Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. 232,813 judgments in total.
- Syed Istijab Hassan and 4 others vs Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing), Board of P Event Je_Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1999 YLR 1627 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the initiation of inquiry proceedings by the Settlement Department concerning an urban land allotment. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to reopen a finalized allotment and initiate fresh inquiry proceedings on a miscellaneous application after the repeal of the Settlement Laws, particularly when an earlier challenge via a mukhbari application had been dismissed. The Lahore High Court held that upon the repeal of the Settlement Laws, Settlement Authorities became functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to reopen past and closed transactions or confirmed allotments where no proceedings were pending at the time of repeal. The Court ruled that entertaining a second miscellaneous application or initiating inquiries into a finalized allotment without surviving statutory jurisdiction is coram non judice and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that past and closed transactions under repealed settlement laws cannot be reopened or subjected to administrative inquiries by settlement authorities in the absence of pending proceedings at the relevant time.
Questions settled- Whether Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to reopen a finalized allotment after the repeal of Settlement Laws?
- Can a second mukhbari or miscellaneous application be entertained regarding a subject-matter already decided by a competent authority?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the authority to initiate inquiries into a confirmed allotment on a miscellaneous application filed after the repeal of the Settlement Laws?
- Syed Imam-Ud-Din Ahmed alias Arshad vs Muhammad Ilyas Abbas and another1999 PLC 29 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-08-28Read full judgment →
- Syed Hyder Ali vs Assistant Director, F.I.A. Commercial Circle Quetta1999 MLD 1527 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-08-05Read full judgment →
- Syed Humayun Zaidi and 4 others vs Mst. Hussain Afroza1999 SCMR 2718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property, filed by the respondent against the appellants. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell, executed by an attorney on behalf of the principals, remains valid if the power of attorney is revoked subsequent to the execution of the agreement. The trial court and the district court dismissed the suit, but the Peshawar High Court reversed this, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that a donor is bound by the acts performed by the donee in accordance with the power of attorney before its revocation. The Court emphasized that the revocation of a power of attorney cannot invalidate transactions already competently executed under that authority. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the discretionary power to grant a decree for specific performance must be exercised judicially on sound principles, not arbitrarily, and that parties cannot frustrate a valid contract by manipulating administrative processes like obtaining a No Objection Certificate.
Questions settled- Does the revocation of a power of attorney invalidate a sale agreement executed by the attorney prior to such revocation?
- Can a principal frustrate a valid contract by preventing the issuance of a required No Objection Certificate?
- Is the discretionary power to grant a decree for specific performance subject to judicial review if exercised arbitrarily?
- Syed Hassan vs Khalid Wan, Additional District Judge, Lahore and 31999 YLR 2559 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-06Read full judgment →
- Syed Hashim Ali Shah vs Special Judge, Central Lahore and 2 others1999 MLD 2237 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-27Read full judgment →
- Syed Hamad Baqar Rizvi vs Nafeesul Hasan Jafri1999 CLC 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-26Read full judgment →
- Syed Ghulam Abbas Shah vs The State1999 YLR 2680 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking pre-arrest bail after the petitioner's earlier bail was cancelled by the trial court due to his non-appearance. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused whose bail was revoked by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to his failure to attend proceedings and cooperate with the trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an accused who defaults on appearance and fails to provide a valid explanation for prolonged absence is not entitled to extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The court laid down the principle that the provisions relating to pre-arrest bail are not meant to aid accused persons who evade trial processes, and trial courts are fully justified in cancelling bail and issuing warrants when an accused deliberately fails to cooperate or appear.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a court of competent jurisdiction has already cancelled the bail and issued warrants of arrest due to the accused's non-appearance?
- Is an accused justified in seeking pre-arrest bail after failing to appear before the trial court and neglecting to provide any explanation for a prolonged absence following a short medical rest period?
- Does an accused person who fails to cooperate in the trial and evades the process of the court remain entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail?
- Syed Ghaus Anwar Shah And Others vs Makhdum Syed Waris Ghous1999 CLC 1581 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Fazal Ahmed Naqvi vs Laiquddin1999 YLR 1947 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
- Syed Farooq Ul Hassan Jilani vs Syed Rafique Ahmed Shah1999 YLR 1147 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Caterers through Afzal Shah and 2 others vs Government of Pakistan through Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad and 5 others1999 YLR 771 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed Bashir Hussain Shah and others vs Luqman Ather Khan and others1999 SCMR 1561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute regarding the allotment of land in village Sadoki, which had previously been litigated up to the Supreme Court, resulting in a final judgment and dismissal of a review petition in favor of the petitioners. Notwithstanding this finality, respondent No.2 filed a civil suit and subsequently approached the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, through separate proceedings based on consolidation records. The core legal question concerns whether initiating collateral proceedings before revenue authorities after the final adjudication of the matter by the Supreme Court constitutes an abuse of the process of law and contempt of court. The court held that the matter requires serious consideration regarding potential abuse of process and contempt. Consequently, the court granted time for the parties to produce additional documents and ordered the stay of the pending revenue proceedings before the administrative authority until the final disposal of the criminal original proceedings.
Questions settled- Does approaching revenue authorities after the final adjudication of a property dispute by the Supreme Court constitute an abuse of the process of law and contempt of court?
- Can a party initiate separate proceedings regarding land that has been subject to final binding judgments by the apex court?
- Syed Azmat Ali Shah and anothers vs The State and anothers1999 PLD Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under section 497 and section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the release on bail of two accused persons detained in connection with an FIR registered under section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and subsequently falling under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal questions involved the legality of remands granted by ordinary magistrates instead of the exclusive Special Court, the necessity of the physical production of an accused during remand hearings, and whether prior illegalities or delays in remand and challan submission could be regularised by a subsequent lawful order at a later stage. The Peshawar High Court held that for scheduled offences, the Special Court possesses exclusive original jurisdiction, making remands by ordinary magistrates illegal. It further held that the physical production of the accused at each remand is mandatory, and crucially ruled that subsequent lawful orders cannot cure or regularise prior statutory violations regarding illegal detention. Consequently, the petitioners were admitted to bail.
Questions settled- Whether a Magistrate of the 1st class has jurisdiction to grant remand under section 167 or section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for an offence exclusively triable by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Is the physical production of an accused person before the Magistrate or Court mandatory at the time of seeking a remand?
- Whether subsequent lawful remand orders or trial proceedings can cure and regularise prior prolonged illegal detention and statutory violations committed during the investigative stage?
- Does the failure to submit a challan within the mandatory statutory period entitle the detained accused to the grant of bail?
- Syed Aslam Ali Sabzwari, Superintending Engineer, Local Government1999 PLC (C.S.) 562 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-12-24Read full judgment →
- Syed Arshad Naeem and 5 others vs Atta Rabbani and 2 others1999 MLD 2267 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
- Syed Anwar Ali Shah vs The Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others1999 PLC 223 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
- Syed Altaf Hussain Bukhari vs Accountant-General, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1091 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
- Syed Ali Gul Shah vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Karachi, and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, an engineer, challenged the Sindh Service Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, which contradicted a prior High Court ruling declaring him a civil servant. The core legal questions were whether the appellant qualified as a "civil servant" under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and whether the Service Tribunal was bound by the High Court's determination. The Supreme Court held that the appellant is a civil servant, relying on the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, which retrospectively deemed employees of provincial corporations as civil servants. The Court held that while the Service Tribunal might not be strictly "subordinate" to the High Court under Article 201, it is bound to respect and follow High Court determinations that directly impact proceedings before it, rather than dissenting. The case was remanded for a decision on merits. The judgment establishes that statutory amendments defining civil servants have retrospective effect and that judicial forums must adhere to superior court rulings that directly govern the legal status of parties before them.
Questions settled- Does the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, have retrospective effect regarding the status of employees of provincial corporations?
- Is a Service Tribunal bound to follow a High Court's determination regarding the status of a petitioner when that determination directly impacts the proceedings before the Tribunal?
- Are employees of the Sindh Councils Unified Grades Service considered civil servants under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Syed Ali Gul Shah vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Karachi and 2 others1999 SCMR 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns an appeal against the Sindh Service Tribunal's dismissal of a service appeal for lack of jurisdiction, after the High Court had previously declared the appellant a civil servant. The appellant, initially a government employee, was absorbed into the Local Council Service (later Sindh Councils Unified Grades Service) and challenged the terms of his absorption, particularly the loss of past service benefits. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant was a civil servant and if the Service Tribunal was bound by the High Court's earlier determination. The Court held that the Service Tribunal, as a judicial forum directly impacted by the High Court's decision, should have accepted the High Court's conclusion. Furthermore, citing the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, XXXI of 1994, which retrospectively deems employees of corporations like the Sindh Councils Unified Grades Service to be civil servants, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant was indeed a civil servant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case remanded to the Sindh Service Tribunal for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Is an employee absorbed into the Local Council Service from government service considered a civil servant?
- Is a Service Tribunal bound by a High Court's determination that an individual is a civil servant, even if the Tribunal is not constitutionally subordinate?
- Do the insertions of Section 2(aa) and Section 3-E into the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973 retrospectively deem employees of corporations like Sindh Councils Unified Grades Service to be civil servants?
- What is the binding effect of superior court pronouncements on other judicial forums in Pakistan?
- Syed Ali Gohar Shah vs Asif Ali Zardari and 3 others1999 MLD 3258 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
- Syed Aijaz Ali vs Syed Muhammad Farid1999 YLR 1934 · Sindh High Court · 1999-06-07Read full judgment →
- Syed Ahmad Shah vs Lal Khan And 8 Other1999 CLC 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of an application for a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The appellant sought to restrain the respondents from alienating the disputed property during the pendency of the suit. The respondents denied the execution of the agreement and the receipt of earnest money, asserting the documents were forged. The core legal question was whether a temporary injunction is warranted when the underlying agreement is contested and whether the plaintiff faces irreparable loss. The Court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case as the disputed documents were denied. Furthermore, the Court determined that the appellant would not suffer irreparable loss because the principle of lis pendens applies to the property. Consequently, any subsequent alienation would be subject to the final decree, and any future alienee could be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed in limine, affirming the trial court's order.
Questions settled- Is a temporary injunction justified in a suit for specific performance when the underlying agreement is denied by the defendant?
- Does the principle of lis pendens adequately protect a plaintiff's interest in a suit for specific performance to warrant the refusal of a temporary injunction?
- Can a subsequent alienee of property be impleaded as a party in a pending suit for specific performance?
- Syed Ahmad Alam and others vs Syed Ahmad Mahmud and others1999 MLD 2902 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
- Syed Aftab Ahmed and others vs K.E.S.C. and others1999 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from petitions filed by employees of various federally owned or controlled corporations and authorities challenging judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) which had declined their appeals. The core legal questions involved whether the newly incorporated Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, applied retrospectively to causes of action arising before its enactment; whether employees under Section 2-A must meet the definition of "civil servant" under Section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973; and whether departmental appeals were mandatory before approaching the FST. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that Section 2-A, being a procedural provision, applies retrospectively. The Court also ruled that employees of organizations covered by Section 2-A are deemed civil servants for the limited purpose of filing appeals under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and are not bound by the exclusions or definitions in Section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Consequently, the Court set aside the FST's judgments and remanded the cases for decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Whether Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, applies retrospectively to causes of action that accrued prior to its enactment?
- Must an employee of a federally owned or controlled corporation meet the definition of 'civil servant' under Section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, to file an appeal under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Are the exclusions of contract employees and workmen under Section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, applicable to employees deemed civil servants under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Is a departmental appeal or representation a mandatory prerequisite under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, in the absence of statutory provisions or rules providing for such a remedy?
- Syed Afaq Hussain Shah vs Chaudhary Sadaqat AliK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 129 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
- Syed Abid Hussain And Another vs Government of Punjab And Other1999 CLC 2018 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
- Syed Rafi Haider Zaidi vs The State1999 YLR 70 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Abdur Rehman Shah vs Superintendent of Police, Mansehra And Another1999 CLC 855 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-12Read full judgment →
- Syed Abdul.Raheem and others vs Mst. Shamim and others1999 YLR 904 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-20Read full judgment →
- Syed Abdul Hameed vs Syed Boo Ali Shah Zaidi1999 MLD 2989 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal impugned an order passed by the Rent Controller requiring the appellant-tenant to vacate a rented shop and hand over peaceful possession to the respondent-landlord on the ground of personal bona fide need for his son to run a business. The core legal question was whether the landlord established his requirement for the premises in good faith, given his conduct in previous litigation and demands for enhanced rent and pugree. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord failed to prove bona fide personal need, as evidence and video recordings demonstrated negotiations for enhanced rent and pugree, revealing a motive to re-let the premises for financial gain rather than genuine personal use. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside, laying down the principle that a landlord seeking eviction on personal need must approach the court with clean hands and establish a bona fide requirement free from extraneous financial motives such as extracting pugree.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal need must establish his bona fide requirement in good faith?
- Is evidence in the form of a video recording admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Whether demands for enhanced rent and pugree by a landlord negate a claim of bona fide personal need for a rented shop?
- Syed Aasim Hassan and 2 others vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 17 others1999 P Cr. L J 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-25Read full judgment →
- Swedeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 1253 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-05-01Read full judgment →
- Surriya Bibi and others vs Ghulam Sarwar and others1999 SCMR 2277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted the constitution petitions filed by respondent No. 4 and set aside the election to the Special Interest Seats of the Town Committee Rabwah. The core legal question was whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to set aside an election through constitutional petitions on the ground of fraud, or if the exclusive remedy lay through an election petition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly set aside the election, establishing the principle that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and no premium can be given to an election maneuvered through the forgery and fabrication of a High Court order. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does fraud vitiate solemn proceedings including an election maneuvered through forgery?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under constitutional petitions to set aside an election vitiated by a naked fraud involving fabricated court orders?
- Must an election challenge exclusively proceed via an election petition even when a naked fraud and forgery of a High Court order is involved?
- Suresh Desai & Associates vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3605 · Delhi High Court · 1997-09-05Read full judgment →
- Surat Khan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1657 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
- Suram Chand Rahlan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 1560 · Delhi High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
- 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 · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
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?
- Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Jehangir and another vs The State1999 SCMR 2422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-25Read full judgment →
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?
- Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Irshad vs The State1999 SCMR 1453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-11Read full judgment →
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?
- Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Hameed and another vs Nafeesa1999 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
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?
- Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Fazal vs Kaura through Legal1999 SCMR 1870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
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?
- Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Aslam Khan vs The State1999 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-30Read full judgment →
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?
- Supreme Court of Pakistani Muhammad Ashraf and others vs Federation1999 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
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?
- Supreme Court of Pakistani Mst. Akhtar Begum and others vs Nawabzada1999 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-15Read full judgment →
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?
- Supreme Court of Pakistani Khuda Bakhsh and others vs Mijreed and others1999 SCMR 996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-16Read full judgment →
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?
- Supreme Court of Pakistani Khuda Bakhsh and others vs Deputy1999 SCMR 1589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
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?
- Supreme Court of Pakistani Ali Gohar Mazari vs Water and Power1999 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-07Read full judgment →
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?
- Sunshine Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Messrs E.D. Du Pont De1999 YLR 2162 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit concerns a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court raised by foreign defendants, who argued that forum selection clauses in their agreements and their non-residence in Pakistan precluded the Court's authority. The primary legal questions were whether the Court possessed jurisdiction despite these clauses and whether the defendants had waived their objection by previously filing and withdrawing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The Court held that it retained jurisdiction. It ruled that the defendants’ withdrawal of their earlier application constituted a waiver of their objection regarding the forum selection clause. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 excludes the applicability of Sections 16, 17, and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court affirmed its authority, noting that the cause of action arose locally and that the doctrine of forum convenience does not apply to claims for damages.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 constitute a waiver of the right to object to the court's jurisdiction based on a forum selection clause?
- Are Sections 16, 17, and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction?
- Can a defendant challenge the jurisdiction of the High Court solely on the ground that they are foreign residents, where the cause of action arose within the court's territorial jurisdiction?
- Is the doctrine of forum convenience applicable to a claim for damages?
- Sunny Flying Coach Service, Burewala vs Secretary RegionalK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 386 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sunderlal Daga through Legal Heirs and another vs Tax Recovery1999 PTD 119 · Bombay High Court · 1997-01-17Read full judgment →
- Sultana Bibi and another vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation1999 CLC 273 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit was filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, by the legal heirs of the deceased, Taj Muhammad, seeking monetary compensation from the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) following his death by electrocution caused by a fallen live electric wire. The core legal question was whether the defendant was liable for negligence in maintaining its electrical infrastructure and whether the death resulted from such negligence or an act of God. The court held that the defendant was liable, reasoning that the occurrence of the accident due to a fallen live wire under the defendant's exclusive control raised a presumption of negligence. The court established that once the plaintiff proves the death resulted from electrocution by a fallen wire, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that all reasonable care and precautionary measures were taken to prevent such an incident. Finding that the defendant failed to rebut this presumption or provide evidence of proper maintenance, the court decreed the suit, awarding compensation based on the deceased's projected lifetime earnings and personal expenses.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to an electricity utility company when a death occurs due to a fallen live wire?
- Is an electricity supply company liable for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, if they fail to maintain overhead lines properly?
- Can a defendant avoid liability for death by electrocution by claiming the accident was an act of God without providing evidence of proper maintenance?
- Sultan vs Muhammad Ramzan and another1999 YLR 797 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts which, while setting aside an ex parte decree obtained by the petitioner, also dismissed the petitioner's original suit. The core legal question was whether a court, upon finding that an ex parte decree was obtained through fraud or without jurisdiction, is empowered to dismiss the underlying suit entirely, or whether it must revive the suit for adjudication on its merits. The High Court held that when a court determines an ex parte decree is unsustainable due to procedural defects like lack of notice or fraud, it should set aside the decree and revive the original suit for a decision on merits, rather than dismissing the suit itself. The court emphasized that dismissing the suit prevents the adjudication of other substantive issues, such as the validity of land transactions under Martial Law Regulations and the potential entitlement to compensation. The principle laid down is that the scope of proceedings challenging a decree is limited to determining the decree's validity; once the decree is annulled, the original suit must be restored for trial.
Questions settled- When a court sets aside an ex parte decree on the grounds of fraud or lack of jurisdiction, is it legally permissible to dismiss the underlying suit, or must the suit be revived?
- Does the insertion of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a separate suit to challenge a decree on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation?
- Can a civil court examine whether an authority acting under a Martial Law Regulation has exceeded its jurisdiction or violated principles of natural justice?
- Sultan Sher vs Atlas Khan and anothers1999 MLD 776 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
- Sultan Mubariz through his Legal Heirs vs Gul Muhammad and another1999 YLR 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
- Sultan Mahmood vs Superintendent of Police, Lodhran1999 YLR 2297 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
- Sultan Mahmood vs Secretary Defence, Rawalpindi and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 485 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
- Sultan Mahmood and another vs The State1999 MLD 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ali and 24 others vs The State1999 MLD 454 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-26Read full judgment →
- Suleman Shah and others vs Nasrullah and others1999 MLD 249 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-29Read full judgment →
- Suleman and 3 others vs Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad and others1999 SCMR 2009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
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?
- Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through General Manager1999 YLR 2429 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
- Sudheer Ahmad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 664 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-10-13Read full judgment →
- Subedar (Retd.) Fazale Rahim vs Rab Nawaz1999 SCMR 700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-18Read full judgment →
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?
- Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-1999 PTD 3698 · Gujarat High Court · 1998-01-17Read full judgment →
- Stock Exchange vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and another1999 PTD 920 · Gujarat High Court · 1997-01-09Read full judgment →
- Stock Exchange vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2391 · Gujarat High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
- State vs Zafaryab and others1999 YLR 2087 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
- State vs Muhammad Ibrahim and others1999 YLR 1487 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
- State vs Muhammad Aslam and others1999 MLD 335 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-01Read full judgment →
- State vs Muhammad Amin1999 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-27Read full judgment →
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?
- State vs Benazir Bhutto and others1999 P Cr. L J 1157 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-25Read full judgment →
- State vs Abdullah Shah and others1999 P Cr. L J 1537 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
- State through Chief Ehtesab Commissioner, Muzaffarabad State through_4b5a2b6e1999 P Cr. L J 1097 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-01-25Read full judgment →
- State through AdvocateGeneral, Sindh vs Asif Ali Zardari1999 PLD Karachi 144 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
- State through AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P.. Peshawar vs Akhtar Munir1999 YLR 2635 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-09Read full judgment →
- State through AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Munir1999 PLD Peshawar 26 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
- Zahid Hussain vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. vs Sarfraz Khan and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1534 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. vs Khandar Ali1999 P Cr. L J 1593 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-09Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General, Government of Sindh vs Asif Ali Zardari1999 P Cr. L J 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General vs Manzoor Hussain1999 P Cr. L J 1150 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-16Read full judgment →
- State Petroleum Refinfry Petro Chemical Corporation Ltd. and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-11Read full 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?
- State Petroleum Refinery Petro Chemical Corporation Ltd. and others1999 SCMR 2146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-11Read full judgment →
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?
- State Life Insurance Corporation through Zonal Head Taseer Yousuf1999 PLC 240 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1999-02-19Read full judgment →
- State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Messrs Bibojee1999 MLD 2750 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
- State Cement Corporation Of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Customs, ExcisePTCL 1999 CL. 16 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Imtiaz Hussain and others1999 SCMR 2848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-14Read full judgment →
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?
- Star Textile Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan and others1999 MLD 3001 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-10Read full judgment →
- Star Textile Mills Limited , vs Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad And Others,1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1394 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Standard Mills Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3116 · Bombay High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
- Sri Agasthayar Trust vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3138 · Supreme Court of India · 1998-02-05Read full judgment →
- Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3492 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1997-01-22Read full judgment →
- Soomar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
- Soofi Muhammad Anwar. vs Mst. Badshah Begum and 6 others1999 SCMR 1475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
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?
- Solvex (Pakistan) Ltd. Through Managing Director vs Market Committee, Multan Through Administrator And 2 Other1999 CLC 49 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
- Sohail Hameed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Islamabad1999 P Cr. L J 1662 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-17Read full judgment →
- Sohail Ahmad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1980 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
- Smt. Shree Kumari Mundra vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2725 · Calcutta High Court · 1997-07-18Read full judgment →
- Smt. Shashi Jain vs Income-Tax Officer and another1999 PTD 2756 · Allahabad High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →