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.
- Shamim Akhtar Khan vs Muhammad Yaqoob Zafar and 8 others1999 YLR 224 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
- Shamas Textile Mills Ltd. and others vs The Province of Punjab through Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Lahore and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from appeals challenging a common judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing constitution petitions filed against demands made by the Provincial Employees Social Security Institution for social security contributions calculated on the basis of workers' wages including a special allowance. The core legal questions involve whether the special allowance payable under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988 forms part of 'wages' under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, despite the exemption in section 8 of the 1988 Act, and the applicability of the doctrine of inconsistency between Federal and Provincial laws under Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the special allowance can be considered as part of wages for social security contributions and that where conflict exists, Federal legislation prevails. The key principle laid down is that beneficial labor welfare legislation must be interpreted to fulfill its statutory objects, and conflicting provincial provisions give way to overriding federal laws pursuant to constitutional distribution of legislative powers.
Questions settled- Whether the special allowance paid under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988 forms part of wages for computing contributions under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Does an inconsistency between a Provincial enactment and a Federal law result in the voidness of the Provincial provision to the extent of repugnancy under Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Are questions regarding the exclusion of certain employees from the purview of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 appropriately addressed through remedies under sections 57 and 58 of the said Ordinance?
- Shamas Textile Mills Ltd. and others vs The Province of Punjab and 21999 SCMR 1477 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the liability of employers to pay social security contributions on special allowances mandated by the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988. The core legal question was whether this special allowance constitutes "wages" under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, for calculating contributions, notwithstanding the exemption clause in the 1988 Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the special allowance is indeed part of "wages" for social security purposes. The Court determined that the 1965 Ordinance, having been adapted as a Federal law, prevails over the Provincial 1988 Act to the extent of any repugnancy under Article 143 of the Constitution. The principle laid down is that where a Provincial law conflicts with a Federal law in the concurrent legislative field, the Federal law prevails. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the definition of "wages" in the 1965 Ordinance is comprehensive enough to encompass such allowances, rendering the appellants' reliance on the 1988 Act's non-obstante clause ineffective against the Federal legislative mandate.
Questions settled- Does the special allowance payable under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988, constitute wages for the purpose of calculating social security contributions under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Does a Federal law prevail over a Provincial law in the event of repugnancy regarding matters in the Concurrent Legislative List under Article 143 of the Constitution?
- Can a non-obstante clause in a Provincial statute override a Federal law regarding social security contributions?
- Shakirullah vs Hidayatullah and 3 others1999 MLD 389 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of a trial court's refusal to decide a pre-emption suit based on a 'Special Oath,' which was subsequently overturned by a revisional court. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in declining to act upon an alleged oral offer and acceptance of an oath that was disputed by the parties and not recorded in the court's order sheet. The High Court held that the trial court's decision was correct. It established that courts must exercise caution regarding 'snap' decisions made during heated arguments or emotional outbursts, as these lack the necessary 'cool deliberation' and piety required for an oath. Because the alleged offer and acceptance were not recorded in the court's proceedings and were contested, the trial court was justified in refusing to dispose of the case on that basis. Consequently, the High Court set aside the revisional court's order, declared subsequent proceedings void, and remanded the case for trial on merits.
Questions settled- Can a court refuse to decide a case on the basis of a special oath if the offer and acceptance were made in the heat of the moment?
- Is a revisional court justified in setting aside a trial court's order that refuses to dispose of a case on a disputed special oath?
- Does the absence of an oath-related entry in the court's order sheet justify a trial court's refusal to act upon an alleged oral offer of oath?
- What is the legal effect of proceedings conducted by a trial court pursuant to an illegal remand order?
- Shakil Ahmed vs Muhammad Rafique and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1137 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-09Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Khan vs The State1999 MLD 1584 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-12Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1999 MLD 679 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-03Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Rashid Ahmad vs President/Chairman, Executive Board, United1999 PLC (C.S.) 1293 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1999-06-05Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Naqi vs The S.H.O., Ferozabad Police Station, Karachi1999 YLR 1922 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Mir and others vs Provincial Government and others1999 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition was filed by petitioners against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Civil Judge and the District Judge, Kohat, which had dismissed their suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners, who were tenants-at-will, claimed proprietary ownership over the suit land under Martial Law Regulation No. 115, challenging the revenue entries in favor of the private respondents and the Provincial Government. During the revision proceedings, the petitioners sought withdrawal of their suit with permission to file a fresh one, admitting that their claim did not fall under MLR 115 but under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, and offering to pay the purchase price. The High Court held that the land had not been resumed under MLR 115, and even if resumed, it would revert to the Government rather than entitle tenants to ownership or allotment. Furthermore, a petitioner cannot set up an abandoned or unpleaded case in revision. The revisional jurisdiction is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors or statutory non-compliance, not general errors of law or fact. The revision petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can tenants-at-will claim ownership or allotment of land under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 if the land has not been resumed by the Government?
- Does unresumed land or resumed land under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 automatically confer proprietary rights upon occupying tenants?
- Can a party set up a completely new or abandoned cause of action for the first time in a civil revision petition?
- What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction regarding erroneous conclusions of law or fact compared to appellate jurisdiction?
- Shahzad Mir and anothers vs The Administrator, Municipal1999 PLD Peshawar 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Gul vs Additional Secretary Home, Government Of',N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 4 others1999 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land title and possession adjudicated under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) Regulation II of 1975. The petitioner challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed his writ petition, which had sought to overturn decisions made by PATA forums. The core legal question was whether the repeal of the PATA Regulation II of 1975 by the PATA (Nifaz-e-Nizam-e-Shariah) N.-W.F.P. Regulation II of 1994 invalidated proceedings and decisions already concluded under the former regulation. The Supreme Court held that the repeal did not affect rights, privileges, obligations, or liabilities already acquired or incurred under the previous law. Consequently, cases disposed of by Deputy Commissioners under the 1975 Regulation remained valid and unaffected by the subsequent repeal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the validity of the forum's jurisdiction, having himself invoked the appellate and revisional processes under the 1975 Regulation. The petition was dismissed, upholding the principle of continuity for proceedings concluded under repealed PATA regulations.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of PATA Regulation II of 1975 by PATA (Nifaz-e-Nizam-e-Shariah) N.-W.F.P. Regulation II of 1994 invalidate cases already decided under the former?
- Is a party estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of a forum after having voluntarily invoked its appellate and revisional processes?
- Do proceedings concluded under the PATA Regulation II of 1975 remain unaffected by the subsequent repeal of said regulation?
- Shahtaj Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Province of Punjab And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 93 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
- Shahnaz Bibi vs Gul Khan alias Haji Khan and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 868 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition filed by the petitioner, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, seeking the cancellation of pre-trial bail granted to respondent No. 1, who stands charged under section 10(2) of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 vide F.I.R. No. 64 dated 29-4-1998 registered at Police Station Gomal University, D.I. Khan. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether bail already granted by the Sessions Court should be cancelled when the case is already ripe for trial or challan has been completed. The Court held that, following the established precedents of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, it is not proper to cancel or recall bail once the case is ripe or trial is about to commence, notwithstanding any infirmities in the initial bail granting order. Consequently, the bail cancellation petition was rejected.
Questions settled- Whether bail once granted should be cancelled when the case is ripe for trial?
- Does the completion of challan and imminent commencement of trial preclude the cancellation of bail?
- Is an appellate or revisional court bound by Supreme Court precedents regarding non-interference with bail when trial is about to commence?
- Shahnawaz Shah vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation through Chairman_Managing Director or Secretary and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 67 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
- Shahmand alias Shamma vs The State1999 MLD 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
- Shahjee vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1062 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused, Shahjee, facing trial under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for car snatching at gunpoint. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the accused to post-arrest bail, specifically considering the prompt lodging of the F.I.R., on-the-spot apprehension by police along with the snatched vehicle and weapons, and the applicability of statutory delay provisions under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the accused was prima facie connected to the heinous offence of vehicle snatching, which constitutes an act of terrorism, and that the statutory delay ground for bail is controlled by the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court established that high incidence of car snatching and direct recovery of weapons and property from the accused disentitle him to bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an accused apprehended red-handed at the spot with the snatched vehicle and weapons is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of an identification parade vitiate the prosecution case when the accused is named in the F.I.R.?
- Whether the ground of statutory delay for bail is controlled by the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Whether vehicle snatching at gunpoint falls under the category of acts of terrorism justifying the refusal of bail?
- Shahida Paryeen vs Sami Ullah1999 CLC 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
- Shahid Raza Bhatti vs Magistrate Section 30, District Courts, Rawalpindi and 2 others1999 MLD 1847 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional writ petition was filed by the complainant challenging the order of a Magistrate (Respondent No. 1) dated 15-06-1998, whereby the Magistrate refused police remand and discharged the accused (Respondent No. 2) in a case registered under Section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether a Magistrate, while acting under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the initial production of an accused for physical remand, possesses the jurisdiction to discharge the accused. The High Court held that Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 only empowers the Magistrate to either grant physical remand or refuse it and authorize judicial custody; it does not confer the power to discharge an accused. The Court further clarified that Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 did not apply to justify such an order at the very inception of investigation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Magistrate's discharge order as illegal, unjustified, and untenable.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate exercising powers under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have the jurisdiction to discharge an accused person upon initial production?
- Can an order of discharge be passed under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused is produced before a Magistrate for physical remand under Section 167?
- What are the options available to a Magistrate under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when physical remand is requested by the police?
- Shahid Rashid vs Nasir Siddique Alvi and 5 others1999 PLD Lahore 181 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
- Shahid Pirzada and another vs The State1999 YLR 2678 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-21Read full judgment →
- Shahid Orakzai vs President of Pakistan, Islamabad and another1999 SCMR 1598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition, filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenged the validity of the Presidential Proclamation of Emergency and the subsequent suspension of the right to move courts for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The petitioner specifically contended that the expression 'any Court' in Article 233(2) of the Constitution did not encompass the Supreme Court of Pakistan, thereby preserving its jurisdiction. The Court held that the issues raised were largely academic or infructuous, as the core questions regarding the validity of the Proclamation and the suspension of fundamental rights had already been conclusively decided in the case of Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan. The Court reaffirmed that while it possesses the jurisdiction to examine whether the prerequisites for constitutional or statutory powers exist, the specific reliefs sought by the petitioner were no longer maintainable. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the impeachment or removal of the President under Article 47 of the Constitution is a parliamentary process that cannot be enforced through judicial proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the procedure for the removal or impeachment of the President under Article 47 of the Constitution be enforced through Court proceedings?
- Does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to examine whether the prerequisites for the exercise of constitutional power by a state functionary existed when an impugned order was passed?
- Is the suspension of fundamental rights under Article 233 of the Constitution subject to the principle of proportionality?
- Shahid Mehmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 171 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-11Read full judgment →
- Shahid Mehmood vs Muhammad Arshad and 2 others1999 SCMR 1875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court refusing to transfer criminal proceedings pending under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gujranwala. The petitioner had applied for transfer while concealing the dismissal of a previous transfer application, leading to the dismissal of his petition for non-disclosure. Simultaneously, the trial judge and Sessions Judge sought a transfer via reference due to alleged threats issued by the accused. The High Court rejected the reference, directing the trial judge to proceed and recommending measures such as registering cases or initiating proceedings under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if threatened.
The Supreme Court dismissed the leave petition, maintaining the High Court’s ruling. It held that granting transfer of a case upon threats made by an accused would produce unacceptable results, enabling motivated accused persons to secure forums of their choice through manipulation. The Court also observed that while a judge may ordinarily decline to hear a case without assigning reasons, where reasons are explicitly recorded for seeking transfer, those reasons are subject to judicial scrutiny and must meet statutory standards.
Questions settled- Can a criminal case be transferred from a trial judge merely because the accused has extended threats to the judge?
- Whether an application for transfer of a case can be dismissed solely on the ground of suppression of a previous rejected transfer application?
- Are reasons assigned by a trial judge for declining to hear a case subject to judicial scrutiny when expressed on record?
- Shahid Mahmood vs The Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited1999 PLC (C.S.) 247 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
- Shahid Mahmood Alias Pappu vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
- Shahid Iqbal vs The State1999 MLD 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-07Read full judgment →
- Shahid Hayat and 2 otherss/Accused vs The State1999 PLD Karachi 162 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three criminal bail applications filed by Shahid Hayat Khan, Wajid Ali Durrani, and Major (Retd.) Masood Sharif Khan in connection with an F.I.R. concerning an incident where Mir Murtaza Bhutto and several companions were killed in a police firing convoy operation. The core legal questions involve whether the applicants are entitled to bail on the grounds of a counter-version/rule of consistency, lack of direct overt acts, absence from the crime scene regarding the conspiracy charge, and medical grounds. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants' case did not qualify for a genuine counter-version due to mala fides and police attempts to cover up the crime, that presence or active participation and circumstantial evidence of a criminal conspiracy prima facie implicated them, and that medical grounds were unsubstantiated. Consequently, the court dismissed all three bail applications, laying down that the rule of consistency regarding cross-cases does not apply to manufactured or mala fide police F.I.Rs, and that criminal conspiracy, being hatched in secrecy, may be inferred from surrounding facts and conduct rather than direct proof.
