Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,813 judgments in total.

• Malik Zahoor Ahmad and others vs The State1999 MLD 653 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Sultan Mumbraiz vs Abdul Aziz and 15 others1999 YLR 482 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Malik Sikander Awan and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 568 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-10Read full judgment →
• Malik Salah Ud Din And 6 Others vs Collector, Land Acquisition, Peshawar And 3 Other1999 CLC 776 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-14
  land acquisitiondelayed proceedingsreasonable timeconstitutional petitionproperty rightscompulsory acquisitionquashment of notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the prolonged and inordinate delay in land acquisition proceedings initiated under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The land in question was notified for acquisition in 1990 for establishing a primary school, but the proceedings remained inconclusive for over eight years due to a lack of funds and departmental inaction, during which time the landowners sold the property to the petitioners via registered sale deeds. The core legal question was whether compulsory land acquisition proceedings can remain open indefinitely when no statutory time limit is prescribed. The Peshawar High Court held that in the absence of a fixed statutory period, statutory powers affecting property rights must be exercised within a reasonable time, failing which notifications become ineffective and constitute an unreasonable restriction on property rights under Article 23 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notifications and all subsequent proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 can remain operative indefinitely when no specific time limit is prescribed by the statute?
  • What constitutes a reasonable time for completing land acquisition proceedings in the absence of explicit statutory timelines?
  • Does an inordinate delay in finalizing land acquisition infringe upon the constitutional right to hold and dispose of property under Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be quashed due to prolonged departmental inaction and failure to disburse compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Riaz Ahmed vs Khalid Hanif, Deputy Commissioner, Hafizabad and 3 other1999 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-21
  Bakar Mandicattle marketurban local councilZila Councillocal governmentlease auctionslaughter house
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the lease of a cattle market in Pindi Bhattian, originally granted by the Town Committee to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the lease, citing the inadequacy of the bid and legal restrictions on urban local councils holding cattle markets. The core legal question was the extent of the authority of urban local councils to hold cattle markets or fairs under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, following legislative amendments. The Supreme Court held that while urban local councils are generally precluded from holding cattle markets and fairs—which fall under the purview of Zila Councils—they retain the authority to hold 'Bakar Mandi' specifically for the sale of cattle intended for slaughter within their local area. The Court clarified that the legislative intent was to create distinct operational compartments for rural and urban bodies. Consequently, the Court ordered a limited re-auction between the contesting parties for a lease restricted to a 'Bakar Mandi' for slaughter-ready cattle, emphasizing that such activities must strictly adhere to the statutory framework and the specific limitations imposed by the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Can an urban local council hold a cattle market within its local area under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is the holding of a 'Bakar Mandi' by an urban local council permissible under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the definition of 'market' in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, include a 'fair'?
  • Are the bye-laws regarding fees for markets a mandatory prerequisite for the validity of a lease contract by a local council?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Nazeer Ahmad vs Mazhar Hussain And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 107 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Malik M: Younas vs Registrar Cooperative and others1999 YLR 2637 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Mushtaq Awan vs Government of Pakistan and others1999 PLD Lahore 372 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-24
  Exit Control ListFundamental RightsRight to travel abroadProcedural fairnessAudi alteram partemAdministrative arbitrarinessConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former parliamentarian and minister, challenged the placement of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Federal Government following the dismissal of the federal and provincial governments in November 1996. The core legal questions involved whether the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, whether the impugned order was passed by a competent authority upon tenable grounds, and whether the petitioner's review application was lawfully decided. The Lahore High Court held that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and that safeguards of procedural fairness from the Passports Act must be read into the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance. The Court found that the initial order lacked proper material, was passed without lawful authority, and that the review application was dismissed arbitrarily without a hearing. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the order placing the petitioner on the ECL was set aside as without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right of a citizen to travel abroad a fundamental right under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Whether the safeguards of procedural fairness provided in the Passports Act, 1974 are to be read into the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981?
  • Can an order placing a person's name on the Exit Control List be sustained when passed without any tenable material or ground?
  • Whether the failure to afford a hearing upon a review application filed under section 3 of the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 vitiates the order?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Suleman vs Muhammad Shabbir Akhtar1999 YLR 1653 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-15
  civil revisiondismissal of suitnon-production of evidenceremand of caseappellate jurisdictionprocedural technicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a dismissal of a recovery suit and the subsequent appellate proceedings. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's suit under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the plaintiff was absent and failed to produce evidence on a date not fixed at his request, and whether an appeal against such dismissal was competent. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court misapplied Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. as the provisions were not attracted, and that the dismissal should have been treated under Order XVII, Rule 2 or Order IX, Rule 8, C.P.C. However, because a formal decree of dismissal had been passed under Rule 3, the Court ruled that an appeal was indeed the proper and competent remedy. The High Court affirmed the appellate court's decision to set aside the dismissal and remand the case for decision on merits, laying down that hypertechnicalities of law should not be allowed to non-suit a party and that appellate courts possess corrective jurisdiction to undo bad orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. are attracted when the adjourned date of hearing was not given at the request of the party concerned?
  • Is an appeal competent against a suit dismissal order passed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.?
  • Whether hypertechnicalities of law can be used to non-suit a party and deprive it of adjudication on merits?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a plaintiff whose suit is erroneously dismissed under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Sared vs Pakistan Steel Mills and others's1999 YLR 883 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Hanif Awan and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1859 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Farooq vs District Judge, Lahore and others1999 YLR 158 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ahsan Etc. vs Hameeda BegumK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 348 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ahsan and others vs Mst. Hameeda Begum1999 MLD 1941 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26
  civil revisiondismissal in defaultdismissal on meritsnon-prosecutionappellate court jurisdictionabsence of appellant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for possession through partition of a house, which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioners' subsequent appeal before the lower appellate court was dismissed on merits in the absence of the appellants and their counsel. The core legal question addressed by the court is whether an appellate court has the jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal on merits when the appellant fails to appear on the date of hearing, rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that under Order XLI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, an appellate court lacks the jurisdiction to decide an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant or their counsel, and its powers are limited to either dismissing the appeal for default of appearance or adjourning the hearing. The court laid down the principle that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution preserves the appellant's right to seek re-admission upon showing sufficient cause, whereas deciding an appeal on merits without hearing the appellant violates principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant or their counsel?
  • What are the available courses of action for an appellate court under Order XLI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the appellant fails to appear on the date of hearing?
  • Can an appellate court render a decision on merits when neither the appellant nor their pleader is present at the hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Ijaz Hussain and 5 others vs Syed Muhammad Ashraf Shah and another1999 YLR 2156 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
• Malik Gulzar Ahmad vs District Magistrate1999 MLD 2516 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-07Read full judgment →
• Malik Ejaz vs Abdul Haleem and others1999 MLD 1315 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-03
  territorial jurisdictioncause of actionrevisional jurisdictioncoram non judiceunpaid sellerright of lienstoppage in transit
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for the recovery of money against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the trial court at Mardan possessed the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit where the transaction, contract, and defendants' residence were all based in Lahore, and whether the failure to raise the jurisdictional objection properly at the trial stage precluded appellate review. The High Court held that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the cause of action arose entirely in Lahore, where the contract was executed and the defendants resided. The court rejected the lower courts' reasoning that the non-receipt of goods at Mardan created a cause of action there. Furthermore, the court held that the defendants had timely raised the jurisdictional objection in their written statements, satisfying the requirements of the law. Consequently, the court set aside the lower courts' judgments as coram non judice, ruling that a court lacking jurisdiction cannot pass a valid decree, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have territorial jurisdiction over a contract dispute if the contract was executed and the defendants reside outside the court's local limits?
  • Can an appellate or revisional court interfere with a judgment if the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction, even if the finding was concurrent?
  • Does the non-delivery of goods at a destination create a cause of action for territorial jurisdiction purposes if the contract was formed elsewhere?
  • What is the effect of an unpaid seller's right of lien under the Sale of Goods Act 1930 on the delivery of goods?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Allah Yar Khan vs Public Accounts Committee1999 MLD 2411 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Ahmad Khan vs Punjab Local Councils Election Authority and 31999 MLD 244 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Ahmad Khan vs Punjab Local Council Election Authority, Lahore1999 K.L.R. Civil Cases 24 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Abbas alias Muhammad Aslam vs The State1999 YLR 659 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
• Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3082 · Kerala High Court · 1996-09-09Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Khaliq-Uz-Zaman vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1081 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-21Read full judgment →
• Makhadi Gul vs Rabnawaz and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 845 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
• Major Muhammad Ahsanuddin Hussain' vs Commissioner of Income-1999 PTD 3632 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) Mir Mazhar Qayyum vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad1999 YLR 111 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31
  Exit Control Listfreedom of movementfundamental rightsdepartmental proceedingsexecutive discretionconstitutional petitionpublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the placement of the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List (ECL) and the subsequent refusal to remove it. The core legal question was whether the executive can lawfully place a citizen's name on the ECL and curtail their freedom of movement based on vague or unsubstantiated recommendations, particularly when only a departmental inquiry—devoid of charges relating to financial embezzlement, espionage, or subversion—is pending. The Lahore High Court held that the curtailment of a citizen's liberty and right to travel cannot be justified at the whim of the State without disclosing reasonable grounds or prima facie evidence of pending investigations or proceedings. The Court ruled that the bald assertion of Ehtesab Bureau recommendations, unsupported by any record of pending inquiries, fails to satisfy the requirements of fairness, justice, and reasonableness. Consequently, the impugned orders placing and keeping the petitioner on the ECL were declared without lawful authority and set aside. The key principle laid down is that state functionaries must substantiate the exercise of discretionary executive powers affecting fundamental rights with tangible evidence of public interest or pending legal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government place a citizen's name on the Exit Control List without providing reasons or disclosing supporting evidence?
  • Whether the pendency of a departmental inquiry involving no charges of embezzlement or corruption justifies restricting a citizen's right to travel abroad?
  • Does an executive order placing a person on the Exit Control List prior to a proclamation of emergency receive protection under Article 233(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are state functionaries obligated to act reasonably, fairly, and justly when exercising discretionary powers under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (R.) Khalid Latif Chaudhry vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 510 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-06-30
  service appealseniorityante-dated promotionlimitation periodsuccessive representationsnecessary partiesselection post
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an officer in the District Management Group (BPS-19), was senior to the private respondents in the 1990 seniority list. However, in the Central Selection Board meeting of February 1990, the respondents were approved for promotion to B-20 while the appellant was promoted later in January 1991. The appellant submitted representations claiming original seniority, which were rejected by the Establishment Division in December 1993. Instead of appealing within 30 days, the appellant submitted further representations in 1997 and filed a service appeal following a subsequent rejection letter.

  The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act 1973, seniority is reckoned from regular promotion. A civil servant cannot claim seniority over earlier-promoted officers without obtaining ante-dated promotion from the competent authority. Furthermore, the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant ante-dated promotion under Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Tribunal also held that repeated representations do not extend the limitation period and that failure to implead intervening senior officers rendered the appeal incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of a subsequent representation on the same subject matter extend the period of limitation for filing a service appeal?
  • Can a civil servant claim backdated seniority over earlier-promoted officers without an express order of ante-dated promotion by the competent authority?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to grant ante-dated promotion to a civil servant?
  • Is a service appeal maintainable if senior officers whose rights would be affected by the requested seniority correction are not arrayed as respondents?
  Read full judgment →
• Majeedullah through Legal Heirs vs Sher Ali and others1999 MLD 961 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
• Majeed and anothers vs The State1999 SCMR 2317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-28
  ocular testimonyinjured witnesscapital punishmentcorroborationinterested witnesscriminal appealmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of four individuals and causing injuries to a complainant, P.W. 13 Amir. The trial court sentenced the appellants to death, which the High Court subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the ocular testimony of an injured witness, who is related to the deceased and hostile toward the accused, is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of independent corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable because their presence at the scene is established by the injuries sustained. The Court affirmed that mere relationship or enmity does not render a witness "interested" or unreliable if their testimony is confidence-inspiring and corroborated by medical evidence. The principle laid down is that the testimony of an injured witness, being a natural witness, carries significant weight and can form the basis of a conviction without further corroboration, provided the witness is truthful and their presence is undisputed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the ocular testimony of an injured witness sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a pre-existing enmity or relationship between the witness and the deceased automatically render the witness's testimony unreliable?
  • Can an injured witness be considered a natural witness whose presence at the scene is established by their injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Maia Khan vs The State1999 YLR 2330 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hassan Zia and another vs Province of Punjab1999 SCMR 2362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-26
  civil serviceseniorityleave to appealadministrative lawstatus quoTehsildarsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an administrative decision by the Chief Minister of Punjab regarding the seniority of Tehsildars. The petitioners, appointed on a permanent basis in 1979, had their seniority fixed in 1996, including their training period, which subsequently led to their promotion to Grade-18. However, a 1998 notification withdrew this seniority, prompting the petitioners to challenge the Chief Minister's authority to alter seniority and exclude the jurisdiction of the competent forum. The core legal question is whether the Chief Executive of a province possesses the lawful authority to arbitrarily withdraw previously fixed seniority of permanent civil servants and whether such administrative actions can bypass established legal forums. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the issues raised required detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court suspended the operation of the High Court's impugned order and the notification withdrawing the seniority, directing that the status quo regarding the petitioners' seniority be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Executive of a province have the lawful authority to arbitrarily withdraw the seniority of permanent civil servants?
  • Can an administrative notification override the seniority fixed by a competent forum for civil servants?
  • Is the exclusion of a competent forum's jurisdiction by an administrative order legally permissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Khan and another vs Muhammad Zamin and another1999 YLR 1604 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-05Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Khan alias Moonda vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 609 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Hassan Harvi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1999 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19
  Ordinance making powersuccessive Ordinancesre-promulgation of Ordinanceeffect of repealsaving clausepending prosecutionconstitutional petitionnarcotics cases
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional writ petitions were filed before the Lahore High Court challenging the validity and continuation of criminal prosecutions under successive Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinances. The petitioners contended that the re-promulgation of successive Ordinances by the President without immediate Parliamentary enactment was unconstitutional, and that upon the expiry or repeal of the preceding Ordinances, prosecutions initiated thereunder could not be lawfully continued without express saving clauses. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions in limine. The Court held that under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the President possesses co-extensive legislative power with Parliament to enact Ordinances during emergent situations when the National Assembly is not in session. The Court re-affirmed that the re-enactment or re-promulgation of successive Ordinances on the same subject-matter is constitutionally permissible. Furthermore, applying Article 264 of the Constitution and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897, the Court ruled that the repeal or expiration of an Ordinance does not affect pending investigations, legal proceedings, or accrued liabilities, permitting prosecutions to continue under the repealed Ordinances unless a contrary legislative intention explicitly appears.

  Questions settled

  • Is the President constitutionally competent to re-promulgate or enact successive Ordinances on the same subject-matter under Article 89 of the Constitution?
  • Does the repeal or expiration of an Ordinance affect the continuation of pending criminal proceedings instituted thereunder in the absence of a contrary legislative intention?
  • Are the principles of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 and Article 264 of the Constitution applicable to criminal proceedings instituted under repealed or expired Ordinances?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Alam alias Mithu vs The State1999 MLD 2282 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Akhtar vs The State1999 MLD 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Akhtar vs Muhammad Zulfiqar Lone, Magistrate Section 30, Rawalpindi and 2 others1999 MLD 1852 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmed and 16 others vs Aziz and 2 others1999 SCMR 2239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-18
  pre-emptionpartial pre-emptionindivisibility of transactionco-vendeenon-joinder of partiesmutationagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit involving agricultural land. The land was sold to multiple vendees via an oral mutation, with each vendee's specific share clearly delineated. Respondents filed a suit for possession through pre-emption, which was decreed by the Trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the First Appellate Court dismissed the petitioners' appeal on the ground that one co-vendee had not joined the appeal, rendering the transaction indivisible and precluding a decree for partial pre-emption. The Lahore High Court upheld this dismissal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the specification of individual shares in the mutation effectively negated the finding of indivisibility and partial pre-emption. Furthermore, the Court sought to determine whether the non-joinder of a co-vendee who was also the brother of the pre-emptors constituted a fatal defect in the proceedings. The case addresses the legal implications of specific share allocation in pre-emption transactions and the procedural requirements regarding the joinder of parties in appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Where the share of each vendee is specified in a mutation, does this prevent the transaction from being considered indivisible for the purposes of partial pre-emption?
  • Is the non-joinder of a co-vendee in an appeal against a pre-emption decree fatal to the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad Bhatti vs The State1999 YLR 821 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mahmood & Pervez Associates through Proprietor vs Karachi Building1999 YLR 451 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
• Mahdi Hassan and another vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 499 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mahar Alam Gohar vs Mst. Huma Qaiser and 4 others1999 CLC 415 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-10Read full judgment →
• Mahammad Ali vs Director, Staff Development Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Labour & Services Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
• Maham Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 611 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mahabat Khan And Other vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 235 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mahabat Khan and 5 others vs Senior Superintendent of Police and 51999 MLD 2243 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03
  quashment of FIRforgerycivil litigationSection 195 CrPCspecific performancecriminal prosecutionadministration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought the quashment of an F.I.R. registered against them for offenses under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an agreement to sell that was also the subject of pending civil litigation. The core legal question was whether the pendency of a civil suit regarding a document bars criminal prosecution for forgery related to that same document under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the bar under Section 195(1)(c) does not apply when the alleged forgery was committed prior to the institution of the civil suit and the production of the document in court. Relying on the principle that the administration of justice is not sullied by the prosecution of a forgery committed before the commencement of judicial proceedings, the Court ruled that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not grant immunity to a forger. Consequently, the petition for quashment was dismissed, and the police were directed to conduct a fair investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding a document automatically bar criminal prosecution for forgery of that same document?
  • Does the bar under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to an alleged forgery committed before the document was produced in court?
  • Can a party use the production of a document in a civil suit to shield themselves from criminal prosecution for forgery committed prior to the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Madrassa Dar-Ul-Aloom Baqiat-Us-Salihat through Its Nazim-E-K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 78 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Madrassa Dar Ul Aloom, Baqiat Us Salihat Registered Through Nazim vs The Additional District and Sessionsjudge, Lahore And Another1999 CLC 181 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
• Madhu Silica (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and another1999 PTD 2424 · Gujarat High Court · 1995-09-12Read full judgment →
• M.Saleem vs Muhammad Shafiq Deputy Director1999 P.C.T.L.R. 397 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• M.P. Khan and another vs Justice (Retd) Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and others1999 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-23
  Presidential electionnomination paperselectoral collegeMajlis-e-Shooraconstitutional requirementsproposer and seconder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the rejection of the petitioners' nomination papers for the election to the office of the President of Pakistan. The petitioners challenged the decision of the Acting Chief Election Commissioner, who had rejected their nominations because they were not proposed or seconded by any member of the electoral college, as mandated by the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the nomination papers for the Presidential election were validly submitted without the required proposer and seconder. The Supreme Court held that the rejection was correct, as the Constitution explicitly requires that a candidate's nomination paper be signed by a proposer and a seconder who are members of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or a Provincial Assembly. The Court affirmed that compliance with the procedural requirements set out in the Second Schedule to the Constitution is mandatory for a valid nomination. Finding no illegality in the lower court's order and noting that some petitions were time-barred, the Supreme Court dismissed all petitions for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a candidate for the office of the President of Pakistan to have their nomination paper signed by a proposer and a seconder?
  • Does the electoral college for the election of the President of Pakistan consist of members of the Majlis-e-Shoora and Provincial Assemblies?
  • Can nomination papers for the office of the President be accepted if they fail to comply with the requirements of the Second Schedule to the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• M.N. Salar vs The StateK.L.R. Criminal Cases 37 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
• M.D.Tah Ir, Advocate vs Federal Government and others1999 MLD 2780 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-29Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Government of the Punjab through Chief1999 PLC (C.S.) 1524 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Government of the Punjab through Chief1999 MLD 2579 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Federal Government and others1999 PLD Lahore 409 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-02
  Acting Chief Justiceconstitutional conventionPresidential discretionappointment of judgesfrivolous litigationlocus standijudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a constitutional petition filed by an Advocate of the Supreme Court challenging the Federal Government's notification appointing a junior judge as Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, seeking instead the appointment of the Senior Puisne Judge based on alleged constitutional conventions and precedents. The core legal question was whether the President's discretionary power under Article 196 of the Constitution to appoint an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court is fettered by any unwritten convention requiring the appointment of the next senior-most judge. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the President enjoys absolute discretion under Article 196 to appoint any High Court judge as Acting Chief Justice, and that any alleged convention in conflict with an express constitutional provision cannot be enforced. Furthermore, the court held that discretionary acts of the President under Article 48(2) are immune from judicial challenge, and strongly deprecated the filing of frivolous public interest litigation aimed at cheap publicity, imposing costs on the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an established constitutional convention can override an express provision of the Constitution regarding the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice?
  • Does the President have absolute discretion under Article 196 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in appointing an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court?
  • Can the discretionary acts of the President done under Article 48 of the Constitution be called in question before a court?
  • Whether a writ petition challenging the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice is maintainable against the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• M.A.E. Paes vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3447 · Bombay High Court · 1997-09-17Read full judgment →
• M.A. Rashid Rana vs Chief Secretary1999 PLC (C.S.) 623 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25
  constitutional petitionservice tribunalimplementation of judgmentdate of birthwrit petitionsuspension of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking a direction to the respondent to implement the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 6-12-1997, which had declared the petitioner's date of birth to be 13th of March, 1939, rather than 13th of March, 1937. The core legal question was whether the respondent was under a legal obligation to implement the Tribunal's judgment and whether the mere filing of an appeal operated as a suspension of that judgment. The Court held that the respondent is under a legal obligation to give effect to the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, as the filing of an appeal does not operate as an automatic suspension of the Tribunal's judgment. The key principle laid down is that authorities are bound to implement service tribunal judgments unless stayed by a superior court, and non-compliance permits aggrieved parties to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the filing of an appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal operates as an automatic suspension of the judgment?
  • Can an aggrieved party invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for the non-compliance of a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment?
  • Is a respondent under a legal obligation to give effect to the declaration of a service tribunal regarding a civil servant's date of birth?
  Read full judgment →
• M.A. Jabbar and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 5 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 686 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28
  writ of quo warrantoinitial appointmentterms and conditions of servicebar of jurisdictionrelaxation of experiencelachesENERCONstatutory rules vs resolution
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Managing Director (BS-21) of the National Energy Conservation Centre (ENERCON). The petitioners contended that the appointment was illegal, made without advertisement, and in violation of rules requiring 20 years of management experience. The core legal questions were whether the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applied to initial appointments, whether subordinate rules overrode the parent establishing Resolution conferring discretionary appointment power upon the Federal Government, and whether a writ of quo warranto lies when an appointee matures the requisite qualifications during petition pendency. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that challenges to initial appointments do not pertain to terms and conditions under Article 212, but the petitions were barred by laches. On the merits, the parent Resolution prevailed over subsequent rules, experience requirements were relaxable, and a writ of quo warranto cannot issue where the incumbent matures the required qualification/experience before final decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan apply to constitutional petitions challenging an initial appointment to a public office?
  • Can a writ of quo warranto be issued against an incumbent of a public office if he acquires the requisite qualifications and experience during the pendency of the writ petition?
  • Do subordinate rules framed under an administrative resolution prevail over the provisions and discretionary powers conferred by the parent resolution in case of a conflict?
  • Can unexplained delay in challenging an initial appointment to a public office render a constitutional petition unmaintainable on the ground of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Zafar Abbas vs Commissioner and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 931 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• M. Wahidullah a N Sari through his Legal Heirs and 8 othersDefendants vs Zureda Sharif and another1999 YLR 1127 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-25Read full judgment →
• M. Saleem-Ur-Rehman, Inspector Legal vs Secretary to Government1999 PLC (C.S.) 1347 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• M. Naeem Khan vs Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur and others1999 PLC 9 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
• M. Nachiappan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3429 · Madras High Court · 1996-11-06Read full judgment →
• M. Farrukh Iqbal vs Additional District Judge, Islamabad and anothers1999 MLD 1754 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
• M. Akhtar Ali Khan vs Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement1999 YLR 2427 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-29Read full judgment →
• Lutaf Ali vs Abdul Ghafoor and others1999 MLD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Lt.Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Aslam vs District Collector, Sargodha and others1999 SCMR 1116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-08
  interim reliefleave to appealresumption of landlease expirationwrit petitiondiscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had declined to grant interim relief to the petitioner regarding the resumption of disputed land. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant interim relief, based on the finding that the lease period for the land in question had expired in 1996, warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute to avoid prejudicing either party, held that it was not inclined to interfere with the interim orders passed by the High Court. The Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to deny interim relief. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the petitioner remains at liberty to raise all relevant legal and factual arguments in support of his case during the final hearing of the main writ petition before the High Court, ensuring that the petitioner's rights to a full adjudication on the merits are preserved.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiration of a lease period constitute a valid ground for a High Court to decline interim relief in a land dispute?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order of the High Court if the merits of the main case remain pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Abbas Malik vs Malik Zafar Ali1999 YLR 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-03Read full judgment →
• Loung through Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 595 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-01
  illegal possession of armsbenefit of doubtprosecution evidencerecovery memocriminal appealsuppression of terrorist activitiesforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) for the illegal possession of a Kalashnikov and ammunition under the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the recovery of the weapon and ammunition beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidentiary gaps in the trial record. Upon review, the Sindh High Court found significant infirmities in the prosecution's case, including the failure to produce the Station Diary entry regarding the police party's departure, the failure to seal the recovered articles, the lack of forensic certification regarding the weapon's functionality, and the failure of witnesses to accurately describe the location of the recovery. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the established principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof and that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the Station Diary entry regarding the police party's departure create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is the failure to seal recovered weapons and ammunition at the time of recovery a ground to doubt the prosecution's case?
  • Does the lack of forensic certification regarding the functionality of a recovered weapon impair the prosecution's case?
  • Is it necessary to have multiple circumstances to create reasonable doubt, or is a single circumstance sufficient to entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Liberty Power Limited through Authorised Director Syed Ahmad1999 P.C.T.L.R. 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-13
  territorial jurisdictionwrit petitionleave to appealcustoms dutiesservice chargesconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which dismissed a writ petition in limine on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner-company, Liberty Power Limited, challenged the imposition of a 2% service charge on imported machinery for a thermal power project, arguing that the goods were exempt from customs duties under S.R.O. No. 279(1)/94. The High Court had held that the matter fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh rather than the Rawalpindi Bench. The Supreme Court, noting that leave to appeal had already been granted in several identical cases involving the interpretation of Article 199(4B) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, granted leave to appeal in the present petition as well. The Court ordered that this appeal be heard alongside the other pending identical matters. The interim relief previously granted was withdrawn.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to hear a challenge against a levy imposed on goods located at a port outside its territorial limits?
  • Should leave to appeal be granted when identical matters involving the interpretation of Article 199(4B) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 are already pending before the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1004 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-12-16
  suspension of sentencebailsuckling childfundamental rightsprison conditionsconvict mother
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, on behalf of a female convict appellant, Mst. Shahida alias Hameeda, who gave birth to a child while incarcerated. The primary legal question was whether the suspension of the sentence was warranted given the birth of a suckling child and the lack of adequate facilities in prison for the infant's upbringing. The Court held that the infant, being innocent, should not suffer for the mother's alleged misdeeds, and that continued incarceration would violate the child's fundamental rights to liberty. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that separating a suckling child from the mother could be detrimental to the child's physical and psychic health. Consequently, the Court suspended the execution of the sentence pending the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, subject to the furnishing of a surety bond. The judgment reinforces the principle that the welfare and fundamental rights of an innocent child must be prioritized, even in the context of a parent's criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the birth of a child in prison constitutes sufficient grounds for the suspension of a convict mother's sentence?
  • Does the continued incarceration of a mother with a suckling child violate the child's fundamental rights?
  • Can a court suspend the execution of a sentence pending appeal based on the health and welfare of a convict's infant child?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali Magheri and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 65 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali and 2 others vs Water and Power Development Authority1999 PLC (C.S.) 475 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-01-23Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 530 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Shahid, Ex-Civil Judge, Bhalwal vs Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore1999 PLC (C.S.) 334 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 1998-10-10
  probation periodtermination simplicitercivil servantservice tribunalcompetent authorityadministrative secretarycolorable exercise of poweradverse ACRs
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns service appeals filed by former Civil Judges challenging the termination of their services during their probation period. The core legal questions involved whether the Chief Secretary possessed the authority to terminate the appellants, whether the termination orders were illegal due to miscalculation of the probation period, and whether the termination constituted an unlawful dismissal for alleged misconduct without due process. The Tribunal held that the Chief Secretary, acting as the Administrative Secretary, is the competent authority to terminate Civil Judges in BS-17, and the mention of the Governor in appointment notifications is a formal constitutional requirement under Article 129 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, not proof of personal appointment by the Governor. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the probation period commences from the actual date of charge assumption. Crucially, the Tribunal established that a termination order "simpliciter" issued during probation is valid and cannot be challenged as a dismissal for misconduct unless there is evidence of patent mala fides or colorable exercise of power, regardless of adverse entries in service records.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chief Secretary terminate the services of a Civil Judge (BS-17) if the initial appointment notification was issued in the name of the Governor?
  • Does the probation period of a civil servant commence from the date of acceptance of appointment or the date of assumption of charge?
  • Can a termination order issued during probation be challenged as a dismissal for misconduct if the order itself contains no stigma or reasons?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine the validity of civil service laws on the touchstone of Quran and Sunnah?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Baig And Other vs Allah Rakha Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 449 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and another vs The State1999 PLD Lahore 56 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22
  murderbenefit of doubtcross-versionburden of proofinterested witnessescriminal appealacquittalmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life sentences imposed on the appellants for the murder of Muhammad Rafiq. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the conflicting versions of the occurrence and the presence of significant injuries on one of the accused. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It observed that the eye-witnesses were interested and their presence was doubtful, while the prosecution's failure to produce an independent witness further weakened its case. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout and does not shift to the defense. Even if a defense plea is not fully established, it suffices if it creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive. Consequently, finding the defense version reasonably possible and the prosecution evidence insufficient, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and granted them the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to prove their defense plea reduce the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove an alleged motive beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of interested witnesses when their presence at the scene is doubtful?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when the defense version appears reasonably possible?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and 2 others vs Muhammad Akbar and another1999 YLR 2343 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-21Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali alias Kalu vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-31Read full judgment →
• Lever Brothers Pakistan. Limited vs Greshams Eastern (Pvt.) L,Imited1999 MLD 3365 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Lehar Khan and others vs Amir Hamza and others1999 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-29
  limitation periodcondonation of delayvacationSupreme Court Registriesstatutory interpretationtime-barred petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, filed 21 days beyond the period of limitation. The petitioners sought condonation of delay, arguing that the Copying Agency failed to notify them of the copy's readiness and that the limitation period expired during the Supreme Court's summer vacation, thereby invoking Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court rejected the first contention due to a lack of evidence regarding the alleged failure of the Copying Agency. Regarding the second contention, the Court held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies only when a court is closed for business. The Court clarified that Supreme Court Registries remain open for receiving petitions and conducting routine business during vacations, as mandated by the Supreme Court Rules 1980 and administrative orders. Consequently, because the Court was not closed for the purpose of receiving petitions, the benefit of Section 4 could not be extended to the petitioners. The petition was dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to extend the limitation period for filing petitions in the Supreme Court during summer vacation?
  • Are the Registries of the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered closed for the purpose of receiving petitions during court vacations?
  • Can a party claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 if the Court's offices remain open for routine business during a vacation?
  Read full judgment →
• Latif Dino Sarohi vs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited through Managing Director and another1999 PLC 44 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1997-11-13Read full judgment →
• Late Mahboob Saghri through Legal Representatives vs Mst. Zubeda1999 MLD 2070 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, Government of Sindh,1999 PLD Karachi 107 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-02Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Officer, Lbod WAPDA Hussainabad, Hyderabad vs Abdul Hamid Ali and 2 others1999 MLD 2922 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi and others vs Dina and others1999 SCMR 1615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-12
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuepotentiality of landcompulsory acquisitionlimitationsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the compensation for land acquired for the Dhamial Air Field in Rawalpindi. The core legal question involves the determination of just and fair market compensation and potentiality of urban agricultural land acquired under statutory provisions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's enhancement of compensation was justified, based on a proper appreciation of evidence, the urban and residential potential of the land, and established principles regarding market value assessment. Furthermore, the Court found the petitions to be barred by time with no plausible explanation for the delay. The key principle laid down is that determination of land compensation must account for market value, potentiality, accessibility to urban amenities, and evidence of what a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller, and such concurrent factual findings by the High Court are not interfered with absent misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the enhancement of compensation for acquired land by the High Court based on its potentiality and evidence is sustainable?
  • What factors must be considered while determining the market value and compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Can a petition for leave to appellant be entertained when it is barred by time and lacks a plausible explanation for the delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector Scarp, Mardan vs Muhammad Said alias1999 YLR 1517 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Lal Zamurrad and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 488 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Lal Muhammad alias Laloo and another vs The State1999 MLD 2622 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-21Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs The State1999 MLD 1767 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
• Lakson Tobacco Company Limited vs Souvenir Tobacco Company1999 YLR 1010 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
• Laina and another vs Mst. Zohran and 9 others1999 YLR 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-14Read full judgment →
• Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar vs Muhammad Jahangir1999 PLC (C.S.) 1278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-29
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarksService Tribunaljudicial officeradministrative instructionsexpunction of remarkscountersigning officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the expunction of adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of a Judicial Magistrate by the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the High Court Administration Committee’s rejection of the respondent's representation and by misinterpreting the procedural instructions governing ACRs. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal’s decision was perverse, as it ignored the High Court's administrative decision upholding the remarks and misconstrued the nature of the countersigning officer's role. The Court ruled that where a countersigning officer expresses an inability to record remarks, the reporting officer's adverse remarks remain valid. Furthermore, the Court established that procedural instructions, such as underlining remarks in red ink, are not mandatory requirements whose omission invalidates the ACR. The judgment emphasizes that a Service Tribunal must consider all material factors, including administrative decisions by superior authorities, and that the conduct of a judicial officer seeking external validation to rebut ACR remarks is improper. The appeal was accepted, and the Service Tribunal's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a countersigning officer to record remarks automatically invalidate the adverse remarks of a reporting officer?
  • Is the requirement for a reporting officer to underline remarks in red ink a mandatory procedural instruction?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision if the Tribunal omits material factors or misinterprets admitted facts?
  • Does the limitation period for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court commence from the date of the judgment's announcement or the date of receipt of the copy?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore High Court , Lahore through Registar vs Muhammd Jahangir1999 SCMR 2117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-29
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarksService TribunalJudicial Magistratecountersigning officerconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution examines the validity of a Service Tribunal judgment that expunged adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of a Judicial Magistrate for the period between March and October 1986. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal erred in law by ignoring material factors, misinterpreting instructions regarding ACR recording, and failing to consider the rejection of the officer's representation by the High Court's Administration Committee. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal misdirected itself by drawing perverse conclusions from the countersigning officer's lack of remarks, treating directory instructions as mandatory, and ignoring the High Court's decision. The Court established that where a countersigning officer expresses inability to record remarks, the reporting officer's adverse remarks hold good, and that failing to give written warnings prior to adverse entries is not a mandatory requirement under the applicable instructions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can grant leave to appeal under Article 212(3) against an order of the Service Tribunal concerning an Annual Confidential Report?
  • What is the legal effect when a countersigning officer records no remarks on an Annual Confidential Report containing adverse entries?
  • Whether the requirement of underlining adverse remarks in red ink by a countersigning officer is mandatory?
  • Does the omission of a Service Tribunal to consider material factors and High Court committee decisions raise a question of law of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority vs W.2. Studios and others1999 SCMR 1576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29
  land acquisitionstatutory noticeacquisition proceedingsadministrative lawdue processLahore Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) due to the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 6(1) of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973. The core legal question concerned the validity of acquisition proceedings conducted without the requisite statutory notice. During the appellate proceedings, it was submitted that a fresh notice under Section 6(1) of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 had been served upon the respondent, and the matter was currently pending before the Land Acquisition Collector. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with directions for the Land Acquisition Collector to consider all objections filed by the respondent and the replies submitted by the LDA, along with any other available legal pleas. The Court mandated that the proceedings be concluded within three months from the receipt of the order, effectively rendering the original dispute moot by directing the parties to proceed through the newly initiated statutory process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a notice under Section 6(1) of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 render land acquisition proceedings by the Lahore Development Authority without lawful authority?
  • Can land acquisition proceedings be regularized by the service of a fresh notice under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 after a court has set aside initial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society Limited through Secretary vs Messrs Builders and Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. and anothers1999 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-09
  cooperative societies actcantonments actpublic roadeasement of necessityinjunctionpublic nuisanceright of accesscode of civil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Lahore, decreeing a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent-developer against the appellant housing society and the Cantonment Board. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for injunction filed by a non-member against a cooperative society is barred under section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 without notice, whether notice under section 273 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 is mandatory for an injunction suit, whether ownership of a public road vests in the Cantonment Board, and whether a suit concerning a blocked public road is barred under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure without the Advocate-General's permission. The Lahore High Court held that section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act does not apply to disputes between a society and a third-party non-member not touching the society's business, that section 273 of the Cantonments Act does not apply to suits confined strictly to injunctions, that roads used by the public vest in the Cantonment Board by operation of law, and that an adjoining property owner possesses a distinct cause of action to challenge obstruction of a public thoroughfare without needing permission under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit filed by a non-member against a cooperative society requires prior notice under section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Does section 273 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 apply to a suit where the sole relief claimed is an injunction?
  • Does a road constructed and used by the general public within a cantonment area vest in the Cantonment Board by operation of law?
  • Can an owner of property adjacent to a public road maintain a suit for removal of an obstruction without obtaining permission from the Advocate-General under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Ladak & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others vs Avebe B.A. and another1999 YLR 1505 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-16Read full judgment →
• Lachhiram Puranmal Moman Barodiya vs Commissioner of Income-1999 PTD 2757 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →