recovery proceedings due to the absence of independent public witnesses, citing Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Supreme Court examined whether strict compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C. is mandatory for searches conducted at public places like airports. The Court held that Section 103 Cr.P.C. does not apply to searches of baggage or persons at public places like airports, highways, or railway stations. Furthermore, the Court ruled that official witnesses are not disqualified from testifying to recoveries, especially in the absence of evidence suggesting a motive for false implication. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal, restored the original conviction and sentence, and issued perpetual non-bailable warrants for the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to the search of baggage or a person at an airport?
  • Are official witnesses disqualified from testifying to the recovery of contraband in the absence of independent public witnesses?
  • Is strict compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C. mandatory for all search and seizure operations?
  Read full judgment →
• State Petroleum Refinfry Petro Chemical Corporation Ltd. and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-11
  Service TribunalService appealCondonation of delayJoint statementImpugned judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan following a dispute between the parties. During the proceedings, counsel for both sides submitted a joint statement agreeing to refer the matter to the Service Tribunal for adjudication within a period of five months. The parties also requested that an application for condonation of delay be considered sympathetically by the Tribunal. In light of this mutual agreement, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment. The Court directed that the Service appeal be decided by the Service Tribunal in accordance with the law, explicitly stating that the Tribunal should reach its decision without being influenced by any findings or observations contained in the previously set-aside judgment. The Court further granted the parties the liberty to raise all available legal pleas during the fresh proceedings before the Tribunal. The appeal was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court set aside an impugned judgment based on a joint statement filed by the parties?
  • Is a Service Tribunal required to decide an appeal afresh without being influenced by the findings of a set-aside judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• State Petroleum Refinery Petro Chemical Corporation Ltd. and others1999 SCMR 2146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-11
  service matterdismissal from servicejurisdiction of service tribunalcondonation of delaySection 2-A Service Tribunals Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a dispute regarding the dismissal of an employee, which had previously been adjudicated. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the parties reached a consensus to resolve the controversy through the appropriate forum. Specifically, in light of the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which expanded the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to include employees of corporations, the parties agreed that the respondent should approach the Service Tribunal directly to challenge the dismissal order. The Supreme Court, accepting this joint statement, set aside the impugned judgment. The Court directed that the respondent may file an appeal before the Service Tribunal, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, which the Tribunal was instructed to consider sympathetically. The Court further ordered that the Service Tribunal decide the appeal in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by any prior findings or observations contained in the set-aside judgment. The parties were granted liberty to raise all available legal pleas, and the petition was disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973 allow for an appeal against dismissal for employees of corporations?
  • Can a court set aside an impugned judgment based on a joint statement of the parties to refer the matter to a Service Tribunal?
  • Should an application for condonation of delay be considered sympathetically when a matter is referred to a Service Tribunal following a change in statutory jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Imtiaz Hussain and others1999 SCMR 2848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-14
  service lawlocus poenitentiaeaudi alteram partempromotionad hoc appointmentwithdrawal of ordershow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the State Bank of Pakistan's order withdrawing the placement of respondents into a higher grade. The respondents, Senior Assistants, were placed in Officer Grade-III with associated financial benefits, a status the Bank later attempted to revoke after three years, claiming the placement was merely ad hoc. The core legal question was whether the Bank could unilaterally withdraw this placement without notice, and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae applied. The Supreme Court held that the Bank's action was unsustainable. It affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the respondents had been granted a promotion, not an ad hoc appointment, and that the Bank could not withdraw this status without providing a show-cause notice. The Court emphasized that the authority had abused its power by failing to adhere to the principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the case involved no substantial question of law of public importance requiring interference under Article 212 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer unilaterally withdraw a promotion order after three years without issuing a show-cause notice?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to the withdrawal of a promotion that has already taken effect?
  • Is the withdrawal of a promotion order without providing an opportunity for a hearing a violation of the principle of audi alteram partem?
  • Does the placement of an employee in a higher pay scale with associated benefits constitute a promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Soofi Muhammad Anwar. vs Mst. Badshah Begum and 6 others1999 SCMR 1475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-01
  quashing of criminal proceedingsinherent jurisdictionstay of criminal proceedingscivil and criminal proceedings concurrentlyinterim injunctiontentative findingmala fide prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby criminal proceedings instituted by the appellant against the respondents under sections 452, 506, 448, 511, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code were quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of a tentative finding regarding possession rendered in civil proceedings for an interim injunction, while the civil suit itself remained pending. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted prematurely and in haste by quashing the prosecution based on a tentative finding before the civil suit was finally decided. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that in such cases, rather than quashing the criminal proceedings, the appropriate course is to stay the proceedings in the criminal court until the final decision of the civil court. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the criminal proceedings were ordered to remain intact but stayed pending the civil court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a tentative finding of possession in a civil suit?
  • Is it proper to quash a criminal prosecution while a related civil suit regarding the same property is still pending final adjudication?
  • What is the appropriate legal course when both civil and criminal proceedings are pending between the same parties over the same subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Sister Marry John vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary1999 SCMR 2335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-25
  Martial Law Regulation 118vesting of propertyschool nationalizationownership disputewrit jurisdictioncharitable organizationproperty title
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition regarding the ownership of a school building taken over by the Government of the Punjab under Martial Law Regulation 118. The appellant, representing a charitable organization, sought to assert title over the building, which the government claimed ownership of following the takeover. The core legal question was whether the vesting of a school in the government under Martial Law Regulation 118 transferred the title of the underlying property to the government. The Supreme Court, relying on precedent, held that the term 'vest' in the Regulation does not imply a transfer of ownership title, but rather refers to the management of the school. Consequently, the government did not acquire ownership of the building simply by taking over the school. The Court ruled that the government and its agents had no right to dispute the organization's title or harass the appellant based on the Regulation. The judgment establishes that Martial Law Regulation 118 was intended only for the transfer of school management, not the underlying property title.

  Questions settled

  • Does the vesting of a privately managed school in the government under Martial Law Regulation 118 include the transfer of title to the underlying property?
  • Is the term 'vest' in Martial Law Regulation 118 synonymous with a transfer of ownership title?
  • Can the government claim ownership of a school building solely based on the takeover of the school's management under Martial Law Regulation 118?
  Read full judgment →
• Siraj Ahmad vs Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab, Lahore and another1999 SCMR 1552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-10
  Supreme Court appealuniversity examinationsexamination chancesphysiotherapy examinationdiscriminatory treatmentretroactive regulationsleave refused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's review application regarding the number of examination chances permissible in B.Sc. Physiotherapy examinations. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to additional chances beyond those already availed under the relevant university regulations and whether he was subjected to discriminatory treatment vis-a-vis other candidates. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had availed all permissible chances under the applicable regulations and failed to establish any discriminatory treatment, noting further that newly framed regulations could not be applied retroactively to candidates who joined prior to their approval. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether new university regulations can be applied retroactively to candidates who joined the course prior to their approval?
  • Is a candidate who intentionally fails to appear in an examination entitled to additional chances?
  • Whether the High Court's refusal to interfere with university examination regulations warrants interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• State through AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P. Peshawar vs Naeemullah Khan1999 SCMR 143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-03
  leave to appealappeal against acquittalspecial lawforest offencescriminal procedure application
  Summary & questions settled

  These four petitions for leave to appeal arose from an identical judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the acquittal of the respondent, who had been tried for cutting forest trees under Section 9/26 of the Hazara Forest Act, 1936. The High Court had dismissed the State's appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, affirming the trial court's assessment of insufficient prosecution evidence, defects in proving the complaint and challan, and additionally holding that the Hazara Forest Act, 1936 was a special law containing no express provision for appeals against acquittal or conviction. The State contended that under Section 46 of the Act, all proceedings relating to offences and criminal liabilities are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which encompasses the right of appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether Section 46 of the Act incorporates the appellate remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, including the right to appeal against an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the phrase 'all proceedings relating to offences and criminal liabilities' under Section 46 of the Hazara Forest Act 1936 includes the right of appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable in respect of offences prosecuted under the Hazara Forest Act 1936?
  Read full judgment →
• Sherin vs Haji Mir Akbar through Legal Heirs1999 SCMR 2665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-15
  evacuee landmortgage redemptionlocus standires judicatapossessory rightsDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a civil suit filed by the petitioner, a mortgagee, seeking a declaration of his possessory rights over land and the cancellation of a redemption order and mutation obtained by the respondent, which the petitioner alleged were procured through fraud and forgery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a mortgagee of evacuee land, retained a right to challenge the redemption of the mortgage and maintain possession after the redemption order had been finalized by the revenue authorities. The trial court, the District Court, and the High Court in revision all dismissed the petitioner's claim, finding that he lacked locus standi and that the issue had already been conclusively decided against him in previous litigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner's rights as a mortgagee of evacuee land were converted into a mere charge on the land, extinguishing his right to possession upon redemption. The Court affirmed that a mortgagee in such circumstances lacks the standing to challenge the redemption process.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mortgagee of evacuee land retain a right to possession after the mortgage has been redeemed?
  • Can a mortgagee of evacuee land challenge the redemption of the mortgage if their interest has been converted into a mere charge?
  • Does a previous dismissal of a writ petition regarding the same subject matter bar a subsequent civil suit on the same issue?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheral alias Sher Muhammad vs The State1999 SCMR 697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-13
  Criminal appealMurder convictionOcular evidenceBallistic evidenceSection 342 Cr.P.C.Corroboration of evidenceBenefit of doubtAppreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a conviction for murder under Section 302 P.P.C. The appellant, Sheral alias Sher Muhammad, was convicted by the trial court, a decision partially upheld by the High Court which acquitted his co-accused but maintained his conviction. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. Key findings included that the ballistic evidence did not match the recovered weapon, and medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony regarding the firing distance. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the alleged motive was not put to the appellant during his examination under Section 342, Cr.P.C., rendering it inadmissible. Crucially, the Court reaffirmed the principle that where eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding the majority of the accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against the remaining accused without independent material corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, finding the prosecution's case riddled with material discrepancies and insufficient evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence not put to an accused during his examination under Section 342, Cr.P.C. be used against him?
  • Is independent corroboration required when eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding the majority of the accused?
  • Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular evidence regarding firing distance undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties, Sargodha and 2 others1999 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-13
  evacuee propertyconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionfinding of factproperty transfersettlement authoritiesauction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the transfer of evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, was justified in reversing a finding of fact made by the Additional Commissioner/Administrator regarding the status of a specific plot of land (Property No. 3/174/2160-A). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court found that the High Court correctly appreciated the material evidence, specifically the survey register of urban properties from 1971, which established that the disputed plot was a distinct and separate property from the one purchased by the petitioner at auction. The Court affirmed that where a High Court’s finding is based on a proper appreciation of material evidence on record, it does not suffer from legal infirmity and does not warrant interference by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that findings of fact supported by documentary evidence, such as survey registers, are to be respected when they confirm the distinct nature of property units.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court reverse a finding of fact made by an administrative authority in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a survey register of urban properties considered valid evidence to establish the distinct identity of a property unit?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that is based on a proper appreciation of material evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs Baz Khan and others1999 SCMR 2338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-06
  pre-emptionTalab-i-MuwasibatTalab-i-Ishhadright of pre-emptionstatutory interpretationnotice requirements
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld a decree for pre-emption in favor of the respondents. The core legal question was whether the respondents had satisfied the statutory requirements for Talab-i-Ishhad under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, specifically regarding the timing of the notice. The petitioner argued that although Talab-i-Muwasibat was performed on the date of knowledge, the subsequent Talab-i-Ishhad notice was sent four days later, failing the requirement to act 'as soon as possible' after the initial Talab. The Supreme Court examined the statutory language of section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The Court held that while the statute mandates that the notice be sent 'as soon as possible' after Talab-i-Muwasibat, it explicitly provides a maximum outer limit of two weeks from the date of knowledge. The Court affirmed that compliance within this two-week period satisfies the legal requirement, provided the notice is in writing, attested by two truthful witnesses, and sent via registered post, rejecting the argument that any delay beyond the immediate day constitutes a failure of the right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement to perform Talab-i-Ishhad 'as soon as possible' after Talab-i-Muwasibat mandate that it be performed on the same day if possible?
  • What is the maximum time limit for sending a notice of Talab-i-Ishhad under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  • What are the essential ingredients for a valid notice of Talab-i-Ishhad under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher and others vs Dost Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others1999 SCMR 2152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-02
  agreement of saleleave to appealtenants-at-willTamleekcivil revisionappraisal of evidencedelay in filing suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision against the appellate court's dismissal of their suit for declaration of ownership based on an unverified agreement of sale. The petitioners alleged they purchased the disputed land about thirty years prior to filing the suit in 1991, paying the full consideration without obtaining a receipt or executing a registered sale-deed. The core legal question was whether the petitioners established a valid agreement of sale and ownership despite the lack of documentation, long delay in seeking legal remedy, and revenue records showing them as tenants-at-will. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a proper appraisal of evidence, noting that the unexplained delay, lack of receipts or registered deeds, and failure to object to the vendor's transfer of the land via Tamleek in 1971 defeated the petitioners' claim. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unverified agreement of sale and oral payment of consideration without a registered sale-deed is sufficient to establish ownership?
  • Does an unexplained delay in challenging a transfer of land by the vendor constitute acquiescence defeating a subsequent claim of ownership?
  • Can revenue record entries showing parties as tenants-at-will be rebutted without cogent evidence of a prior sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikhoo Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan and others1999 PTD 2421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-19
  sales taxtaxable supplyself-consumptionbagasselegislative competenceby-productleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the imposition of sales tax on 'Bagasse', a by-product of sugar production, during the period between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1997. The petitioners, sugar manufacturers, challenged the tax authorities' demand for sales tax on Bagasse, arguing that because they consumed the product themselves and did not sell it to third parties, it did not constitute a taxable supply. The High Court had previously ruled against the petitioners, holding that the definition of 'taxable supply' under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, included the manufacture and production of goods, regardless of self-consumption, and that such taxation was within the legislative competence of the Federal Legislature under the Constitution. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether self-consumption of a by-product constitutes a taxable supply under the charging provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and whether the legislative framework permits the imposition of such tax in the absence of an actual sale to a third party.

  Questions settled

  • Are manufacturers liable to pay sales tax on a by-product like 'Bagasse' when it is consumed by the manufacturer itself and not sold to a third party?
  • Can the statutory definitions of 'taxable activity', 'taxable supply', 'time of supply', and 'value of supply' under the Sales Tax Act 1990 be equated with the process of 'sale' for tax purposes?
  • Does the Federal Legislative List in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 authorize the imposition of sales tax on the manufacture of goods for self-consumption?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikhoo Sugar Mills Ltd vs Government of Pakistan and others1999 SCMR 1129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-19
  sales taxbagassetaxable supplyself-consumptionleave to appealmanufacture of goodsexemptions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions filed by sugar producers challenging the imposition of sales tax on 'Bagasse', a by-product of sugar production, for the period between July 1, 1996, and June 30, 1997. The petitioners contended that self-consumption or retention of bagasse without an intervening sale to a third party does not constitute a taxable supply under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and relied on various precedents regarding tax competence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that manufacture and production of goods, including self-consumption, fall within the expanded statutory definition of taxable supply and legislative competence under the Federal Legislative List. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether self-consumption of bagasse without a third-party sale attracts sales tax under section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, how statutory definitions of taxable activity and supply apply, and whether sales tax could be levied despite the rescission of exemptions during the financial year.

  Questions settled

  • Whether petitioners consuming bagasse without involvement of a third party in its sale are liable to pay sales tax on bagasse?
  • Whether taxable activity, taxable supply, time of supply, and value of supply defined in section 2 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, can be equated with the process of sale notionally under section 3 of the Act?
  • Whether the legislature can levy sales tax on bagasse when exemptions were rescinded during the currency of the financial year?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Saeed Ahmed and anothers vs Abdul Wahid1999 SCMR 1852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-29
  jurisdiction of civil court versus revenue courtlimited estateremoval of difficulties actpre-emption decreealienation by female refugeetransfer of property act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the proper forum for adjudicating claims under sections 2 and 3 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975, concerning the termination of limited estates held by refugee females. The factual matrix involves agricultural land allotted to a widow as a limited owner, which she alienated, leading to a pre-emption decree in favour of the respondent. The appellants subsequently approached revenue authorities to challenge the succession and limited estate, while the respondent instituted a civil suit. The core legal question was whether the hierarchy of Revenue Courts or Civil Courts possessed the jurisdiction to entertain applications and suits under the Act when prior civil proceedings and alienations were involved. The Supreme Court held that where a suit or dispute had a nexus with prior civil court adjudications like pre-emption decrees, the Civil Court and not the Revenue Authorities is the proper and competent forum to decide the matter afresh under the provisions of the Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the hierarchy of Revenue Courts or Civil Courts has the jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under sections 2 and 3 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975?
  • Does section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 protect a purchaser where the predecessor-in-interest held a limited estate as a refugee female?
  • Whether revenue authorities are competent to re-open issues of succession and limited estates when the underlying transaction was subjected to a civil court pre-emption decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rafique Ahmed vs Zia Shahid and another1999 SCMR 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-23
  Senate electionreserved seatstechnocratprofessionalelection petitionMartial Lawconstitutional interpretationqualification of candidate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil appeals challenging an Election Tribunal judgment that voided the election of Sheikh Rafique Ahmed to a Senate seat reserved for Ulema, Technocrats, and Professionals. The core legal questions were whether the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order 1977 (P.O. 5 of 1977) remained valid after the revival of the Constitution and whether the appellant met the criteria of a Professional. The Supreme Court held that P.O. 5 of 1977 was a one-time legislative instrument designed to facilitate the transition from Martial Law to democracy, and it became inoperative upon the revival of the Constitution. Regarding the qualification, the Court ruled that the appellant, an experienced advocate with significant legislative and professional service, met the high standard required for a Professional. The Court established that legislative instruments enacted for specific, time-bound objectives cease to be operative once those objectives are accomplished. Furthermore, the definition of Professional for reserved seats requires nationally or internationally recognized competence and experience, which should be interpreted with flexibility rather than rigid, static criteria. The election of the appellant was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order 1977 remain operative after the revival of the Constitution and the withdrawal of Martial Law?
  • What is the legal standard for determining if a candidate qualifies as a Professional for a reserved Senate seat?
  • Can a legislative instrument enacted for a specific, time-bound purpose continue to have effect after the accomplishment of that purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Qamaruddin vs District Judge/Election Court1999 SCMR 1582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29
  election petitiongazette notificationmaintainabilityleave to appealelection dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Lahore High Court upholding the decision of the Election Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's objections regarding the competency of an election petition. The core legal question was whether an election petition filed before the official notification and gazetting of the election result is competent and maintainable. The Supreme Court held that while the petitioner might be technically correct that the petition was filed prior to the Gazette notification, the subsequent gazetting of the election result cures the technical defect, allowing the election petition to proceed. The Court refused to grant leave to appeal, establishing that an election petition prematurely filed before the notification of the result can be proceeded with once the result is duly gazetted.

  Questions settled

  • Is an election petition filed before the notification and gazetting of the election result competent?
  • Can a prematurely filed election petition proceed if the election result is subsequently gazetted?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Tufail and others vs The State1999 SCMR 2411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-29
  public servantprosecution sanctionmisappropriationcriminal trialZakat and Ushr Committeequashment of proceedingsappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal petitions filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined to interfere with an ongoing trial involving charges of misappropriation and corruption under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioners, accused of offences while serving on a Zakat and Ushr Committee, sought acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that they were public servants and that their prosecution was invalid due to the absence of prior sanction from the competent authority. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the trial was at an evidence stage and the determination of the petitioners' status as public servants required the appreciation of evidence. The Court affirmed that the trial court must decide this objection before rendering a final judgment. The key principle reiterated is that the necessity of sanction for prosecuting a public servant depends on their status at the time the court takes cognizance of the offence, and such factual determinations are best left to the trial court to decide upon the conclusion of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is prior sanction for prosecution required for a public servant who has ceased to hold office at the time the court takes cognizance of the offence?
  • Can a trial court determine the status of an accused as a public servant during the trial proceedings?
  • Should a petition for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted when the determination of the accused's status requires the appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Javed Farooqi, Under Secretary Civil Secretariat, Lahore vs District and Sessions Judge, Lahore and another1999 SCMR 2141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-21
  adverse remarksAnnual Confidential Reportexpunction of remarkssubordinate judiciaryservice tribunalcounsellingmalice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from a consolidated judgment of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeals seeking the expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 1990 and 1991. The reporting officer and countersigning authority had graded the petitioner as "below average" and reported him to be corrupt. The petitioner challenged the remarks on the grounds of delay in communication, lack of prior counselling, and inconsistency with previous tribunal decisions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the evaluation of a subordinate officer's work, conduct, and character by superior officers is based on a conglomeration of events and general reputation, which cannot always be reduced to formal record. The Court ruled that prior counselling is not mandatory before recording adverse remarks. In the absence of any established malice or bias on the part of the reporting or countersigning officers, the evaluation must be given credence. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Is prior counselling of a subordinate officer a mandatory requirement before recording adverse remarks in their Annual Confidential Report?
  • Can adverse remarks regarding an officer's integrity and reputation be sustained in the absence of formal documentary evidence if recorded honestly by superior officers?
  • Does a delay in the communication of adverse remarks automatically warrant their expunction in the absence of malice?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Javed Farooqi vs District and Sessions Judge, Lahore and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 1283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-21
  annual confidential reportadverse remarksexpunction of remarksservice tribunaljudicial officerintegritymalice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil petitions filed against the dismissal of service appeals by the Lahore High Court Tribunal, which had declined to expunge adverse remarks recorded in the petitioner's Annual Confidential Reports for the periods 1990 and 1991. The core legal questions involve whether the adverse remarks warranted expunction due to alleged delayed communication, lack of prior counseling, or inconsistency with previous tribunal decisions, and whether superior officers' evaluations of judicial officers require interference in the absence of malice. The Supreme Court held that superior reporting and countersigning officers are the best judges of a subordinate's work and conduct, that prior counseling is not mandatory, and that evaluations made without malice deserve full credence. The petitions were consequently dismissed and leave to appeal refused, reinforcing the principle that subjective assessments by judicial superiors regarding integrity and performance carry immense weight unless malice is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether adverse remarks recorded in an Annual Confidential Report can be expunged solely on the ground of delayed communication?
  • Is prior counseling mandatory before a superior officer can record adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report?
  • Whether superior officers are required to produce detailed material or evidence to substantiate the basis of their assessment regarding the work and conduct of a subordinate judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali. vs Syed Shafaqat Ahmed and others1999 SCMR 2384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-18
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantdenial of titleoral tenancyleave to appealrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed property on the grounds of default and damage. The core legal question concerns whether the Rent Controller erred in ordering eviction and failing to refer the matter to a civil court when the relationship of landlord and tenant and the respondent's title were allegedly disputed. The Supreme Court held that where the oral tenancy is duly established by evidence and the tenant was inducted by the landlord, the tenant is estopped from questioning the landlord's title, and the Rent Controller is competent to decide the matter without relegating the parties to a civil court. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal declined, reaffirming that a tenant cannot challenge the title of their lessor.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can question the title of the landlord by whom they were inducted into the property?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant based on oral evidence without referring the matter to a Civil Court?
  • Can a tenant who takes a false plea and fails to pay rent be ordered to be evicted on a preliminary issue?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State1999 SCMR 2617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10
  post-arrest bailcriminal petitiondelay in trialdiscretionary ordermurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court declining bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving offences under sections 302, 148, 149, 447, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that it was not inclined to interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court declining bail, but noted the undue delay in the trial. The Court dismissed the petition while issuing a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within three months, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to move the trial court afresh for the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where a trial is unduly delayed while the accused remains in custody, the appellate court may direct expeditious conclusion of the trial with a liberty to re-apply for bail upon default.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court declining bail?
  • What remedy is available to an accused in custody when the trial is not concluded expeditiously?
  • Can an accused move the trial court afresh for bail if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction) Akbar Khan alias Saleem Mehmood Chehi vs Government of the Punjab1999 SCMR 2713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-09
  pre-emptionTalab-i-MuwathabatIslamic InjunctionsPunjab Pre-emption Actfundamental rightsprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the constitutionality of Section 13(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, specifically the procedural requirement of 'Talab-i-Muwathabat' (immediate demand) for exercising the right of pre-emption. The appellant contended that this requirement is inconsistent with Islamic Injunctions, arguing that pre-emption is a substantive right that should not be defeated by technical procedural hurdles, citing principles of ease and moderation. The Supreme Court examined the Islamic jurisprudence surrounding pre-emption, noting that major juristic schools support the necessity of an immediate demand to balance the rights of the pre-emptor against the rights of the purchaser. The Court held that 'Talab-i-Muwathabat' is consistent with Islamic principles, as it prevents the pre-emption right from remaining open-ended, which would otherwise harm the purchaser. The Court concluded that the impugned provision does not violate Article 2A or Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Federal Shariat Court's decision that the procedure is neither un-Islamic nor discriminatory.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement of 'Talab-i-Muwathabat' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Does the procedural requirement of 'Talab-i-Muwathabat' violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the right of pre-emption be exercised without an immediate demand in the sitting where the sale becomes known?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Ali vs The State1999 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-22
  murderdeath sentenceocular testimonyinterested witnessprompt FIRrecovery of weaponmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction and sentence of death awarded to the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Mst. Safia Sultana, which was confirmed by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question involved the determination of the appellant's guilt based on ocular testimony, prompt F.I.R., medical evidence, and recoveries, as well as the consideration of the quantum of sentence and mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through credible eye-witness accounts, immediate capture of the appellant at the scene with blood-stained weapons and clothing, and an unexplained injury on the appellant's person. The key principle laid down is that the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased does not render them interested witnesses unless a motive for false implication is established, and that brutal murders committed without extenuating circumstances do not warrant leniency in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased is sufficient to discard their testimony as interested witnesses?
  • Does a prompt F.I.R. and the immediate capture of the accused at the scene with blood-stained weapons constitute reliable corroborative evidence?
  • Can an accused's failure to explain injuries sustained on his person during the commission of the crime be used as a circumstance against him?
  • Whether a brutal and callous murder without any mitigating circumstances justifies the awarding of a lesser punishment than death?
  Read full judgment →
• Shana and 2 others vs The State1999 SCMR 1507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-16
  criminal appealocular evidencetender agemitigating circumstancesdeath sentencecommutation of sentenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and death sentences of three appellants for the murders of their father and step-siblings. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the sufficiency of corroborative evidence following the acquittal of co-accused, and whether the appellants’ ages warranted the commutation of death sentences. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the primary appellants, finding the eye-witness accounts credible, corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries, and the abscondence of the accused. Regarding sentencing, the Court held that "tender age" is not statutorily defined and requires positive proof. It established that while no universal rule exists, an immature offender acting under the dominant influence of a parent may be granted leniency. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals of the father and the elder son, maintaining their death sentences. However, it commuted the death sentence of the younger son, Muhammad Nawaz, to life imprisonment, noting his dependency and the fact that he was under eighteen at the time of the offense, acting under his father's instigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of some co-accused automatically invalidate the conviction of remaining accused in a murder case?
  • What criteria determine whether an offender is entitled to a lesser penalty based on tender age?
  • Can the recovery of crime empties from outside a crime scene be considered valid corroborative evidence?
  • Is the testimony of eye-witnesses sufficient for conviction if they are related to the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas Textile Mills Ltd. and others vs The Province of Punjab through Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Lahore and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-05
  social security contributionspecial allowancewagesinconsistency of lawsconcurrent legislative listbeneficial legislationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals challenging a common judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing constitution petitions filed against demands made by the Provincial Employees Social Security Institution for social security contributions calculated on the basis of workers' wages including a special allowance. The core legal questions involve whether the special allowance payable under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988 forms part of 'wages' under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, despite the exemption in section 8 of the 1988 Act, and the applicability of the doctrine of inconsistency between Federal and Provincial laws under Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the special allowance can be considered as part of wages for social security contributions and that where conflict exists, Federal legislation prevails. The key principle laid down is that beneficial labor welfare legislation must be interpreted to fulfill its statutory objects, and conflicting provincial provisions give way to overriding federal laws pursuant to constitutional distribution of legislative powers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the special allowance paid under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988 forms part of wages for computing contributions under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Does an inconsistency between a Provincial enactment and a Federal law result in the voidness of the Provincial provision to the extent of repugnancy under Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Are questions regarding the exclusion of certain employees from the purview of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 appropriately addressed through remedies under sections 57 and 58 of the said Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas Textile Mills Ltd. and others vs The Province of Punjab and 21999 SCMR 1477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  social security contributionwages definitionFederal vs Provincial legislationArticle 143repugnancyConcurrent Legislative Listspecial allowancelabour laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the liability of employers to pay social security contributions on special allowances mandated by the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988. The core legal question was whether this special allowance constitutes "wages" under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, for calculating contributions, notwithstanding the exemption clause in the 1988 Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the special allowance is indeed part of "wages" for social security purposes. The Court determined that the 1965 Ordinance, having been adapted as a Federal law, prevails over the Provincial 1988 Act to the extent of any repugnancy under Article 143 of the Constitution. The principle laid down is that where a Provincial law conflicts with a Federal law in the concurrent legislative field, the Federal law prevails. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the definition of "wages" in the 1965 Ordinance is comprehensive enough to encompass such allowances, rendering the appellants' reliance on the 1988 Act's non-obstante clause ineffective against the Federal legislative mandate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the special allowance payable under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988, constitute wages for the purpose of calculating social security contributions under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Does a Federal law prevail over a Provincial law in the event of repugnancy regarding matters in the Concurrent Legislative List under Article 143 of the Constitution?
  • Can a non-obstante clause in a Provincial statute override a Federal law regarding social security contributions?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Gul vs Additional Secretary Home, Government Of',N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 4 others1999 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-28
  PATA Regulationrepeal of statuteestoppelland disputerevisional jurisdictionvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land title and possession adjudicated under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) Regulation II of 1975. The petitioner challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed his writ petition, which had sought to overturn decisions made by PATA forums. The core legal question was whether the repeal of the PATA Regulation II of 1975 by the PATA (Nifaz-e-Nizam-e-Shariah) N.-W.F.P. Regulation II of 1994 invalidated proceedings and decisions already concluded under the former regulation. The Supreme Court held that the repeal did not affect rights, privileges, obligations, or liabilities already acquired or incurred under the previous law. Consequently, cases disposed of by Deputy Commissioners under the 1975 Regulation remained valid and unaffected by the subsequent repeal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the validity of the forum's jurisdiction, having himself invoked the appellate and revisional processes under the 1975 Regulation. The petition was dismissed, upholding the principle of continuity for proceedings concluded under repealed PATA regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of PATA Regulation II of 1975 by PATA (Nifaz-e-Nizam-e-Shariah) N.-W.F.P. Regulation II of 1994 invalidate cases already decided under the former?
  • Is a party estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of a forum after having voluntarily invoked its appellate and revisional processes?
  • Do proceedings concluded under the PATA Regulation II of 1975 remain unaffected by the subsequent repeal of said regulation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Orakzai vs President of Pakistan, Islamabad and another1999 SCMR 1598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-06
  proclamation of emergencyfundamental rightspresidential powersimpeachment of presidentconstitutional jurisdictionjudicial reviewdoctrine of proportionality
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenged the validity of the Presidential Proclamation of Emergency and the subsequent suspension of the right to move courts for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The petitioner specifically contended that the expression 'any Court' in Article 233(2) of the Constitution did not encompass the Supreme Court of Pakistan, thereby preserving its jurisdiction. The Court held that the issues raised were largely academic or infructuous, as the core questions regarding the validity of the Proclamation and the suspension of fundamental rights had already been conclusively decided in the case of Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan. The Court reaffirmed that while it possesses the jurisdiction to examine whether the prerequisites for constitutional or statutory powers exist, the specific reliefs sought by the petitioner were no longer maintainable. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the impeachment or removal of the President under Article 47 of the Constitution is a parliamentary process that cannot be enforced through judicial proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the procedure for the removal or impeachment of the President under Article 47 of the Constitution be enforced through Court proceedings?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to examine whether the prerequisites for the exercise of constitutional power by a state functionary existed when an impugned order was passed?
  • Is the suspension of fundamental rights under Article 233 of the Constitution subject to the principle of proportionality?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood vs Muhammad Arshad and 2 others1999 SCMR 1875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-23
  transfer of criminal caseforum shoppingthreats to judgesuppression of factsclean handsdiscretionary reliefSection 526 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court refusing to transfer criminal proceedings pending under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gujranwala. The petitioner had applied for transfer while concealing the dismissal of a previous transfer application, leading to the dismissal of his petition for non-disclosure. Simultaneously, the trial judge and Sessions Judge sought a transfer via reference due to alleged threats issued by the accused. The High Court rejected the reference, directing the trial judge to proceed and recommending measures such as registering cases or initiating proceedings under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if threatened.

  The Supreme Court dismissed the leave petition, maintaining the High Court’s ruling. It held that granting transfer of a case upon threats made by an accused would produce unacceptable results, enabling motivated accused persons to secure forums of their choice through manipulation. The Court also observed that while a judge may ordinarily decline to hear a case without assigning reasons, where reasons are explicitly recorded for seeking transfer, those reasons are subject to judicial scrutiny and must meet statutory standards.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be transferred from a trial judge merely because the accused has extended threats to the judge?
  • Whether an application for transfer of a case can be dismissed solely on the ground of suppression of a previous rejected transfer application?
  • Are reasons assigned by a trial judge for declining to hear a case subject to judicial scrutiny when expressed on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Liaquat Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad1999 SCMR 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-17
  military courtstrial of civiliansconstitutional jurisdictionterrorismAnti-Terrorist Courtsguidelinesfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenged the establishment of military courts for the trial of civilians. The core legal question was whether Ordinance No. XII of 1998, which authorized military courts to try civilians for specific offenses, was constitutional and within lawful authority. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the establishment of military courts for the trial of civilians under the said Ordinance was unconstitutional, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. The Court set aside unexecuted sentences, transferred pending cases to Anti-Terrorist Courts, and protected executed sentences as past and closed transactions. Additionally, the Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for the speedy trial of terrorism cases by Special Courts established under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, ensuring compliance with constitutional parameters and judicial oversight.

  Questions settled

  • Are military courts established for the trial of civilians under Ordinance No. XII of 1998 constitutional?
  • What happens to the cases and unexecuted sentences of civilians previously tried by military courts upon such courts being declared unconstitutional?
  • Can the Armed Forces be called in to assist in the administration of justice involving the trial and adjudication of guilt of civilians?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdur Rahim, Allah Ditta. vs Federation Of Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1999 CL. 493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  regulatory dutycustoms dutydelegated legislationexcessive delegationlegislative competencepith and substanceconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals challenged the vires of a notification issued under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, which imposed a "regulatory duty" on imported iron and steel scrap. The appellants contended that the Federal Legislature lacked the competence to enact this provision under Item 43 of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, arguing that "regulatory duty" was distinct from "customs duty." They further argued that the provision constituted an unconstitutional abdication of legislative functions through excessive delegation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the "pith and substance" of the "regulatory duty" is indeed a customs duty, falling squarely within the Federal Legislature's competence. The Court affirmed that the legislature did not abdicate its functions; instead, it established a clear legislative framework and policy, delegating only the discretion to implement specific details—such as rate adjustments within defined statutory limits—to the executive to manage fluctuating market conditions. This delegation was deemed necessary and constitutionally valid, as it did not involve the surrender of essential legislative power but rather the execution of a defined policy.

  Questions settled

  • Is the levy of 'regulatory duty' under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, within the legislative competence of the Federal Legislature under Item 43 of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the delegation of power to the Federal Government to impose regulatory duties under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, constitute an unconstitutional abdication of legislative functions?
  • Can the validity of a legislative provision be determined by the 'pith and substance' doctrine when the nomenclature of the levy is challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Seena International Medical College through Director vs Government1999 SCMR 2110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-02
  unrecognized educational institutionmedical collegePakistan Medical and Dental Councilprivate medical educationcancellation of institutionstatutory registrationaffiliation
  Summary & questions settled

  Seena International Medical College through its Director sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of its writ petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had challenged the closure of the college by the Government of N.-W.F.P. The core legal question concerned whether an unregistered and unrecognized private medical college could lawfully operate and dispense medical education without fulfilling statutory requirements, obtaining affiliation, or securing recognition from the Pakistan Medical & Dental Council and University Grants Commission. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the college was operating illegally in violation of the applicable statutory provisions, lacked the requisite infrastructure, and was being run on a commercial basis without proper legal sanction. The ratio decidendi is that no private medical institution can be established or run without fulfilling the mandatory registration, recognition, and affiliation requirements under the law of the land, and unauthorized institutions lacking recognized status have no legal right to confer medical qualifications or impart medical education.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unrecognized private medical college can be established and operated without registration under the relevant educational laws?
  • Does an institution have the right to confer medical degrees without being recognized by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and included in its First Schedule?
  • Can foreign affiliation override the mandatory requirements of domestic law for establishing and running a medical institution in Pakistan?
  • Whether the government has the authority to seal and close down substandard and unauthorized educational institutions.
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others vs Muhammad1999 SCMR 1296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-13
  service lawregular employmentcontractual appointmentunilateral modificationreinstatementpension deductioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which ordered the reinstatement of a respondent who had been employed as a Naib-Qasid for over 16 years. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s appointment was permanent or on a contract basis, given that the department unilaterally amended his appointment order after his initial selection. The Tribunal found that the respondent was selected through a proper committee for a permanent vacancy, and the subsequent unilateral modification of his status to contract-based was invalid. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the respondent was a regular employee. The Court further noted that the department's objection regarding the respondent's receipt of military pension was rendered academic, as the respondent consented to the deduction of the actual pension amount from his salary. The key principle established is that an employer cannot unilaterally convert a regular appointment into a contract-based one after the employee has been duly selected for a permanent position through a proper selection process.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer unilaterally convert a regular appointment into a contract-based appointment after the initial selection process?
  • Does the receipt of a military pension preclude an individual from holding a regular civil service position?
  • Is an employee appointed through a properly constituted selection committee against a permanent vacancy considered a regular employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad Hiraja vs Water and Power Development Authority1999 SCMR 2828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-08
  transfer and postingterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunalcivil servantinterim order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court staying an inter se transfer of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the competence of the High Court to entertain a petition relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, particularly on allegations of mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, even when challenged on the grounds of mala fide. The Court further observed that grievances regarding transfer orders must be brought before the appropriate Service Tribunal after exhausting departmental remedies. The key principle laid down is that service matters, including transfers and postings, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the relevant Service Tribunal, and constitutional petitions before the High Court are barred in such matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant on grounds of mala fide?
  • Can a civil servant challenge a transfer order directly before the High Court without exhausting departmental remedies and approaching the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Bahadur Khan Bangulzai and others vs Sardar Attaullah Khan Mengal and another1999 SCMR 1921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-11
  defectionfloor crossingdisqualification of membersChief Election Commissionerpolitical party headjurisdictional factorganizational dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals concerning the interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, regarding disqualification on the ground of defection. The core legal question was whether the Chief Election Commissioner possesses the jurisdiction to determine the identity of the head of a political party when a reference for defection is filed, and how organizational disputes regarding party leadership should be handled. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the Chief Election Commissioner is not merely a post office and has the jurisdiction to determine the jurisdictional fact of who is the head of the political party, he lacks the power to resolve complex, in-built organizational and structural disputes. The Court laid down the principle that the Chief Election Commissioner must examine the bona fides of any plea challenging the status of a party head; if the person has acted as head in the past, the Commissioner should proceed on that assumption, but if a genuine and substantial dispute exists regarding internal party elections, the parties may be directed to resolve it through a civil court, thereby balancing the eradication of the vice of floor-crossing with the limitations of a special tribunal's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Election Commissioner has the jurisdiction to determine who is the head of a political party in a reference under Article 63-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the Chief Election Commissioner merely a post office upon receiving a reference under Article 63-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the Chief Election Commissioner can resolve in-built organizational structural disputes of a political party?
  • How should the Chief Election Commissioner deal with a bona fide plea challenging the status of the head of a political party in disqualification proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdul Hafeez Khan vs Sardar Muhammad Tahir Khan Loni and 131999 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  election petitionElection TribunalRepresentation of the People Actinvalidation of votesrecountsecrecy of ballotcorrupt practiceselection machinery failure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an Election Tribunal's order that set aside the appellant's election to the Balochistan Assembly and declared the respondent as the returned candidate. The respondent had alleged widespread irregularities, including missing signatures and stamps on ballot papers, unsealed election bags, and improper voter identification. The Election Tribunal, after examining the record, invalidated specific votes of the appellant and declared the respondent elected. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that while election laws concerning voters are mandatory, those concerning election officials are generally directory. However, where non-compliance is so pervasive that it materially affects the election result, the entire electoral process must be declared void under Section 70(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Court determined that the irregularities in this case—including flagrant violations of Section 33 and the compromised state of election materials—were too extensive to merely unseat the successful candidate. Consequently, the Court modified the Tribunal's order, declaring the entire election for the constituency void and ordering a fresh poll to ensure a fair and lawful electoral outcome.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an Election Tribunal declare an entire election void rather than just unseating the returned candidate?
  • Does the failure of election officials to comply with procedural requirements regarding ballot paper issuance automatically invalidate the election?
  • What is the scope of an Election Tribunal's discretion to order the inspection of ballot papers and counterfoils under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Is a candidate required to provide specific pleadings for all corrupt practices in an election petition, or can the Tribunal consider evidence of irregularities discovered during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sar Anjam vs Abdul Raziq1999 SCMR 2167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-30
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadpleadingsmaterial factsevidencerevisional jurisdictionCode of Civil Procedureco-sharer
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court disposed of three appeals concerning pre-emption rights under the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor is required to specify in the plaint the names of witnesses, and the date, time, and place of making 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' (immediate demand). The Court held that it is not a sine qua non for a pre-emptor to specify these details in the plaint, reiterating the fundamental principle that pleadings should contain only material facts (factum probandum) and not evidence (factum probantia) or names of witnesses. The Court also clarified that High Courts, in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, should not re-appraise evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity. Furthermore, it was held that where a pre-emptor and vendee are co-sharers of the same class, they have equal pre-emption rights and the property should be shared equally.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a pre-emptor to specify in the plaint the names of witnesses, and the date, time, and place of making 'Talb-i-Muwathibat'?
  • Can a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, re-appraise evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
  • What is the distinction between 'factum probandum' and 'factum probantia' in pleadings?
  • What are the pre-emption rights of co-sharers when both the pre-emptor and vendee fall within the same class?
  Read full judgment →
• Sandoz (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Muhammad Hashim and others1999 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-06
  octroi taxconstitutional petitioncontractual disputeinterim orderleave to appealadministrative lawtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the collection of octroi tax from a multinational company, Sandoz (Pakistan) Ltd., by a contractor, Muhammad Hashim, following the Union Council’s unilateral decision to alter an existing fixed-tax agreement. The High Court of Sindh, in a constitutional petition, ordered Sandoz to deposit a substantial sum of money as security pending the final outcome. Sandoz challenged this order before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal questions involve whether the Provincial Government or the Union Council could unilaterally cancel a subsisting fixed-tax agreement, whether retrospective demands for enhanced octroi were legally permissible, and whether the High Court possessed the authority to order a massive financial deposit in the exercise of its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction without the adjudication of evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the contractual and statutory legitimacy of the tax demands. Furthermore, the Court directed the High Court to ensure the expeditious disposal of the underlying constitutional petition, which had remained pending for two years.

  Questions settled

  • Can a local government authority unilaterally cancel a subsisting agreement for the payment of fixed octroi tax?
  • Is it legally permissible for a local government to retrospectively demand enhanced octroi tax rates for a period already covered by a fixed-rate agreement?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to order a party to deposit a specific sum of money in the exercise of its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction without the adjudication of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmed Javed Bhatti vs The Secretary, Establishment Division1999 SCMR 2186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-22
  civil servicesenioritypromotionservice tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceinterim order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal order that upheld the Selection Board's refusal to grant the petitioner seniority and promotion. The petitioner, a member of the Police Service of Pakistan, had previously faced suspension and inquiry, leading to deferred promotion consideration. Despite reinstatement, his subsequent litigation regarding seniority had been repeatedly dismissed by the Service Tribunal, the Supreme Court, and the High Court. The current dispute arose from an interim High Court order directing the Selection Board to consider the petitioner for promotion alongside his batchmates, which the Board subsequently deferred due to missing performance records and lack of range experience. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly determined the Selection Board's consideration was conditional upon the outcome of the underlying writ petition. Since that petition was dismissed, the interim order lost its efficacy. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to pass such interim orders regarding civil servant promotion matters, citing the constitutional bar under Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which excludes High Court jurisdiction in matters concerning the terms and conditions of service.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to pass interim orders regarding the promotion of civil servants in light of Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a conditional recommendation by a Selection Board be implemented if the underlying judicial order authorizing that consideration is subsequently dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad vs The State1999 SCMR 2758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-24
  abductiondeath sentencecommutation of sentencecriminal appealsentencing discretionlesser rolesuppression of terrorist activities
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a jail petition filed by Said Muhammad, who was convicted under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Sargodha, for his involvement in an abduction case, resulting in a death sentence. While the appellant was not present during the actual abduction, evidence established his role in facilitating the escape of the main culprits by signaling that the passage was clear. The appellant did not contest the conviction on merits but sought a reduction in the sentence, arguing that his role was minor compared to the co-accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the conviction but accepted the plea regarding the sentence. The Court held that, given the appellant's secondary role compared to the primary abductors, the ends of justice were better served by commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court established the principle that a distinction in sentencing is appropriate where an accused's participation is significantly less culpable than that of the principal offenders.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the minor role of an accused compared to co-accused?
  • Is an accused who facilitates an abduction by signaling a clear passage liable for conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the principle of sentencing distinction apply when an accused's participation is secondary to that of the principal offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibzadi Ghazala Ismat Hassan Khan Sabri vs Vicechancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore and others1999 SCMR 2487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-20
  leave to appealre-markingexamination paperscondonation of delaylimitationfactual inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition seeking a direction to the University of the Punjab to remark her English examination papers. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the examination papers had already been destroyed under the relevant rules, and that a re-checking of the marks had already been conducted in the petitioner's presence without objection. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the university had merely recounted the marks on the title page rather than conducting a proper re-checking. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's plea required an investigation into factual matters, which could not be undertaken in these proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was barred by 144 days, and the explanation for the delay was vague and unsupported by documentary evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition on both merits and limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court direct an investigation into disputed factual matters regarding the re-checking of examination papers in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be entertained when it is barred by limitation and the application for condonation of delay lacks specific dates and supporting documentary evidence?
  • Can a court order the re-marking of examination papers if those papers have already been lawfully destroyed by the educational institution under its rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Malik vs Shamim Ahktar and others1999 SCMR 1558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-01
  inheritancepartition suitevacuee propertyPermanent Transfer Deedpredeceased sonFederal Shariat Courtconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a partition suit concerning the inheritance of property originally owned by Mst. Ghulam Zainab, an evacuee property transferee. The petitioner challenged concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had determined the shares of the heirs based on the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The core legal questions involved the validity of inheritance rights granted to a predeceased son's daughter and a step-daughter under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the evidentiary weight of the P.T.D. entries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to challenge the P.T.D. entries under settlement laws and could not raise new objections regarding the share determination that were not pleaded in the lower courts. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Federal Shariat Court holds exclusive jurisdiction to determine the repugnancy of any law to the Injunctions of Islam and Sunnah. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, finding no misreading of evidence or legal error in the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts regarding the date of death and inheritance shares.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have exclusive jurisdiction to determine if a provision of law is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and Sunnah?
  • Can a petitioner raise a challenge to the validity of a law in the Supreme Court when the issue was not raised before the lower courts?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding inheritance shares subject to interference if no misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali and others vs Islamuddin1999 SCMR 2515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-24
  oral giftproprietary titleconcurrent findings of factlimitation periodburden of proofimmovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioners against their father, the respondent, seeking a declaration of proprietary title over a house. The petitioners claimed the property was gifted to them orally by their grandfather in 1971. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioners failed to prove the oral gift and that the suit was time-barred. The appellate court and the High Court affirmed these findings, noting that the evidence was unreliable and that the property remained recorded in the respondent's name in official records. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had successfully established the existence of an oral gift of immovable property and whether the suit was maintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the failure to prove the gift were sound and supported by the record. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an oral gift of immovable property must be strictly proved and cannot be established based on mere assertions, especially when contradicted by official documentary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for declaration of title based on an alleged oral gift be maintained if the gift transaction is not proven by credible evidence?
  • Does the concurrent finding of fact by lower courts regarding the failure to prove an oral gift warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Is a suit for declaration of title based on an oral gift barred by time if not instituted within the statutory period prescribed by the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• S.M. Farooq and others vs Muhammad Yar Khan and others1999 SCMR 1039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-02
  service lawsenioritysurplus staffabsorptioncivil servanttransferservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over seniority between a surplus civil servant, who was absorbed into the Department of Tourist Services, and existing officers. The core legal question was whether a surplus employee, upon absorption into a new department, carries their previous seniority from their parent department or if seniority is reckoned from the date of regular appointment in the new post. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal misconstrued the legal position. The Court ruled that under the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, seniority in a cadre by transfer takes effect from the date of regular appointment to that specific post. Consequently, the respondent, upon absorption, ranked junior to those already serving in the Department of Tourist Services. The Court emphasized that service rights of existing employees cannot be affected by outside introduction without specific rules. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the respondent was directed to either accept this position or exercise an option to return to his parent department to preserve his previous service rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does a surplus civil servant absorbed into a new department carry their previous seniority from their parent department?
  • From what date should the seniority of a civil servant appointed by transfer to a new cadre be reckoned?
  • Can a service tribunal set aside a seniority list based on equitable considerations when specific statutory rules govern the determination of seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• S.A.M. Wahidi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and another1999 SCMR 1904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-16
  pensioncivil servicequalification payorderly allowancereasonable classificationdiscriminationcomplete justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a retired Solicitor to the Government of Pakistan who retired in 1987, filed two appeals challenging the rejection of his claims for pension recalculation. In the first appeal, he sought the inclusion of a qualification pay allowance introduced in 1991 for serving officers. In the second appeal, he claimed a Special Additional Pension equal to the pre-retirement orderly allowance introduced in 1991 for retired officers of BPS-20 to 22. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the first appeal, holding that since the qualification pay was part of active salary and not pension, and because the appellant retired prior to its introduction, he could not seek a notional revision of his pay scale for pension re-computation. However, the Court allowed the second appeal, holding that because the orderly allowance was specifically granted as a 'Special Additional Pension', excluding earlier retirees from this pension benefit without an intelligible differentia violated the principle of equal protection under Article 25 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retired civil servant claim recalculation of pension based on a qualification pay allowance introduced for serving officers after their retirement?
  • Whether the exclusion of past retirees from a newly introduced 'Special Additional Pension' violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under Article 25?
  • Can the Supreme Court overlook technical procedural defects under Article 187 of the Constitution to do complete justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Hussain vs The State1999 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-07
  post-arrest bailcar snatchingheinous offensedelay in trialHudood Ordinancejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought bail in a case involving charges under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, specifically related to the armed snatching of a motor vehicle. The petitioner had initially applied for bail before the trial court and subsequently the High Court, relying on the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, citing delay in the conclusion of the trial. Both lower courts dismissed the bail applications, noting the heinous nature of the offense. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in refusing bail. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the high incidence of car-snatching offenses in Karachi justified the invocation of the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court held that the refusal of bail was appropriate given the gravity of the offense and the prevailing circumstances, and thus dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the high incidence of car-snatching offenses justify the denial of bail under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused on the ground of the heinous nature of the offense despite a delay in the trial process?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The State and another1999 SCMR 1324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-15
  bail cancellationservice of noticeright of audiencecondemned unheardcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the recall of bail granted to the petitioner by the trial court. The core legal question is whether the High Court could legally set aside a bail order without proper personal service of notice upon the petitioner, thereby condemning him unheard. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that service of notice upon the petitioner's brother does not constitute valid service under the law and that the petitioner was indeed condemned unheard when his bail was recalled without a proper hearing. The Court laid down the principle that an accused person must be duly and personally served with notice before any order to the petitioner's detriment, such as the cancellation of bail, can be legally passed by a superior court. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service of notice upon the brother of an accused constitutes valid service of notice for the cancellation of bail?
  • Can a High Court legally recall a bail order without providing a proper hearing to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad and 2 others vs Additional District Judge and 2 others1999 SCMR 1328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-22
  limitationminorityvoid giftmutationco-sharerdeclaration suitinheritancerevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a High Court order that dismissed a revision petition, thereby upholding an appellate court's decision in a suit for declaration. The respondent, Mst. Rasoolan Bibi, sought to invalidate a mutation of gift regarding land inherited from her father, alleging it was fraudulently obtained while she was a minor. The petitioners, her half-siblings, argued the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, holding that a gift obtained from a minor is void and unlawful, conferring no rights upon the donees. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a wrong mutation does not create title, as revenue records serve fiscal purposes rather than establishing ownership. Crucially, the Court held that where a plaintiff is a co-sharer in the property, the limitation period for a suit for declaration does not commence until there is an explicit denial of the plaintiff's title. Consequently, as the respondent remained in possession as a co-sharer, the suit was not time-barred. The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' reasoning and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a gift obtained from a minor valid and capable of conferring property rights?
  • Does a mutation entry in revenue records create title to property?
  • When does the limitation period commence for a suit for declaration filed by a co-sharer against a denial of title?
  • Can a transaction involving a minor be rectified after the minor attains the age of majority?
  Read full judgment →
• Reverand Catholic Bishop of Lahore through Attorney care of Roman1999 SCMR 1838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-24
  land reformsexemptioncharitable and religious institutionsrepeal of lawsaved rightsfederal land commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court partly allowing a writ petition and remanding a revision petition concerning land resumption. The core legal question was whether the exemption from land reforms granted to the appellant, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lahore, under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 64) in 1959 survived the promulgation of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (M.L.R. 115) and the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The Supreme Court held that the exemption granted on 22-6-1959 was saved under clause (b) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 32 of M.L.R. 115, as well as by section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Article 264 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and thus continued to hold the field. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment of remand.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an exemption granted under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 64) survives the promulgation of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (M.L.R. 115)?
  • Does the repeal of a land regulation affect rights, titles, or privileges acquired thereunder in view of paragraph 32(2)(b) of M.L.R. 115?
  • Are religious and charitable institutions automatically subject to paragraph 8 limits despite prior valid exemptions saved by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali Jauhar vs The Engineerinchief (Mes) in C's Branch, G.H.Q.1999 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pro forma promotionback benefitscivil servicesecondmentemolumentspay scaleretrospective promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a civil servant who challenged the denial of emoluments for a higher pay scale (BPS-18) following a retrospective pro forma promotion. The appellant, having been on secondment abroad, was granted promotion to BPS-18 effective from 22-3-1988, but the department restricted the payment of higher emoluments to the date of his actual assumption of duty in 1996. The core legal question was whether a civil servant granted pro forma promotion is entitled to salary arrears for the entire retrospective period, even while on secondment. The Supreme Court held that while pro forma promotion generally entitles a civil servant to back benefits, this right is predicated on the servant's readiness and availability to perform the duties of the higher post. Because the appellant was on voluntary secondment abroad until 6-1-1990, he could not claim emoluments for the period prior to his return. However, he was entitled to the difference in emoluments from the date of his return to the department until he began receiving the higher salary, as the departmental examination requirement was waived due to the lack of exams held for his promoted juniors.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to emoluments of a higher post during a period of voluntary secondment abroad?
  • Does the grant of pro forma promotion automatically entitle a civil servant to back benefits for the entire retrospective period?
  • Can a department deny emoluments for a higher post based on a failure to pass a departmental examination if such examinations were not held for promoted juniors?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehan Saeed Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 SCMR 2855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-22
  probationary periodtermination of servicecivil servantstemporary postsshow-cause noticeservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed appeals filed by various Intelligence Bureau employees whose services were terminated during their probationary period. The petitioners, appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors, and Assistant Directors in 1996, had their services terminated in 1997 without stated reasons. The Tribunal upheld the terminations, citing that the posts were temporary (created for one year), appointments were made based on political recommendations rather than merit, and that probationers lacked a justiciable grievance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine several critical issues, including whether the appointments were against permanent or temporary posts, the legal effect of public notices failing to disclose the temporary nature of the posts, and whether the use of the phrase "on regular basis" in appointment notifications created vested rights. Furthermore, the Court seeks to determine if the petitioners were entitled to show-cause notices under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and if termination orders required reasons under the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court declined to grant a stay order but expedited the hearing of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the termination of a civil servant on probation requires the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 11(1) of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Does Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897 require that termination orders for civil servants must contain the reasons for such termination?
  • What is the legal effect of using the phrase "on regular basis" in appointment notifications for posts otherwise designated as temporary?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Mohsin Qazilbash and others vs Muhammad Usman Malik and another1999 SCMR 1794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-31
  bail cancellationmurderF.I.R.substantive evidencecriminal investigationnon-naming in F.I.R.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondent and his companions attacked the deceased after a dispute regarding reckless driving and loud music. The High Court had granted bail primarily because the respondent was not named in the F.I.R. and lacked a specific motive. The Supreme Court, however, observed that the F.I.R. was lodged while the victim was in critical condition and that the omission of names was natural under the circumstances. The Court emphasized that an F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and that investigation had linked the respondent to the crime. Holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondent committed an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and recalled the bail order, directing the respondent to be taken into custody.

  Questions settled

  • Is an F.I.R. considered a substantive piece of evidence in criminal proceedings?
  • Does the omission of an accused's name in an F.I.R. automatically entitle them to bail?
  • Can bail be cancelled if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Tamkeen Ali Khan vs Muhammad Aslp.M and others1999 SCMR 2628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-08
  execution of decreenon-prosecutiondismissal of execution applicationcivil revisionprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the dismissal of execution applications for non-prosecution by the executing court, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the executing court acted correctly in dismissing the execution petitions for non-prosecution on a date that was not fixed for a hearing, but rather for the submission of a report by the bailiff. The Supreme Court found that the executing court erred in dismissing the petitions, as the date in question was not a hearing date, and the High Court further erred in assuming the absence of the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the courts below, converted the petitions into appeals, and remanded the matter to the executing court for disposal in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that an executing court cannot dismiss an execution application for non-prosecution on a date fixed merely for a report, as such an action is procedurally improper and constitutes a failure to exercise jurisdiction correctly.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executing court dismiss an execution application for non-prosecution on a date fixed only for the submission of a bailiff's report?
  • Is it legally permissible for an executing court to dismiss an execution petition when the date was not fixed for a hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Mumtaz Ahmed Noon vs Muhammad Javed Khan1999 SCMR 1845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-05
  summary suitleave to defendOrder XXXVIIdishonoured chequesrecovery suitplausible defencecivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a summary suit for recovery of money under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on dishonoured cheques. The petitioner sought leave to defend the suit by filing an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The District Judge dismissed the application on the ground that it failed to disclose any plausible defence or specific triable issues of law or fact, and the affidavit was silent on specific grounds. The High Court affirmed the District Judge's order in civil revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether leave to appear and defend can be granted in a summary suit where the defendant's application lacks specific factual or legal defences. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, holding that in the absence of specific averments raising triable questions of law or fact, leave to defend cannot be granted under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The leave petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be granted if the application lacks specific factual or legal defences?
  • Whether the absence of specific triable issues in an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 justifies the dismissal of leave to defend.
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Talat Mahmood vs Ismat Ehtishamul Haq1999 SCMR 2215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-24
  temporary injunctionstatus quodisobedience of injunctioncivil imprisonmentrestoration of possessionOrder XXXIX Rule 2(3)Rule 2-A Order XXXIXtransferee court jurisdictionframing of issues
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. by the Lahore High Court, which upheld a trial court order punishing the petitioner with three months' civil imprisonment under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. and directing restoration of vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent for violating a status quo order. The Supreme Court considered whether the interim injunction automatically expired after fifteen days under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A, C.P.C., whether a transferee court was competent to adjudicate the contempt proceedings, and whether proper procedure was followed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave. It held that an interim injunction does not require a specific order of extension after fifteen days where the defendant continuously seeks time to submit a reply, deemed continuing under the proviso to Rule 2-A. Furthermore, the transferee court lawfully had jurisdiction pursuant to administrative transfer orders, and framing specific issues embodying the controversy sufficiently satisfies procedural fairness without requiring formal criminal charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ex parte interim injunction automatically expire after fifteen days under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. if the defendant repeatedly seeks time to file a defence?
  • Can a court to which a civil suit has been transferred by the District and Sessions Judge adjudicate contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the C.P.C. for violation of an interim order passed by the predecessor court?
  • Is it mandatory to frame a formal criminal charge in proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the C.P.C., or is framing specific civil issues sufficient?
  • Does the mere numerical superiority of witnesses overrule quality of evidence and supporting documentary proof when adjudicating an alleged violation of an injunction order?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Mehboob Elahi vs U.B.L. of Pakistan through Manager And Another1999 P.C.T.L.R. 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-08
  banking recoveryex-parte decreeguarantor liabilityappellate procedureinterim order compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed a regular first appeal filed by a borrower and a guarantor against an ex-parte decree for the recovery of money. The suit was originally filed by a banking company under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. During the appellate proceedings, the High Court had issued an interim order requiring the borrower to deposit a specific sum of money, which was not complied with. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal of both the borrower and the guarantor based on this non-compliance. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal of the guarantor solely due to the borrower's failure to comply with the court's interim deposit order, particularly when the guarantor had allegedly fulfilled the requirements stipulated under Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's dismissal order in light of the guarantor's specific legal position and compliance status.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court dismiss a guarantor's appeal solely due to the borrower's failure to comply with an interim deposit order?
  • Does the failure of a principal borrower to comply with a court-ordered deposit automatically invalidate the appeal of a co-appellant guarantor?
  • What are the legal requirements for a guarantor under Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Karamatullah and 3 others vs Sardar Muhammad Aslam Sukhera1999 SCMR 1892 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-29
  limitationcondonation of delaypre-emptionjurisdictional valuewrong forumsufficient causegood faithcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the dismissal of a pre-emption suit appeal on the grounds of limitation. The appellants initially filed their appeal in the High Court, which was the incorrect forum based on the jurisdictional value of the suit, and was subsequently returned for filing in the District Court. Following the return of the memorandum, the appellants delayed refiling the appeal in the competent District Court. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to condonation of delay under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for the time spent prosecuting the appeal in the wrong forum. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate due diligence or good faith, as the jurisdictional forum was clearly defined by statute. The Court affirmed that Section 14 is inapplicable to appeals, and Section 5 relief requires proof of sufficient cause, which was absent here due to the appellants' gross negligence. The principle established is that an appellant must strictly adhere to jurisdictional provisions, and negligence in selecting the forum precludes condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 14 of the Limitation Act apply to the exclusion of time for filing appeals?
  • Is an appellant entitled to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act when the appeal was filed in the wrong forum due to negligence?
  • Can the time spent prosecuting an appeal in an incompetent forum be excluded if the jurisdictional value of the suit was clearly defined by statute?
  • Does the principle that an act of the Court should not prejudice a party apply when the delay in filing an appeal is caused by the party's own negligence?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Abdul Latif vs Rashid Nasim Abbasi and others1999 SCMR 1314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-08
  petition for leave to appealelection disputewrit petitionexclusion of votesconstitutional jurisdictionmunicipal elections
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court passed in a writ petition filed by respondent No.1, which sought and obtained a direction to the Returning Officer to include certain votes in specific wards following the 1997 local elections of the Rawalpindi Municipal Corporation. As a result of the High Court's order, the petitioner lost the election by a narrow margin of 11 votes. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court was not justified in issuing directions for the inclusion of votes after the election was concluded, arguing that such election disputes and questions regarding improperly excluded votes should be adjudicated solely by the specialized forums provided under the relevant electoral law rather than through constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered these arguments and held that leave to appeal should be granted to examine whether the High Court was legally justified in issuing the impugned direction at the relevant time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in issuing directions for the inclusion of excluded votes after an election has concluded?
  • Can questions regarding improperly excluded votes be adjudicated by the High Court under writ jurisdiction instead of the specialized forums provided under the relevant election law?
  Read full judgment →
• Rai Ahmad Ali vs Province of Punjab and others1999 SCMR 1832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10
  service matterconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of service tribunalterms and conditions of servicebar of jurisdictionmala fidecivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which had suspended a departmental transfer order of a civil servant. The core legal question was whether a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable regarding matters related to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, given the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The Court set aside the High Court's order, ruling that Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 creates an absolute bar against the filing of a Constitutional petition in matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service, as these fall within the exclusive domain of the appropriate Service Tribunal. This bar applies even where the impugned order is alleged to be mala fide. The Court emphasized that civil servants must exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Service Tribunal, and the High Court cannot bypass this statutory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to service matters even when the impugned order is alleged to be mala fide?
  • Must a civil servant exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Bakhsh vs Abdul Subhan and another1999 SCMR 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-22
  review petitiondeath penaltyexpectancy of lifesentence mitigationmurderappellate dissentSupreme Court Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought review of a Supreme Court judgment that convicted him for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and imposed the death penalty. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner’s prior acquittal by the High Court and subsequent delay in proceedings created an 'expectancy of life' justifying the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment, and whether a minority opinion of acquittal in the appellate bench provided a valid ground for review or sentence mitigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the death sentence was legally sound. The Court affirmed that the 'doctrine of expectancy of life' is not a rule of universal application and does not automatically entitle a convict to a lesser sentence, particularly given the current realities of judicial backlogs. Furthermore, the Court established that a dissenting opinion in an appellate bench does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record, nor does it necessitate sentence reduction. The determination of an appropriate sentence remains dependent on the specific facts and mitigating circumstances of each case, rather than the mere passage of time or judicial disagreement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of 'expectancy of life' automatically entitle a murder convict to a reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment due to the passage of time?
  • Can a minority opinion of acquittal in an appellate bench serve as a valid ground for reviewing a conviction or reducing a sentence?
  • Is a delay in the disposal of criminal appeals a sufficient ground for the Supreme Court to interfere with the quantum of sentence?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review a sentence in a criminal matter if the sentence is legal and imposed after due consideration of relevant circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and 8 others vs Muhammad Amir and another1999 SCMR 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29
  specific performanceadditional evidencerevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factagreement to sellprocedural delayleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, which was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. The petitioners contended that the lower courts erred in rejecting their applications to adduce additional evidence at a late stage and challenged the interpretation of statutory bars regarding the sale of government land. The core legal questions were whether the lower courts correctly exercised their discretion in refusing the production of additional evidence at a belated stage and whether the findings of fact regarding the execution of the agreement to sell were subject to interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court’s refusal to accept additional evidence was justified under the procedural rules, as no good cause was shown for the delay. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the non-execution of the agreement to sell could not be interfered with in the present jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court allow the production of documentary evidence at a late stage without the party showing good cause for the non-production?
  • Is the refusal of a trial court to admit additional evidence subject to interference when the party failed to provide reasons for the delay?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the trial and appellate courts regarding the execution of an agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and 13 others vs Mustaqeem Khan and 14 others1999 SCMR 1362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-11
  specific performancediscretionary reliefagreement to sellclean hands doctrineimmovable propertycontractual ambiguityequitable relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, where the appellants (tenants) sought to enforce an agreement against the respondents (landlords). The trial court partially decreed the suit, but the High Court set aside this decree, finding the agreement ambiguous regarding the land area and consideration, and noting the appellants' failure to pay the stipulated amounts. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the relief of specific performance under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, is discretionary rather than mandatory. The Court held that such relief may be refused where the contract terms are ambiguous, where the plaintiff fails to act in accordance with the contract's stipulations, or where granting the relief would impose undue hardship on the defendant. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that equitable relief requires the plaintiff to approach the court with clean hands. Since the appellants failed to demonstrate fairness and the contract lacked clarity, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision to non-suit the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of specific performance of an agreement to sell mandatory or discretionary for the court?
  • Can a court refuse specific performance if the plaintiff fails to come with clean hands?
  • Does the ambiguity of land area and consideration in a sale agreement justify the refusal of specific performance?
  • Can time be considered the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property?
  Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Nawaz. and 9 others vs N.W.F.P. Small Industries Development1999 SCMR 2331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-26
  contract employmentpermanent workmenlabour lawsmala fide contractsconstitutional jurisdictionfindings of factwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the legality of contract employment versus regular service status for employees performing permanent nature work under the Small Industries Development Board. The core legal question was whether contract agreements executed by the employees could override their statutory rights to be classified as permanent workmen under labour laws, and whether the High Court could validly interfere with findings of fact rendered by the Labour Appellate Tribunal under constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal's finding—that the contract agreements were mala fide and meant to deprive employees of statutory benefits—was a lawful finding of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence, which could not be interfered with by the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The Court established that contract agreements cannot take away or diminish rights available to workmen under the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1969, and that findings of fact by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction cannot be set aside by the High Court in the absence of jurisdictional defect, lack of lawful authority, or total absence of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can contract agreements override the statutory rights of workmen to be classified as permanent employees under the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1969?
  • Whether the High Court is competent under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to interfere with findings of fact recorded by the Labour Appellate Tribunal?
  • Under what circumstances can a writ petition be maintained against an order passed by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim and 3 others vs The State1999 SCMR 2841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-25
  abduction for ransomcriminal appealappraisal of evidencedelayed FIRransom paymentSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for abduction for ransom. The core legal question involved the re-evaluation of evidence and examination of whether the principles of administration of justice and guidelines regarding the appraisal of evidence were properly followed by the courts below. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was truthful, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated, while the delay in lodging the F.I.R. was duly explained. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts as no material irregularity or legal infirmity was found in the appreciation of evidence or the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts on the appreciation of evidence in an abduction for ransom case warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does a delayed F.I.R. vitiate the prosecution case when a plausible explanation for the delay is provided?
  • Whether the quantum of sentence awarded under Section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is appropriate when complicity is fully proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Ali vs The State and another1999 SCMR 2622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-07
  post-arrest bailleave to appealfurther inquiryjudicial discretionbail for womencriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, Mst. Aisha Bibi, who was charged under Section 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought to overturn the High Court's decision, which had granted bail primarily on the basis that the case required further inquiry. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court examined the High Court's exercise of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had rightly and fairly exercised its judicial discretion in granting bail to the respondent, particularly noting her status as a woman. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, thereby refusing leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts will generally not interfere with the discretionary exercise of bail-granting powers by the High Court unless such discretion was exercised arbitrarily or contrary to established legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail on the ground of 'further inquiry' constitute a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's order granting bail if the discretion was exercised fairly?
  • Is the gender of the accused a relevant factor in the exercise of discretion for granting bail in non-bailable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation through Managing Director, 11a1999 SCMR 2623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-03
  petition for leave to appealcounsel concessionwinding up of establishmenttermination of servicejudgment in personamintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an order passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in an intra-court appeal. The core legal question concerned whether an appeal could be maintained and a judgment contested when the appellant's counsel had made a concession that the establishment had been wound up and services of all employees terminated. The Supreme Court held that the petition was devoid of merit because the petitioner's erstwhile counsel had made a valid concession before the High Court, and there was no claim that the counsel had transgressed the limits of the power of attorney. Furthermore, the Court held that the impugned judgment, being based on a concession in an individual case, was a judgment in personam and would not prejudice the petitioner-Board in relation to future litigation with other parties, which would be decided on its own merits. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal can be granted against a High Court judgment passed on the basis of a concession made by the appellant's counsel?
  • Does a judgment based on a concession in an individual case constitute a judgment in personam?
  • Can a party challenge a concession recorded by a counsel when it is not claimed that the counsel transgressed the limits of the power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh and another vs Messrs Peoples Labour Union C.B.A. of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board1999 SCMR 2629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  interlocutory orderprivatizationjudicial restraintprejudgmentinterim reliefConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an interlocutory order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh. The underlying Constitutional petition challenged the privatization of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, an entity responsible for water supply and sewerage in Karachi. The petitioners contended that the High Court, while passing an interim order, had expressed strong observations that effectively prejudged the merits of the main Constitutional petition, specifically regarding the potential for the service to fall into 'alien hands' detrimental to national interest. Upon review, the Supreme Court declined to recall the interim order but determined that the specific observations made by the High Court were inappropriate at the interlocutory stage as they could prejudice the petitioners during the final hearing. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, modified the interim order by expunging the prejudicial remarks, and directed the High Court to dispose of the pending Constitutional petition within six months.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court make definitive observations on the merits of a case while deciding an interlocutory application?
  • Is it appropriate for an interim order to contain remarks that may prejudice the final adjudication of a Constitutional petition?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to expunge prejudicial remarks from an interlocutory order of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab, through Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore and others vs Miss Kiran Akhtar and others1999 SCMR 1122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-06
  interim orderwrit petitionleave to appealprovisional admissionjudicial restraintexpeditious disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court in a pending writ petition. The High Court had directed the admission of respondent No. 1 to a Medical College in Rawalpindi on a provisional basis while the writ petition remained at the motion stage. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether it should interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of a writ petition. The Supreme Court observed that it does not ordinarily interfere with interim orders of the High Court. However, noting that the writ petition had been pending since May 1997, the Court disposed of the petition for leave to appeal with a direction to the High Court to decide the main writ petition before the court's vacation. The Court further clarified that the petitioner retained the liberty to raise all relevant points for the redress of their grievances during the final adjudication of the writ petition. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court ordinarily interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court?
  • Can the Supreme Court direct the High Court to dispose of a pending writ petition before the court's vacation?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary Irrigation, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others vs Abdur Rehman Shaukat1999 SCMR 2610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-05
  compulsory acquisitioncompensation for landconstitutional rightsproperty rightspublic utilityalternative land allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a Lahore High Court order. The respondent's land had been acquired by the government for public utility purposes without the payment of any compensation. The High Court, while acknowledging the violation of the respondent's constitutional rights, declined to order the restoration of the land to avoid disrupting public utility works. Instead, it directed the government to allot 25 acres of alternative agricultural land to the respondent. The Supreme Court examined the petitioners' contention that there was no legal basis for ordering the allotment of alternative land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the government's acquisition of land without compensation violated Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed the High Court's order as just, fair, and proper, emphasizing that the government cannot deprive a citizen of property without compensation. No question of law of public importance was raised, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the government's acquisition of private land without compensation violate the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a court direct the government to provide alternative land when the original land was acquired without compensation for public utility?
  • Is the allotment of alternative land a valid remedy when the restoration of original land would harm public interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, SialkotApplicant vs Muhammad1999 SCMR 1555 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-12
  Section 12(2) CPCfraudfinal judgmentSupreme Court jurisdictioncivil procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Order V, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, challenging an Assistant Registrar's refusal to entertain an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner sought to challenge a final judgment of the Supreme Court, which had previously dismissed their petition for leave to appeal, on the grounds of fraud and suppression of revenue records. The core legal question was whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is competent before the Supreme Court to challenge its own final order. The Court held that such an application is not maintainable before the Supreme Court in these circumstances. Relying on the principle established in Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities v. Syed Abdul Majid (1993 SCMR 1171), the Court affirmed that an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, must be filed in the court that passed the final judgment, decree, or order, and dismissed the application accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 competent before the Supreme Court to challenge its own final order?
  • In which court must an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be filed when challenging a final judgment?
  • Does the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal by the Supreme Court constitute a final judgment, decree, or order for the purposes of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Project Director, Balochistan Minor Irrigation and Agricultural1999 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-03
  arbitration agreementSection 20 Arbitration Actappointment of arbitratorarbitrable disputewaiver of claimsfinal bill settlementcivil court jurisdictioncontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute between a contractor and the Project Director regarding the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The trial court had dismissed the contractor's application under Section 20 of the Act, reasoning that the contractor had previously signed an undertaking settling the final bill, thus extinguishing any arbitrable dispute. The High Court set aside this order, directing the appointment of an arbitrator. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the civil court’s jurisdiction under Section 20 is limited to verifying the existence of an arbitration agreement and a dispute. The Court held that the validity and effect of an alleged settlement or waiver—such as an undertaking signed by a contractor—are matters of fact and law that fall exclusively within the arbitrator's jurisdiction. A civil court cannot refuse to refer a matter to arbitration by preemptively adjudicating the merits of a defense. Consequently, the Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the application, as the arbitrator is the sole judge to determine whether such an undertaking bars the claims.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court refuse to refer a dispute to arbitration under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, based on a defense that the contractor signed a waiver regarding the final bill?
  • Does the jurisdiction of a civil court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, extend to determining the merits of an alleged settlement or waiver between the parties?
  • Is an arbitrator the sole judge of whether an alleged admission or undertaking by a party bars the claims submitted for arbitration?
  • What are the conditions required for a court to order an arbitration agreement to be filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Mumtaz Ali vs Government of Pakistan and 2 others1999 SCMR 2408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-30
  service matterpromotionGrade-20upgradation of postadministrative authorityservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a service matter wherein the appellant challenged the promotion of a respondent to Grade-20 over himself. During the pendency of the proceedings, two significant developments occurred: the original respondent who had been granted the contested Grade-20 position retired from service, and the post currently held by the appellant was upgraded to Grade-20 via a notification dated 20th April 1993. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was how to dispose of the appeal in light of these changed circumstances. The Court held that the appeal could be effectively resolved by directing the competent authority to reconsider the appellant's case for the grant of Grade-20. The Court emphasized that the administrative authority must evaluate the appellant's entitlement in light of the specific notification upgrading the post. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with a mandate for the competent authority to decide the appellant's case for promotion within a period of three months, ensuring that the administrative process aligns with the current status of the post and the retirement of the competing candidate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service appeal be disposed of by directing the competent authority to reconsider a promotion case in light of changed circumstances?
  • Does the retirement of a competing respondent render a challenge to their promotion moot?
  • Is the upgradation of a post a relevant factor for an authority to consider when determining an employee's eligibility for a higher grade?
  Read full judgment →
• President, United Bank Ltd. and others vs Liaqat Ali Khan and another1999 SCMR 2245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-29
  service appealdismissal from serviceleave to appealsalary arrearsFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the dismissal of the respondent, Liaquat Ali Khan, from service. During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioners (United Bank Ltd.) confirmed that the respondent's salaries and allowances for the period between August 6, 1998, and January 27, 1999, had been paid, and undertook to continue such payments pending the final disposal of the matter. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the grounds upon which the Federal Service Tribunal had set aside the respondent's dismissal from service. The Court further directed that the receipt of these salaries and allowances by the respondent remains subject to the final outcome of the appeal. The core legal question concerns the legality of the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the employee, which will be determined upon the final hearing of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the order of dismissal from service of an employee can be set aside by the Federal Service Tribunal on valid grounds?
  • Are salary payments made to an employee during the pendency of an appeal subject to the final decision of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Oliver and others vs St. Gabrial School through Principal and others1999 PLD Supreme Court 26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-09-30
  evacuee trust propertytenancy rightslicenseepublic propertymala fideadministrative lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions against a High Court order regarding the unauthorized creation of tenancy rights over evacuee trust property, specifically a Gurduwara utilized as a school. The core legal question was whether a school employee, occupying premises as a licensee, could acquire tenancy rights, and whether administrative authorities could validly transfer such rights to third parties. The Supreme Court held that the licensee, having previously acknowledged her status as a school employee, was precluded from claiming tenancy rights. Consequently, the Court declared all administrative orders creating tenancies in favor of the licensee, her alleged adopted children, and subsequent third parties as void and of no legal effect. The Court emphasized that public property cannot be disposed of at the whims of officials and that the relevant statutes did not authorize the bifurcation or disposal of such religious property. The judgment affirms that administrative actions must strictly adhere to the law, and officials engaging in mala fide conduct regarding public property are subject to departmental proceedings and penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a licensee of a property claim tenancy rights over the same premises against the licensor?
  • Does the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, authorize the bifurcation and disposal of religious property like a Gurduwara?
  • Are administrative orders creating tenancy rights void if they are based on a colorable exercise of power and lack legal foundation?
  • Can a licensee who has previously admitted their status in court claim different or higher rights in the same premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Nazir Bhutta vs Secretary, Local Government and Rural1999 SCMR 2246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-05
  transfer orderinterim reliefjudicial discretiontemporary injunctioncivil servantPunjab Service Tribunalservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an interim order of the Punjab Service Tribunal refusing to grant a stay against a transfer order. The petitioner, a District Engineer, challenged his transfer from Rajanpur to Kot Adu, alleging it was politically motivated and executed under the direction of the Provincial Finance Minister. After his writ petition was dismissed as non-maintainable and his departmental appeal was rejected, he approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, which declined interim relief because the petitioner had already been relieved of his duties prior to the hearing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the grant of temporary injunctions or interim relief is a matter of judicial discretion vested in the Tribunal. Observing that the Tribunal rightly evaluated the factual circumstances—namely that the transfer had taken effect—and finding no legal infirmity or error, the Supreme Court held that the refusal was in accord with established precedent and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant or refusal of an interim stay order against a transfer a matter of discretion for the Service Tribunal?
  • Can interim relief against a transfer order be refused if the civil servant has already been relieved of their duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Aslam vs Ilyas Hussain Shah and another1999 SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-18
  civil servanttransferconstitutional petitionService Tribunaljurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an interim order passed by the High Court suspending a civil servant's transfer order. The core legal question is whether a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant regarding a transfer matter is maintainable before the High Court in view of the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Supreme Court held that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including transfers, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, and a constitutional petition under Article 199 is not maintainable. The Court laid down the principle that if departmental transfer policies or instructions are violated, the aggrieved civil servant must approach the appropriate Service Tribunal rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant regarding terms and conditions of service maintainable before the High Court in view of Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a civil servant aggrieved by the non-observance of government transfer policies by departmental authorities?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain service-related transfer matters barred by Article 212?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and 3 others1999 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-05
  Constitution petitionpublic interest litigationtobacco marketingminimum pricereasonable classificationdiscriminationfreedom of tradesocial justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan was filed by Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. (P.T.C.) challenging sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 2.I and sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2.II of Martial Law Order No. 487 (M.L.O. 487) of 1985. The impugned provisions required tobacco companies to purchase tobacco in accordance with indicated targets and mandated that the weighted average price paid to growers in any year must not be lower than that paid in the immediately preceding year. The petitioners contended that these provisions were discriminatory under Article 25 and violated freedom of trade under Article 18 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the petition was maintainable as the controversy involved a question of public importance affecting tobacco growers across the province. On the merits, the Court upheld the M.L.O. provisions, ruling that the classification was reasonable and had a rational nexus with the objective of safeguarding economically vulnerable tobacco growers from inflation and exploitation. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Constitution petition under Article 184(3) is maintainable if filed by a commercial company raising a question of public importance?
  • Whether a statutory provision requiring tobacco companies to pay a weighted average price not lower than the preceding year's price violates Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can a constitutional challenge to a recurring statutory obligation be defeated on the grounds of estoppel or laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Lions Staff Union vs N.I.R.C., Islamabad and 3 others1999 SCMR 2263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-25
  Collective Bargaining AgentNational Industrial Relations Commissioninterlocutory stayreferendumjudicial consistencywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which stayed proceedings pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) regarding a referendum for a Collective Bargaining Agent. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in staying the NIRC proceedings when a previous order from the High Court of Balochistan had already directed the NIRC to adjudicate upon the objections filed by the petitioner regarding the referendum results. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's stay order was unjustified as it directly contradicted the earlier judicial directive mandating the NIRC to resolve the pending objections. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the suspension order, and allowed the proceedings before the NIRC to continue. The key principle established is that an interlocutory stay order cannot be issued by a court if it effectively frustrates or contradicts a prior, subsisting judicial direction issued by a competent court regarding the same subject matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court issue an interlocutory stay order that contradicts a prior judicial directive from another High Court regarding the same proceedings?
  • Is it appropriate for a High Court to stay proceedings before the National Industrial Relations Commission when that Commission has been previously ordered to adjudicate on pending objections?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited vs Abdul Khalique Gandakwala1999 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-02-13
  ejectmentdefault in rentproperty taxbreach of lease conditionrent restrictionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the court arises from concurrent judgments of the courts below granting ejectment of the appellant tenant on the ground of default in the payment of property tax and betterment tax. The core legal questions involved whether the default should be determined under the late Ordinance or the new Ordinance, and whether the non-payment of taxes stipulated in the lease deed constitutes a breach amounting to a ground for eviction. The Supreme Court held that the non-payment of taxes agreed to be paid directly to the authorities by the tenant does not form part of the statutory definition of rent, but constitutes an infringement of the specific conditions of the lease agreement, thereby attracting eviction under the relevant provisions of the rent law. The court affirmed the concurrent findings regarding default, dismissed the appeal, and granted a conditional one-year period to the tenant to hand over vacant possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of default in payment of taxes is to be determined with reference to the provisions of the late Ordinance or the new Ordinance?
  • Whether the breach of a lease clause requiring the direct payment of property taxes to authorities constitutes an infringement of a condition of tenure under the rent laws?
  • Whether taxes payable directly by a tenant to the concerned authorities can be treated as part of the rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways through its General Manager and others vs Samiullah1999 SCMR 2554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-02
  Pakistan Railwayspromotion quotaGeneral Manager powersnon-gazetted employeesconstitutional jurisdictionservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the reservation of a 4% promotion quota for Head Ticket Inspectors (HTIs) to the post of Group Inspector of Special Ticket Examiners (GISTEs) in Pakistan Railways. The core legal question was whether the General Manager of Pakistan Railways possessed the authority under rules 157 and 79 to create the said quota, and whether the High Court properly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction in setting aside the quota and directing the upgradation of posts. The Supreme Court held that the General Manager, under the applicable rules, had full powers to make rules and relax or modify provisions for non-gazetted railway servants, making the creation of the 4% quota lawful. Furthermore, the High Court erred in issuing a mandamus to upgrade posts in the absence of a statutory provision. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, establishing that administrative rule-making powers of the General Manager regarding non-gazetted railway staff remain valid and protected under constitutional savings unless altered by competent legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the General Manager of Pakistan Railways have the power to create a promotion quota for non-gazetted railway servants under rules 157 and 79?
  • Can the High Court direct the upgradation of posts in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction without a supporting statutory provision?
  • Are railway workers covered under the Workmen Compensation Act excluded from the definition of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways and anothers vs Jamil Ahmad1999 SCMR 1151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-18
  service lawrecovery of lossmisconductService Tribunals Actmajority decisiondepartmental appeallimitationapportionment of liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the recovery of salary arrears from a Railways employee, the respondent, who had irregularly appointed a subordinate. The subordinate was subsequently reinstated by a Labour Court, resulting in a financial liability for the Department. The Department sought to recover this amount from the respondent, alleging misconduct. The Tribunal, split in its opinion, issued a majority decision that, while acknowledging the respondent's misconduct, found the Department partially responsible for the loss due to its failure to properly defend the initial Labour Court proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the recovery amount by half. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that under Section 3-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, the majority decision of the Tribunal prevails. The Court rejected the Department's challenge, affirming that the Tribunal’s majority view regarding the apportionment of liability and the condonation of delay was legally sound. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the majority decision of the Federal Service Tribunal prevail in the event of a difference of opinion among its members?
  • Can a government department recover financial losses from an employee if the department itself contributed to the loss through negligence in legal proceedings?
  • Is an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal maintainable if the departmental appeal process was not fully exhausted?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Labour Union, Lakson Tobacco Company Limited, District1999 PLC 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-13
  National Industrial Relations CommissionFull Bench quorumCollective Bargaining Agentreferendumregularization of workersIndustrial Relations Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside two orders passed by a Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission regarding a trade union referendum and worker regularization dispute. The core legal question concerned whether a Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission comprising two members instead of the statutory requirement of not less than three members was properly constituted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly set aside the orders because the Full Bench failed to meet the mandatory quorum of three members stipulated in section 22-B(2)(a) of the Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that a Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission must strictly comprise the minimum number of members mandated by statute to exercise valid jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission require a minimum of three members to be properly constituted?
  • Can orders passed by a two-member bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission be sustained when the statute mandates a Full Bench of not less than three members?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Labour Union, Lakson Tobacco Company Limited through General Secretary vs National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad and 6 others1999 PLC 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  National Industrial Relations CommissionFull BenchquorumIndustrial Relations Ordinanceregularization of workerscollective bargaining agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside orders passed by a Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission consisting of only two members instead of the statutory requirement of not less than three members. The core legal question was whether a Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission could be validly constituted by two members, and whether the absence or inability of a member under subsection (4) of section 22-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 could cure an initial constitution of a bench with fewer than the mandated three members. The Supreme Court held that while subsection (4) saves proceedings where a properly constituted bench continues in the absence of a member during hearings, it does not apply where the initial quorum of a Full Bench of three members was not met ab initio. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission can validly consist of less than three members?
  • Does section 22-B(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 validate a Full Bench whose original hearing was commenced by fewer than three members?
  • How are section 22-B(2)(a) and section 22-B(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to be harmoniously construed?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Labour Union, Lakson Tobacco Company Limited through General Secretary vs National Industrial Relations Commission, 1Slama3' and 6 others1999 SCMR 1104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-13
  National Industrial Relations CommissionFull Bench coramCollective Bargaining AgentIndustrial Relations Ordinanceregularisation of workerspetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside orders passed by a two-member Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission on the ground that a Full Bench must consist of not less than three members under the relevant statute. The core legal question was whether a two-member bench could legally function as a Full Bench and whether the saving provision regarding the absence of a member cures the initial constitution of a bench with fewer than the mandated number of members. The Supreme Court held that while a Full Bench must initially be constituted with at least three members, the saving clause only applies when an originally properly constituted bench suffers the absence of a member during proceedings, not when it is initially formed with fewer members than required. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment that an initial coram of two members violates the mandatory requirement for a Full Bench.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission can validly consist of less than three members?
  • Does the saving provision regarding the absence of a member in section 22-B(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 cure an initial constitution of a Full Bench with fewer than three members?
  • Can a two-member bench lawfully exercise the jurisdiction of a Full Bench under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman and others vs Koural Channa and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-08-26
  Service TribunalStatutory CorporationCivil ServantDepartmental RemedyMaster and ServantService RegulationsTermination of ServiceReversionSection 2-A
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple appeals by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) against Federal Service Tribunal judgments regarding the reversion and termination of various employees. The core legal questions addressed whether the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, transformed statutory corporation employees into civil servants governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and whether departmental remedies must be exhausted before approaching the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that Section 2-A merely provides a forum for grievance redressal; it does not alter the underlying terms and conditions of service, which remain governed by the corporation's own regulations. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that employees must exhaust departmental remedies before invoking the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Rejection of departmental appeals without providing reasons constitutes improper disposal, rendering such appeals pending. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's orders that erroneously applied the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and remanded the termination cases for fresh adjudication in accordance with the applicable service regulations and the clarified legal position.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, convert employees of statutory corporations into civil servants governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Is it mandatory for an employee of a statutory corporation to exhaust departmental remedies before filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the rejection of a departmental appeal by an authority without assigning reasons constitute a valid disposal of the appeal?
  Read full judgment →