Questions settled- Whether the rule of consistency for granting bail in counter-version cases applies when multiple F.I.Rs are registered with mala fide intentions by the police?
- Can bail be granted on the ground of absence from the scene of occurrence where an accused is charged with criminal conspiracy?
- How is criminal conspiracy established at the bail stage in the absence of direct evidence?
- What criteria must be satisfied to grant bail on medical grounds in non-bailable offences?
- Shahid alias Shadoo vs The State1999 YLR 552 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-21Read full judgment →
- Shahbazuddin Chaudhry and 3 others vs The Director, F.I.A., C.B.C., Lahore and 2 others1999 YLR 678 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two writ petitions seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered by the Federal Investigation Agency and an order directing the F.I.A. not to inquire into the subject matter of another police F.I.R., respectively. The core legal question revolves around the jurisdiction of the F.I.A. to investigate offenses involving private banking companies and loan transactions under the Federal Investigating Agency Act, 1974, particularly interpreting the expression 'matters concerning the Federal Government' in the preamble in light of the statute's schedule. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that offenses related to scheduled banks and financial institutions under the administrative control or regulation of the State Bank of Pakistan fall squarely within the F.I.A.'s jurisdiction by virtue of the schedule appended to the F.I.A. Act, 1974. The Court laid down the principle that the preamble of a statute must be interpreted using a purposive 'mischief rule' approach alongside the enacting parts and the schedule, and further reiterated that a fugitive from justice who has been declared a proclaimed offender has no right of audience before the court.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Investigating Agency have jurisdiction to investigate offenses relating to private banking companies and financial institutions under the Federal Investigating Agency Act, 1974?
- Can the preamble of a statute be construed narrowly to restrict the operative provisions and the schedule of the enactment?
- Does a petitioner who has been declared a proclaimed offender and fails to surrender to the process of law retain a right of audience in constitutional petitions?
- Does the filing of a civil suit for the recovery of a loan bar the registration and investigation of a criminal case involving fraud and criminal breach of trust arising from the same transaction?
- Shahbaz-Ud-Din Chaudhry And Others vs The Director F.I.A. CBC, Lahore And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 400 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shahbaz vs The State1999 MLD 344 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz and 5 others vs Mehr Muhammad and 6 others1999 MLD 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-22Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Ali Chandio vs S.H.O., Police Station, Ghaibidero and others1999 P Cr. L J 1670 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-04Read full judgment →
- Shahban and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 351 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
- Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-1999 PTD 2099 · Punjab and Haryana High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shah. Muhammad And 8 Others vs Shaukat Ali And 17 Other1999 CLC 850 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-12-24Read full judgment →
- Shah Zameen vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 256 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-30Read full judgment →
- Shah Wali vs Allah Bakhsh1999 CLC 45 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a civil miscellaneous petition seeking the re-admission of a Regular First Appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of a delay of 119 days. The core legal questions relate to whether the negligence of a counsel constitutes a sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal and the condonation of delay, and whether an appellant is absolved of their duty to diligently prosecute a case merely by engaging a lawyer. The Lahore High Court held that the negligence of a counsel is not a sufficient cause for restoration or condonation of delay, and that litigants bear an independent obligation to remain vigilant and keep in touch with their counsel regarding the proceedings. The Court established that an appellant who remains inactive and fails to inquire about their appeal for months is guilty of gross negligence and lack of bona fides, and thus not entitled to discretionary relief.
Questions settled- Does the negligence of a counsel constitute a sufficient cause for the re-admission of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does the engagement of a counsel absolve a litigant from the responsibility of diligently prosecuting their appeal?
- Can delay in filing a petition for the re-admission of an appeal be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 without showing sufficient cause?
- Is an unexplained silence and failure of an appellant to inquire about their case for several months considered gross negligence?
- Shah Wali Khan vs The State and another1999 YLR 1594 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-21Read full judgment →
- Shah Rasool and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-08-25Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz vs Umar Daraz And 9 Other1999 CLC 1883 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenges an appellate court order that dismissed the petitioner's suit for lack of jurisdiction. The dispute concerns the transfer of land by the Land Commission to the respondent, which the petitioner alleged was illegal, claiming the land belonged to their predecessor. The core legal question is whether Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 grants Civil Courts jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging orders passed by the Land Commission under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The Court held that Paragraph 26 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 expressly bars the jurisdiction of all courts, including the High Court and Supreme Court, in matters the Commission is empowered to determine. The ratio established is that where a special tribunal is created by statute to determine rights, its jurisdiction is exclusive, and Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 inherently recognizes this exception. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that administrative errors by such commissions must be corrected through the hierarchy of the commission itself, as per Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897, and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court by the consent or opinion of administrative officers.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order passed by the Land Commission under Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Can the jurisdiction of a Civil Court be conferred or expanded by the consent or opinion of administrative officers?
- Does Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow for the trial of suits where jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred by another statute?
- Can a wrong or unwarranted order passed by a statutory authority be corrected by a Civil Court, or must it be addressed through the authority's own hierarchy?
- Shah Nawaz and 3 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1076 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz and 3 others vs Lahore Development Authority through Director-General, L.D.A. and 50 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, who are Diploma Engineers holding the post of Sub-Divisional Officers in BS-17 within the Lahore Development Authority, filed a constitutional writ petition challenging the preparation and maintenance of separate seniority lists for Diploma Engineers and Graduate Engineers, which excluded Diploma Holders from consideration for promotion to BS-18. The petitioners had submitted departmental representations to the authorities between December 1993 and April 1994, which remained undecided. The respondents contested the maintainability of the writ petition on grounds including master-and-servant principles, the non-statutory nature of regulations, and the binding effect of a prior civil court judgment. The Lahore High Court held that public functionaries are under a constitutional duty and obligation under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to address and decide citizens' grievances and representations within a reasonable time, and that the writ petition was maintainable. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition with a direction to the relevant respondent authority to decide the pending representations of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law within one month.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the failure of public functionaries to decide departmental representations regarding seniority lists?
- Does the principle of master-and-servant bar a writ petition when public authorities fail to act in accordance with law?
- Are public functionaries legally bound to decide representations submitted by citizens within a reasonable time under the Constitution?
- Shah Nawaz alias Shadu vs The State1999 YLR 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-27Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shah Muhammad, who is accused of involvement in a criminal case registered under Section 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was alleged to have transported the co-accused to the crime scene on his tractor and instigated the shooting by raising a Lalkara. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who allegedly did not cause direct physical injury but facilitated the commission of the offence, was entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner played an active role in the commission of the offence by transporting the co-accused and facilitating the incident. The Court determined that the case did not fall under the category of 'further inquiry' and that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, affirming that active participation in the commission of a serious crime precludes the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does the act of transporting co-accused to the scene of a crime and raising a Lalkara constitute active participation sufficient to deny bail?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically preclude the grant of bail?
- Is a case of alleged facilitation of a crime considered a case of 'further inquiry' for the purpose of bail?
- Shah Ghulam Qadir vs Iqbal Razzaq Butt and 3 others1999 MLD 1933 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
- Shah Faisal vs Messrs Hakimsons Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and another1999 PLC 393 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-04-16Read full judgment →
- Shafqat Ali vs The State1999 MLD 2940 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-22Read full judgment →
- Shafkat Hussain vs Secretary to Government of Sindh, Home1999 MLD 3025 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
- Shafiul Mulk vs Chairman, Agriculture Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad And 5 Other1999 CLC 1892 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-15Read full judgment →
- Shafiquddin vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1196 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-05Read full judgment →
- Shafiqan Bibi vs Senior Civil Judge/Judge, Family Court, Okara And1999 CLC 160 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner wife instituted suits for recovery of maintenance, dower, and dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'. The Family Court decreed all suits on 2-5-1997, but conditioned the dissolution of marriage on the petitioner forfeiting her claim to dower and past maintenance as consideration for Khula'. The petitioner challenged this condition via a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions were whether a Khula' decree can be made conditional on the return of benefits when the husband has not demanded them, and whether past maintenance constitutes a returnable benefit. The High Court held that while dower is a benefit received from the husband and is returnable as consideration for Khula', past maintenance is not a benefit received from the husband but rather a legal obligation for sustenance during wedlock, and therefore it is not returnable. The Court laid down the principle that past maintenance cannot be made a condition for the grant of Khula' and remains recoverable by the wife.
Questions settled- Whether a decree dissolving marriage on the basis of Khula' can be passed without the return of benefits when the husband has not made a demand for their return?
- Is past maintenance allowance a benefit returnable as consideration for a decree of Khula'?
- Can a wife be required to relinquish her right to previously decreed dower as a condition for the dissolution of marriage through Khula'?
- Shafiqan Bibi vs Senior Civil Judge Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-13Read full judgment →
- Shafiq Ahmed vs Member, Board of Revenue and 3 others1999 MLD 3252 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-20Read full judgment →
- Shafi Muhammad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 890 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Shafi Muhammad seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 34, and 337-H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant, whose only overt act alleged is firing in the air without causing any injury to the deceased or anyone else, is entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant's responsibility could not be equated with the co-accused who actually fired fatal shots at the deceased, and the applicability of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a matter to be determined during trial after recording evidence. Consequently, the court confirmed the bail granted to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is only alleged to have fired in the air without causing any firearm injury, and the question of vicarious liability under section 34 requires assessment of evidence, a case for further inquiry is made out under the statutory provisions for bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused charged with firing in the air during a murder incident is entitled to post-arrest bail when no injury is attributed to him?
- Can the applicability of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be conclusively determined at the bail stage without recording evidence?
- Does the absence of an overt act causing physical harm to the victim warrant the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Shafi Muhammad vs General Manager, Messrs Muslim Commercial1999 PLC (C.S.) 1096 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-23Read full judgment →
- Shafi Muhammad Mangnejo and others vs Haji Khan Mangnejo1999 P Cr. L J 1693 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-27Read full judgment →
- Shad Muhammad vs Messrs Hakim Sons Chemical Industries (Pvt.)1999 PLC 463 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-04-16Read full judgment →
- Shabhir Hussain vs D.C. Sargodha And OtherK.L.R 1999 Civil Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-20Read full judgment →
- Shabeer Hussain Shah vs The State and another1999 YLR 1334 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
- Shabeer Ahmad alias Shibli vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 337-F(v) read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Channi Goth, District Bahawalpur. The core legal question is whether an accused charged with an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be denied bail due to exceptional circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that notwithstanding the offense falling outside the prohibitory clause, bail may be refused in extraordinary circumstances, such as the petitioner inflicting injuries resulting in permanent disability and multiple surgeries to the complainant. The court laid down the principle that the exceptional circumstances warranting the refusal of bail in non-prohibitory offenses are not exhaustive, and the gravity and nature of the injury can justify the denial of bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with observations regarding moving for bail afresh under certain conditions.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be refused for an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are the extraordinary and exhaustive circumstances for refusing bail as outlined in Tariq Bashir's case exhaustive?
- Does causing a permanent disability through a physical injury constitute an exceptional circumstance to deny post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused seek bail afresh before the trial court after the recording of material evidence or upon delay in the trial?
- Shabbir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 351 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain and others vs The State1999 MLD 2332 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ali and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan and 6 others1999 MLD 2742 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmed vs The State1999 YLR 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-16Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 304 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-14Read full judgment →
- Sh. Saeed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 959 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-22Read full judgment →
- SH. Mustaq Ali, Advocate vs Khalid Anwan And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 214 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-07Read full judgment →
- Sh. Mahboob Ahmad vs S.H.O., Police Station Rail Bazar, Faisalabad and others1999 PLD Lahore 390 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-13Read full judgment →
- Sh. Liaquat Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad1999 SCMR 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenged the establishment of military courts for the trial of civilians. The core legal question was whether Ordinance No. XII of 1998, which authorized military courts to try civilians for specific offenses, was constitutional and within lawful authority. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the establishment of military courts for the trial of civilians under the said Ordinance was unconstitutional, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. The Court set aside unexecuted sentences, transferred pending cases to Anti-Terrorist Courts, and protected executed sentences as past and closed transactions. Additionally, the Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for the speedy trial of terrorism cases by Special Courts established under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, ensuring compliance with constitutional parameters and judicial oversight.
Questions settled- Are military courts established for the trial of civilians under Ordinance No. XII of 1998 constitutional?
- What happens to the cases and unexecuted sentences of civilians previously tried by military courts upon such courts being declared unconstitutional?
- Can the Armed Forces be called in to assist in the administration of justice involving the trial and adjudication of guilt of civilians?
- Sh. Karim Dad and others vs Assistant Commissioner and others1999 MLD 2371 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-03Read full judgment →
- SH. Ghulam Muhammad And Others vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Muridke, through Nazir Ahmad, Manager1999 P.C.T.L.R. 87 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sh. Ajaz Rasool vs Vice-Chancellor, Karachi University, Karachi and 31999 CLC 1942 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a Professor and Chairman of the Department of Microbiology at Karachi University seeking to restrain the university authorities from removing him from his position before the expiry of his three-year term. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the writ petition in light of university employees being deemed civil servants under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, whether a cause of action had accrued at the stage of a pending committee inquiry, and the legality of the committee constituted by the Syndicate. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was premature because no adverse final order or notice had been issued against the petitioner, and he was not an aggrieved person at the mere stage of a Syndicate meeting and committee investigation. The court also held that a writ petition cannot be maintained against anticipated actions or premature proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition in limine, establishing the principle that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked against preliminary deliberations or before a final actionable grievance arises.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a mere show-cause notice, pending inquiry, or anticipated administrative action?
- Can an employee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when no final adverse order has been passed against them?
- Whether university employees fall under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal as civil servants under the relevant provincial legislation?
- Sh. Abdur Rahim, Allah Ditta. vs Federation Of Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1999 CL. 493 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals challenged the vires of a notification issued under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, which imposed a "regulatory duty" on imported iron and steel scrap. The appellants contended that the Federal Legislature lacked the competence to enact this provision under Item 43 of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, arguing that "regulatory duty" was distinct from "customs duty." They further argued that the provision constituted an unconstitutional abdication of legislative functions through excessive delegation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the "pith and substance" of the "regulatory duty" is indeed a customs duty, falling squarely within the Federal Legislature's competence. The Court affirmed that the legislature did not abdicate its functions; instead, it established a clear legislative framework and policy, delegating only the discretion to implement specific details—such as rate adjustments within defined statutory limits—to the executive to manage fluctuating market conditions. This delegation was deemed necessary and constitutionally valid, as it did not involve the surrender of essential legislative power but rather the execution of a defined policy.
Questions settled- Is the levy of 'regulatory duty' under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, within the legislative competence of the Federal Legislature under Item 43 of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the delegation of power to the Federal Government to impose regulatory duties under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, constitute an unconstitutional abdication of legislative functions?
- Can the validity of a legislative provision be determined by the 'pith and substance' doctrine when the nomenclature of the levy is challenged?
- Seth Badruddin Ramzan vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 2315 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
- Seena International Medical College through Dr. Syed Noor Muhammad1999 MLD 2636 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
- Seena International Medical College through Director vs Government1999 SCMR 2110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Seena International Medical College through its Director sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of its writ petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had challenged the closure of the college by the Government of N.-W.F.P. The core legal question concerned whether an unregistered and unrecognized private medical college could lawfully operate and dispense medical education without fulfilling statutory requirements, obtaining affiliation, or securing recognition from the Pakistan Medical & Dental Council and University Grants Commission. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the college was operating illegally in violation of the applicable statutory provisions, lacked the requisite infrastructure, and was being run on a commercial basis without proper legal sanction. The ratio decidendi is that no private medical institution can be established or run without fulfilling the mandatory registration, recognition, and affiliation requirements under the law of the land, and unauthorized institutions lacking recognized status have no legal right to confer medical qualifications or impart medical education.
Questions settled- Whether an unrecognized private medical college can be established and operated without registration under the relevant educational laws?
- Does an institution have the right to confer medical degrees without being recognized by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and included in its First Schedule?
- Can foreign affiliation override the mandatory requirements of domestic law for establishing and running a medical institution in Pakistan?
- Whether the government has the authority to seal and close down substandard and unauthorized educational institutions.
- Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others vs Muhammad1999 SCMR 1296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which ordered the reinstatement of a respondent who had been employed as a Naib-Qasid for over 16 years. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s appointment was permanent or on a contract basis, given that the department unilaterally amended his appointment order after his initial selection. The Tribunal found that the respondent was selected through a proper committee for a permanent vacancy, and the subsequent unilateral modification of his status to contract-based was invalid. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the respondent was a regular employee. The Court further noted that the department's objection regarding the respondent's receipt of military pension was rendered academic, as the respondent consented to the deduction of the actual pension amount from his salary. The key principle established is that an employer cannot unilaterally convert a regular appointment into a contract-based one after the employee has been duly selected for a permanent position through a proper selection process.
Questions settled- Can an employer unilaterally convert a regular appointment into a contract-based appointment after the initial selection process?
- Does the receipt of a military pension preclude an individual from holding a regular civil service position?
- Is an employee appointed through a properly constituted selection committee against a permanent vacancy considered a regular employee?
- Secretary, Irrigation and Works, Lahore and another vs Ghulam1999 PLC 227 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
- Secretary, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others vs Abdullah and 2 others1999 MLD 2104 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-09-04Read full judgment →
- Secretary Works, Government of N.W.F.P. and others vs Hisamul Ahmad1999 MLD 818 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-31Read full judgment →
- Sayed Shahan Aurangzeb vs Principal of Liaquat Medical College and Chairman, Selection Board, L.M.C., Jamshoro and 3 others1999 CLC 509 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-17Read full judgment →
- Sattar (Abdus Sattar) vs Mst. Salma Bibi and 18 others.1999 YLR 2351 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-19Read full judgment →
- Sassi Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi1999 YLR 428 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Sewing Machine vs WAPDA1999 CLC 1540 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-22Read full judgment →
- Sarvat Jamal Asmai And 2 Others vs Maj. Muhammad Ashraf1999 CLC 232 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-07-29Read full judgment →
- Sarhad Development Authority, N.-W.F.P. through Project Manager, Galdanian Phosphate Exploration Project, Abbottabad vs Jehanzeb and another1999 PLC 377 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which had dismissed the petitioner's application to set aside an earlier order directing payment of wages and compensation. The petitioner argued that the initial order was passed ex parte and that no appeal lay against such an order. The respondent contended that the order was not ex parte, as the petitioner's defence had been struck off due to failure to produce evidence, and that the order was appealable. The Court held that the order was not ex parte, as it was based on available evidence after the petitioner's defence was struck off for non-prosecution. Consequently, the application to set aside the order was correctly dismissed. The Court further held that the order passed under section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, was appealable under section 17 of the same Act. As an adequate alternative remedy of appeal existed, the Court ruled that the constitutional petition was not maintainable, emphasizing that parties cannot circumvent statutory appellate remedies by invoking writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is an order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936, where the defence was struck off for non-production of evidence, considered an ex parte order?
- Does an appeal lie against an order passed by the authority under section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner?
- Sarfraz Khan vs Ayub Khan and another1999 YLR 2350 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-24Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Khan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 74 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Khan and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 2115 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Ahmad Hiraja vs Water and Power Development Authority1999 SCMR 2828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court staying an inter se transfer of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the competence of the High Court to entertain a petition relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, particularly on allegations of mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, even when challenged on the grounds of mala fide. The Court further observed that grievances regarding transfer orders must be brought before the appropriate Service Tribunal after exhausting departmental remedies. The key principle laid down is that service matters, including transfers and postings, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the relevant Service Tribunal, and constitutional petitions before the High Court are barred in such matters.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant on grounds of mala fide?
- Can a civil servant challenge a transfer order directly before the High Court without exhausting departmental remedies and approaching the Service Tribunal?
- Sarfaraz Khan vs The State and another1999 YLR 2341 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
- Sarfaraz Ahmed vs The State1999 MLD 1233 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
- Sarfaraz Ahmed and 101 others vs Glamour One Properties (Pvt.) Ltd.1999 CLC 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
- Sardaraz vs Nazir Muhammad and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1020 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
- Sardar Wajid Ali vs Abdul Shakoor And 2 Other1999 CLC 858 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
- Sardar Sultan Ahmad vs Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq, Station House1999 P Cr. L J 592 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →
- Sardar Shujah Ullah vs Lahore Development Authority Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 452 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
- Sardar Shamshad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 565 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →