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.
- Smt. P.R. Sundari Achi vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1999 PTD 3790 · Madras High Court · 1997-11-28Read full judgment →
- Smt. N. Susheela Naidu vs Income-Tax Officer1999 PTD 841 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
- Smt. Mohinder Kaur vs Income Tax Officer and others1999 PTD 2751 · Allahabad High Court · 1996-10-17Read full judgment →
- Smt. Lajja Wati Singhal vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2054 · Allahabad High Court · 1997-01-08Read full judgment →
- Smt. Jamila Ansari vs Income Tax Department and another1999 PTD 534 · Allahabad High Court · 1996-09-03Read full judgment →
- Smt. B. Indira Rani vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3033 · Kerala High Court · 1996-11-05Read full judgment →
- Smt. Amar Kumari Surana vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 1780 · Rajasthan High Court · 1996-05-01Read full judgment →
- Small Industries Corporation, National Mazdoor Union vs Punjab1999 PLC 374 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1999-05-04Read full judgment →
- Skyline Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2772 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
- SJ-Iahjehan Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 524 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-05-06Read full judgment →
- Sivananda Steels Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1999 PTD 3023 · Madras High Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
- Sister Marry John vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary1999 SCMR 2335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-25Read full judgment →
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?
- Sirajuddin vs Government of Sindh and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 601 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-05Read full judgment →
- Siraj Ahmad vs Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab, Lahore and another1999 SCMR 1552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
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?
- Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. through Secretary vs Kemia1999 CLC 1076 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a decree for specific performance regarding the allotment of an industrial plot. The appellants, having allotted a plot to the respondents, unilaterally increased the premium rates. The respondents refused payment, citing the appellants' failure to provide promised infrastructure. The appellants subsequently threatened to cancel the allotment. The core legal questions concerned whether the transaction constituted a license or an agreement to lease, whether the contract was specifically enforceable, and whether the appellants could unilaterally increase the premium. The Court held that the transaction amounted to an agreement to lease, as it created an interest in the property, rendering the Easements Act irrelevant. The Court affirmed the decree for specific performance, ruling that the appellants could not unilaterally vary the agreed price or cancel the allotment for non-performance when they had failed to fulfill their own reciprocal obligations, such as providing infrastructure. The judgment establishes that an allotment creating property interests is enforceable, and a party cannot rely on time-essence clauses to cancel a contract if they have failed to perform their own essential obligations.
Questions settled- Does an allotment of land creating an interest in property constitute a license or an agreement to lease?
- Can a party unilaterally increase the premium price of an allotted plot after the initial agreement?
- Can a party rely on a time is of the essence clause to cancel a contract if they have failed to perform their own reciprocal obligations?
- Is an agreement to lease specifically enforceable when the parties have mutual rights and obligations?
- Sindh Employees Social Security, Karachi vs Modern Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi1999 PLC 210 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns multiple appeals arising from disputes regarding the liability of an establishment to pay social security contributions for employees engaged through independent contractors. The core legal question was whether, under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, an establishment is legally obligated to contribute to the Social Security Fund for workers employed via contractors. The establishment contended that such employees were not their direct responsibility. The Court held, relying on the definition of 'employer' and 'employee' in the Ordinance and established Supreme Court precedent, that the owner of an industry is liable for contributions for all employees working in connection with their business, regardless of whether they were engaged directly or through a contractor. The Court further held that when an employer fails to maintain proper records or submit required returns, the institution is legally empowered to assess contributions based on available evidence, such as ledgers and account books. Consequently, the Court dismissed the establishment's appeals and allowed the appeals filed by the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution, affirming the establishment's liability.
Questions settled- Is an establishment liable to pay social security contributions for employees engaged through independent contractors?
- Can an establishment be permitted to add new grounds of appeal at the stage of a second appeal if those grounds require fresh evidence?
- Does the institution have the authority to assess social security contributions based on ledgers and account books when an employer fails to maintain proper records?
- Is the non-examination of an officer of the institution in support of written comments fatal to the institution's claim for contributions?
- Sikandar vs The State1999 YLR 695 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Sikandar vs M.T. Eastern Navigater and others1999 CLC 996 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-09Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ali vs The State1999 MLD 212 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ali vs The Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 912 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ali Shaikh vs The State1999 MLD 1460 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-27Read full judgment →
- Siemens India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 1653 · Bombay High Court · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
- Siemen Pakistan Engineering Company Limited vs The Province of Punjab through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Punjab, Provincial Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others1999 PTD 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
- State through Advocategeneral, N.W.F.P. vs Farid Hussain1999 MLD 485 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
- State through AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P. Peshawar vs Naeemullah Khan1999 SCMR 143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-03Read full judgment →
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?
- Siemen Pakis'fan Engineering Company Limited vs The Province of Punjab through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Punjab, Provincial Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 244 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the amendment made to the Second Schedule of the Punjab Finance Act 1977 by the Punjab Finance Act 1997, which imposed a tax on companies at the rate of 1% of net income-tax payable subject to a minimum of Rs. 200. The petitioners contended that the levy encroached on federal legislative powers over income-tax, exceeded constitutional limits under Article 163 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and traversed the scope of the charging section. The High Court held that while Article 163 creates a legal fiction allowing provincial taxes on professions, trades, callings, or employments without being treated as income-tax, such power is strictly subject to limits fixed by Parliament. Since the Professions Tax Limitation Act 1941 fixed the maximum ceiling at Rs. 50 per annum, the provincial legislature lacked jurisdiction to levy any amount beyond Rs. 50. The Court further ruled that the taxable event is the engagement in a profession or trade, meaning the schedule could not compute the levy based on income-tax paid.
Questions settled- Does Article 163 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 preclude a Provincial Legislature from levying a profession tax exceeding the statutory limit fixed by federal law?
- Is the Professions Tax Limitation Act 1941 an existing law preserved under Article 268 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the schedule to a provincial taxation statute base the rate of profession tax on the net income-tax paid by an assessee when the charging section levies tax only on engaging in a trade, profession, calling, or employment?
- Shukar Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Bashir Khan and 4 others1999 MLD 1824 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-05-30Read full judgment →
- Shoukat Ali vs The State1999 MLD 539 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-22Read full judgment →
- Shoukat Ali and others vs Abdul Hakeem and others1999 P Cr. L J 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
- Shifaatullah Qureshi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary_Chairman, Railways, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), Islamabad1999 CLC 364 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff, an approved contractor, filed a suit against Pakistan Railways for recovery of dues for work done and damages for breach of contract after his claim was rejected by the defendant on 24-05-1988. Prior to filing the civil suit, the plaintiff sought relief before the Wafaqi Mohtasib, which recommended payment. However, on appeal under Article 32 of the Ombudsman Order 1983, the President of Pakistan set aside the Ombudsman's recommendations on 27-02-1992. The plaintiff subsequently instituted the suit on 12-03-1992, arguing that limitation should run from the date of the President's order or that the period spent before the Ombudsman and President should be excluded. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was governed by Articles 56 and 115 of the Limitation Act 1908, requiring filing within three years from the initial refusal date (24-05-1988). Proceedings before the Wafaqi Mohtasib and the President do not constitute civil proceedings in a court of law; thus, section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 does not apply to exclude that period. The suit was dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Does time spent pursuing remedies before the Wafaqi Mohtasib and President under the Ombudsman Order 1983 qualify for exclusion under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Which provision of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to a suit for recovery for work done and damages for breach of contract?
- Does a decision by the President reversing recommendations of the Wafaqi Mohtasib provide a fresh starting point of limitation for a civil suit on the original contract claim?
- Shibu Soren and 2 others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1999 PTD 555 · Patna High Court · 1996-12-20Read full judgment →
- Sherin vs Haji Mir Akbar through Legal Heirs1999 SCMR 2665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-15Read full judgment →
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?
- Sheraz Anwar vs Baha Ud Din Zakariya University of Multan And Other1999 CLC 720 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
- Sheral alias Sher Muhammad vs The State1999 SCMR 697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-13Read full judgment →
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?
- Shera vs (Mst.) Bafflshtan And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 308 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
- Sher Zaman vs The State1999 MLD 3242 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
- Sher Shah and anothers vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 503 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
- Sher Shah and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 834 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
- Sher Rehman Alias Tariq And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 34 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
- Sher Rehman alias Tariq and anothers/Accused vs The State1999 MLD 550 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad. vs The State1999 MLD 1758 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 109 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs The Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Gujranwala and 12 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 489 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-08-19Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Mrs. Qudsia Bano1999 MLD 3165 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Pakistan and 6 others1999 P Cr. L J 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties, Sargodha and 2 others1999 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
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?
- Sher Muhammad And Others vs Fateh Muhammad1999 CLC 846 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-17Read full judgment →
- Sher Khan vs Baz Khan and others1999 SCMR 2338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-06Read full judgment →
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?
- Sher Khan And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 457 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
- Sher Bahadar vs Haji Ghaffar Ali Khan and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 403 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 497(5) read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent by the Special Judge, Bannu, in a murder case registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary issue before the Peshawar High Court was whether bail could be granted on the ground of further inquiry merely because two accused were charged with firing Kalashnikovs at the deceased who sustained only a single fatal wound. Reversing the lower court's order, the High Court held that where the accused is directly named and charged in the FIR and witness statements, specific attribution of the fatal injury is not required at the bail stage. Tentative assessment established reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary bail in non-bailable offences must be exercised judiciously, and a deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage.
Questions settled- Does charging two accused for a single fatal injury automatically make the case one of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Can a court conduct a deep appreciation of evidence at the stage of deciding a bail application in a murder case?
- Whether direct nomination in the FIR accompanied by witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. constitutes reasonable grounds to disentitle an accused to bail in a capital offence?
- Sher and others vs Dost Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others1999 SCMR 2152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-02Read full judgment →
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?
- Sher alias Shera and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two accused persons charged under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an allegation of cattle theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite allegations of involvement in other criminal cases. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The Court observed that the offence under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the grant of bail the rule and its refusal the exception. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's reliance on a list of other alleged cases to be unreliable due to procedural irregularities in the documentation. The Court established the principle that a bail application must be adjudicated strictly within the framework of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, based on relevant and available material, rather than on extraneous or unverified allegations of prior criminal involvement.
Questions settled- Does an offence under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a bail application be rejected based on a list of other alleged cases that lacks proper authentication or relevance?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and its refusal the exception for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Sher Ali vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 242 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
- Sher Alam and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 81 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-06-24Read full judgment →
- Sher Ahmad Khan vs Naqibullah Khan and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1888 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-24Read full judgment →
- Shell Pakistan Ltd. through Legal Affairs Advisor and 5 others vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad through Secretary and others1999 YLR 166 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment disposes of several suits filed by importers of base oil in bulk, challenging the imposition of central excise duty at the import stage pursuant to section 4(5)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Notification SRO No. 571(i) of 1998. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the impugned SRO to base oil imported in bulk ship tanks rather than 'packs', whether lubricating oil and base oil are distinct, and whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under section 40 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Sindh High Court held that the word 'pack' cannot be equated with a ship's 'tank', and 'base oil' (raw material) is distinct from finished 'lubricating oil'. The court ruled that misinterpreting the law acts in excess of jurisdiction, rendering the statutory ouster bar inapplicable, and thus civil suits remained maintainable. The court concluded that base oil imported in bulk is not subject to excise duty under the impugned SRO, decreed the suits in favor of the plaintiffs, and ordered the refund of duties paid under protest.
Questions settled- Whether base oil imported in bulk via ship tanks falls within the definition of goods imported in 'packs' under SRO No. 571(i) of 1998?
- Can 'base oil' be equated with 'lubricating oil' for the levy of central excise duty?
- Does a misinterpretation of law by an executive authority or tribunal render its action without jurisdiction, thereby bypassing the bar under section 40 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944?
- Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to examine the validity of an administrative action when the authority acts in violation of the statute?
- Sheikhoo Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan and others1999 PTD 2421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
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?
- Sheikhoo Sugar Mills Ltd vs Government of Pakistan and others1999 SCMR 1129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
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?
- Sheikh Safdar Rashid vs Director Local Government and Rural1999 PLC (C.S.) 963 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-10Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Saeed Ahmed and anothers vs Abdul Wahid1999 SCMR 1852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-29Read full judgment →
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?
- Sheikh Rafique Ahmed vs Zia Shahid and another1999 SCMR 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-23Read full judgment →
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?
- Sheikh Qamaruddin vs District Judge/Election Court1999 SCMR 1582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
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?
- Sheikh Mushtaq Ali, Advocate vs Khalid Anwar1999 MLD 1533 · Election Tribunal · 1998-05-20Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Tufail and others vs The State1999 SCMR 2411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-29Read full judgment →
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?
- Shehbaz Ahmad vs Munawar Hussain1999 YLR 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Masood Zafar vs The Chairman, A.D.B.P., H.O. Islamabad and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 1458 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal was filed by the appellant, a Recovery Agent/Assistant of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, challenging the respondent Bank's action of merging the post of Recovery Assistants with Assistants instead of Senior Assistants pursuant to amendments in the Personnel Manual and failure to implement the Wage Commission Award regarding unified seniority. The core legal question concerned whether the respondent Bank could alter cadres and seniority contrary to the Wage Commission Award and integration policies, and whether the service appeal was barred by limitation. The Federal Service Tribunal held that since the departmental authorities had decided the appellant's departmental and review appeals on merits without raising the point of limitation, any delay stood impliedly condoned. Furthermore, the respondent Bank could not unilaterally alter or downgrade the status of Recovery Assistants contrary to the Wage Commission Award and integration policy. The Tribunal accepted the appeal with all consequential back benefits, laying down the principle that departmental decisions on merits without limitation objections preclude the Tribunal from dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds.
Questions settled- Does a departmental authority's decision on a representation or appeal without raising the point of limitation amount to an implied condonation of delay?
- Can a service tribunal dismiss an appeal on the ground of limitation when the departmental authority decided the underlying departmental appeal on merits without objection?
- Whether the management of a bank can alter or downgrade the cadre and seniority status of employees contrary to the directions of the Wage Commission Award?
- Shaukat Khan vs The State1999 MLD 957 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Javed Farooqi, Under Secretary Civil Secretariat, Lahore vs District and Sessions Judge, Lahore and another1999 SCMR 2141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-21Read full judgment →
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?
- Shaukat Javed Farooqi vs District and Sessions Judge, Lahore and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 1283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-21Read full judgment →
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?
- Shaukat Hayat vs Mst. Sahib Khatoon1999 YLR 666 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Hayat and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 1780 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali. vs Syed Shafaqat Ahmed and others1999 SCMR 2384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-18Read full judgment →
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?
- Shaukat Ali, Chief Corporation Officer, Multan vs Chairman, Punjab1999 PLC (C.S.) 637 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a civil servant challenging his transfer order on the grounds of political interference and violation of the transfer policy. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Lahore High Court examined whether it possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate transfer disputes of civil servants. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that postings and transfers are matters directly relatable to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is expressly barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court observed that grievances concerning violations of transfer policies or allegations of political influence must be addressed before the competent departmental authority or the Service Tribunal. The petition was accordingly dismissed as incompetent.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain a petition challenging the transfer of a civil servant?
- Does a dispute regarding the transfer or posting of a civil servant relate to the terms and conditions of service?
- Whether allegations of political interference or violation of transfer policies can bypass the jurisdictional bar of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Shaukat Ali vs The State1999 SCMR 2617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
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?
- Shaukat Ali vs Mst. Razia Bibi And Other1999 CLC 62 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The plaintiff asserted that defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell a 4-Marla plot to him but subsequently executed a registered sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2, who allegedly purchased the plot despite having notice of the prior agreement. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the Appellate Court reversed this decree on appeal, holding that a registered sale-deed takes precedence over a mere agreement to sell. The Lahore High Court exercised its suo motu revisional jurisdiction and set aside the Appellate Court's judgment. The High Court held that the Appellate Court failed to consider Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877—specifically whether the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide transferee for value without notice—and failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 and Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The matter was remanded to the District Judge for fresh determination.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can set aside a decree without deciding whether a subsequent purchaser is a transferee for value without notice under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Whether an appellate judgment that fails to address individual issues and evidence complies with Order XLI Rule 31 and Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a registered sale-deed automatically defeat a prior agreement to sell without evaluating the bona fides of the subsequent transferee?
- What constitutes a non-speaking or perfunctory judicial order that fails the test of proper legal adjudication?
- Shaukat Ali vs Messrs Zeal Pak Cement Factory and another1999 PLC 435 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs (Mst.) Razia Begum And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 138 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali Mian, Etc. vs Federation of Pakistan1999 P.C.T.L.R. 865 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-27Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali Mian And Another vs The Federation of Pakistan1999 CLC 607 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This litigation comprises 67 Intra-Court Appeals and 50 Constitution Petitions challenging the validity of the Foreign Exchange (Temporary Restrictions) Act IV of 1998 and State Bank of Pakistan Circular No. 23 of 1998. These measures restricted the rights of foreign currency account holders to withdraw, transfer, or hold foreign exchange, effectively freezing accounts. The core legal questions concerned whether these legislative and executive actions violated the constitutional right to equality under Article 4 and Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether they constituted an impermissible delegation of legislative authority. The Full Bench held that Section 2 of the Act and Circular No. 23 were ultra vires the Constitution. The court ruled that the Act conferred naked, arbitrary, and unstructured power upon the State Bank, violating the doctrine of equality. Key principles laid down include that even during a state of emergency, executive actions must remain subject to judicial review for compliance with the Constitution, and that executive circulars cannot retrospectively impair vested contractual rights or confiscate property without fair compensation.
Questions settled- Does the suspension of rights to operate foreign currency accounts under the Foreign Exchange (Temporary Restrictions) Act IV of 1998 violate the constitutional right to equality?
- Can an executive circular issued by the State Bank of Pakistan retrospectively impair vested contractual rights between banks and account holders?
- Does the conferment of unguided, arbitrary power on the State Bank of Pakistan to permit or restrict foreign exchange withdrawals constitute an impermissible delegation of legislative authority?
- Is the State Bank of Pakistan empowered to unilaterally liquidate foreign currency collateral against rupee loans at a fixed rate without fair compensation?
- Shaukat Ali And Others vs Jalal Ud Din And Other1999 CLC 1396 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 658 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
- Shauicat Ali and others vs The State1999 YLR 214 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
- Sharif Khan vs I.G. Police, N.W.F.P. and 6 others1999 MLD 1087 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-08-28Read full judgment →
- Sharif and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 871 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
- Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction) Akbar Khan alias Saleem Mehmood Chehi vs Government of the Punjab1999 SCMR 2713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
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?
- Sharfuddin vs Riazuddin1999 MLD 2137 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-22Read full judgment →
- Sharafat Ali vs The State1999 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-22Read full judgment →
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?
- Sharafat Ali Nisar vs The Punjab Local Councils Election Authority, 100,Shadman, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 15 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sharafat Ali Nisar vs Punjab Local Councils Election Authority and 31999 MLD 1814 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Punjab Local Councils Election Authority directing a re-poll for an electoral unit due to an alleged illegality regarding the allotment of election symbols. The core legal question was whether the Election Authority retains jurisdiction to order a re-poll after an election has been held, or if such disputes fall exclusively within the domain of an Election Tribunal. The Court held that once an election has been conducted, the Election Authority becomes functus officio regarding the validity of the election process. The ratio is that any illegality or irregularity in the election, including the failure of a Returning Officer to comply with statutory rules, must be challenged through an election petition before an Election Tribunal, as provided by the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Court affirmed that the Election Authority's supervisory powers are limited to pre-election matters and specific instances of interrupted polls under Rule 28, and cannot be invoked to declare an election void or order a re-poll after the election process has concluded.
Questions settled- Does the Election Authority retain jurisdiction to order a re-poll after an election has been held?
- Can the Election Authority declare an election void due to irregularities in the allotment of election symbols?
- Is the Election Authority's jurisdiction to interfere in election disputes barred once the election process has concluded?
- Does the non-publication of election results in the official Gazette confer jurisdiction on the Election Authority to adjudicate election disputes?
- Shana and 2 others vs The State1999 SCMR 1507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-16Read full judgment →
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?
- Shamsur Rehman alias Zahid Fazal vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1797 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
- Shamsul Arifin and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and others1999 MLD 3446 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-09Read full judgment →
- Shamsher Ali alias Shams Din vs Station House Officer, Police Station1999 YLR 1404 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-01Read full judgment →
- Shamsal and 3 others vs Iind Senior Civil Judge, Karachi and 2 others1999 MLD 655 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-21Read full judgment →
- Shamrez Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
- Shamraiz Khan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 128 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-07-17Read full judgment →
- Shamraiz and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1700 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
- Shamim Khan vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority through Secretary1999 YLR 410 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the cancellation of the allotment of a plot by the Executive Board of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, purportedly under Article 17 of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order 1980. The petitioner, a former government employee, had been allotted the plot in 1976 by the erstwhile Defence Officers Cooperative Housing Society for extraordinary service. The core legal question was whether the Executive Board was competent to cancel an allotment made by the defunct society on the ground of the allottee's non-eligibility for membership, and whether existence of factual disputes bars writ jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the mere existence of a factual controversy does not bar the maintainability of a petition under Article 199 unless the dispute is substantial and requires elaborate inquiry. The Court further held that the power to cancel allotments under Article 17(h) of the 1980 Order is an exceptional power limited to allotments made in contravention of bye-laws or resolutions, and the respondent authority could not sit in judgment over the discretionary decisions of the defunct society where the allotment was intra vires its powers. The impugned cancellation was declared without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does the mere existence of a factual controversy completely bar the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether the Executive Board of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority has the power under Article 17 of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order 1980 to cancel a past allotment made by a defunct society on the ground of non-eligibility for membership?
- Does an allotment of a plot by a housing society constitute a right in immovable property that cannot be arbitrarily revoked?
- Is the doctrine of promissory estoppel attracted when an authority calls upon an allottee to pay dues and restoration fees after the dissolution of a previous society?
- Shamim Akhtar vs Ghulam Ali1999 YLR 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-01Read full judgment →