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.
- Ibrahim Othayoth vs Sub-Inspector of Police and others1999 PTD 3971 · Kerala High Court · 1998-01-05Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 923 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
- Hyderabad Electronic Industries Ltd. vs Messrs Sony Corporation1999 MLD 850 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in a suit seeking a mandatory injunction and damages following the expiration of a manufacturing license agreement. The core legal question was whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action for the relief sought, given the explicit terms of the agreement regarding termination and non-renewal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision to reject the plaint. The Court held that where a written agreement provides for automatic termination without notice and excludes tacit renewal, and where subsequent correspondence confirms the refusal to renew, the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action. The Court established that a trial court may reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, by examining the foundational contract and undisputed correspondence, even without recording evidence, if those documents conclusively demonstrate the absence of a legal claim. The Court distinguished cases involving foreign jurisdiction clauses and arbitration, finding them inapplicable to the present dispute.
Questions settled- Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording evidence if the contract and correspondence clearly show no cause of action?
- Does a clause in a manufacturing license agreement providing for automatic termination without notice preclude a claim for mandatory injunction to renew the agreement?
- Is a party entitled to damages for non-renewal of a contract where the agreement explicitly states that neither party has an obligation to renew?
- Hyder Jamal and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 979 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-28Read full judgment →
- Hussaini Cooperative Housing Society vs Registrar, Cooperative1999 MLD 2517 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
- Hussain through Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad vs The State1999 MLD 715 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
- Hussain Saeed vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore1999 CLC 1315 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hussain Saeed vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education1999 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that dismissed a constitutional petition against the disqualification of a student by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education for malpractice during an examination. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by a lack of due process, specifically the denial of a fair hearing, or by mala fides. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the disciplinary authorities had provided the petitioner with sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the findings were based on a proper evaluation of evidence. The Court affirmed that where disciplinary proceedings are conducted fairly and the student is given an opportunity to present their defense, the findings of educational authorities are entitled to a presumption of regularity. Consequently, such administrative decisions are not subject to interference under constitutional jurisdiction absent proof of mala fides or perversity. The Court further noted that the past academic record of a student is irrelevant to the determination of guilt in disciplinary matters.
Questions settled- Whether an educational institution's disciplinary action is subject to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction if the student was afforded a fair opportunity to be heard?
- Does the presumption of regularity apply to the disciplinary proceedings conducted by educational boards?
- Is a student's past academic record a relevant factor in determining guilt during disciplinary proceedings for examination malpractice?
- Can a court interfere with the factual findings of a disciplinary committee in the absence of proven mala fides?
- Hussain Bakhsh Khan vs Deputy Commissioner, D.G. Khan And Other1999 CLC 88 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-17Read full judgment →
- Hussain Ali Merchant vs Ismailia Garden Coop. Housing Society Ltd.1999 CLC 356 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-23Read full judgment →
- Hurmat Khan vs Zahoor Khan and 2 others1999 YLR 10 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-23Read full judgment →
- Humayun Iftikhar Chishti vs Punjab Local Council Election Authority1999 CLC 79 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court aggrieved by the omission of his name from the formal electoral list, despite having been registered as a fresh voter by the Registering Officer prior to the announcement of the election schedule. The core legal question concerned whether a voter should be deprived of their right to be listed and to contest elections due to administrative delays in transmitting the registration. The Additional Advocate-General conceded that the name should have been included but raised an objection regarding the availability of an alternate remedy of revision before the Commissioner under the Electoral Rolls Act 1974. The Court held that given the urgency—where only hours remained for filing nomination papers—the rule of alternative remedy being a rule of convenience could be ignored. The Court allowed the petition, declaring the omission of the petitioner's name to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and directed that his name be included immediately in the voters' list.
Questions settled- Can a citizen be deprived of their right to be listed in the electoral roll due to administrative delays in transmitting their pre-schedule registration?
- Does the bar under section 20 of the Electoral Rolls Act 1974 prevent the inclusion of a voter whose registration was completed before the announcement of the election schedule?
- Is the rule of alternative remedy considered a rule of convenience that can be bypassed when extreme urgency leaves virtually no time to pursue other forums?
- Humayun Azam vs Ch. Sadiq, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Kunjah,1999 MLD 1676 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
- Huma .Naz vs Muhammad Javed and another1999 YLR 2612 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
- House Building Finance Corporation Through General Manager And Another vs Muhammad Iqbal1999 CLC 3 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-05-05Read full judgment →
- House Building Finance Corporation through .Managing Director, Karachi and anothers vs Inayatullah Shaikh1999 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside the termination of the respondent's services by the House Building Finance Corporation. The core legal question was whether the Corporation could terminate an employee under Regulation 11 of the House Building Finance Corporation Service Regulations, 1957, without conducting an inquiry under Regulation 26, and whether the termination order signed by the General Manager was valid. The Supreme Court held that Regulation 11 and Regulation 26 provide distinct, independent powers. Consequently, an authority may terminate services under Regulation 11 without an inquiry, provided the action is taken in good faith, without discrimination, and in the interest of the Corporation. Principles of natural justice do not apply to such termination simpliciter. However, the Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the Managing Director, the competent authority, had actually passed the order, as the General Manager lacked the authority to issue it. The Court affirmed that the repository of power must exercise it strictly in accordance with the governing regulations.
Questions settled- Can an employer terminate an employee under Regulation 11 of the House Building Finance Corporation Service Regulations, 1957, without holding an inquiry under Regulation 26?
- Does the principle of natural justice apply to the termination of services under Regulation 11 of the House Building Finance Corporation Service Regulations, 1957?
- Is a termination order valid if it is signed by an official who lacks the delegated authority to pass such an order?
- Hotel Ashoka and another vs Union of India and another1999 PTD 1931 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1994-04-22Read full judgment →
- Hony.Captain (Retd.) Muhammad Jumma vs Muhammad Safdar1999 MLD 1723 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
- Hitech (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Union of India and others1999 PTD 1609 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-12-27Read full judgment →
- Hisamuddin vs The State1999 YLR 1546 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-06Read full judgment →
- Hira Singh & Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3548 · Himachal Pradesh High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
- Hidayatullah and another vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1999 PLC (C.S.) 581 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-02-02Read full judgment →
- Hidayat Ullah and others vs Iqbal and others1999 YLR 2061 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
- Hazoor Bakiish alias Sanaullah vs The State1999 YLR 1747 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
- Hazoor Bakhsh vs The State1999 YLR 1347 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
- Hazoor Bakhsh vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Rahimyar Khan1999 PLD Lahore 417 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by a larger Bench of the Lahore High Court addresses twenty-two consolidated Constitution Petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking writs of mandamus directing Station House Officers to record statements in First Information Reports (FIRs) and investigate cognizable offenses. The core legal questions involve the mandatory nature of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the adequacy and alternative nature of remedies under Sections 156(3), 200, and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the circumstances for invoking writ jurisdiction, and the legality of District Complaint Committees constituted by the Inspector-General of Police. The Court held that Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is preemptory and mandatory, obligating police officers to record statements disclosing cognizable offenses. However, the Court reaffirmed that litigants must exhaust alternative and efficacious remedies—specifically approaching the superior police hierarchy, District Complaint Committees under Standing Order No. 3 of 1993, and moving the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court also held that District Complaint Committees established under Section 12 of the Police Act 1861 are valid legal entities. The key principles laid down emphasize the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies in police inaction matters and the statutory duty of police officials.
Questions settled- Whether Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory in nature, obligating a police officer to record the statement of an informant regarding a cognizable offense?
- Are the remedies provided under Sections 156(3) and 200 to 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 effective and alternative remedies that must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether the District Complaint Committees constituted by the Inspector-General of Police under Standing Order No. 3 of 1993 are lawful entities competent to redress citizens' grievances?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court issue a writ of mandamus against police authorities for failure to register an FIR?
- Hassanul Haque Agha vs Mrs. Saeeda Begum1999 CLC 551 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-05Read full judgment →
- Hassan Raza and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-25Read full judgment →
- Hassan Muhammad vs Muhammad Din1999 MLD 373 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
- Hassan Farooq vs Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore through Chairman and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1314 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hassan Bibi vs I.D.B.P.1999 CLC 975 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
- Hassan Bakhsh and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 11 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
- Hasnain Shah vs The State1999 SCMR 1937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Hasnain Shah, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, alongside the conviction of a co-accused. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court was justified in refusing the plea of private defence and whether the appellant had exceeded that right under the circumstances. The Supreme Court observed that both parties had suppressed material aspects of the occurrence, that the genesis of the fight was unclear, and that a chance encounter had occurred, while noting an unexplained injury on the appellant and the corroboration of the prosecution's account regarding a broken gun. The Court held that although the murder charge was proven, the appellant was entitled to mitigation of sentence due to the surrounding circumstances. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but altered the sentence from death to imprisonment for life, granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was right in refusing the plea of private defence of the appellant on the facts of the case?
- Whether the appellant had exceeded the right of private defence under the circumstances?
- Whether an unexplained injury on the accused and a chance encounter justify altering a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Hashmi Can Company vs Hysong Corporation of Karachi1999 PLD Karachi 25 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the defendant to stay a recovery suit instituted by the plaintiff over alleged substandard consignments of electrolytic tinplate supplied under a sales contract containing an arbitration clause. The core legal questions revolved around whether an unsigned reverse page containing the arbitration clause forms a valid binding agreement, and whether the suit ought to be stayed in favor of arbitration in South Korea based on the doctrine of forum conveniens. The Sindh High Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and binding even though the reverse page containing it was unsigned, as the parties had acted upon the core terms of the contract. The Court further ruled that the doctrine of forum conveniens did not favor retaining the suit in Pakistan since the evidence regarding the quality of goods originated in South Korea, and that a conditional offer of a discount by the defendant did not amount to an admission of liability. Consequently, the application was allowed and the suit proceedings were stayed.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration clause contained on an unsigned reverse page of a contract is binding upon the parties?
- Does an arbitration agreement require the physical signatures of the parties to be legally valid and enforceable?
- Can a conditional offer of compensation or discount made during negotiations be construed as an admission of liability by a party?
- Is a foreign arbitration forum considered inconvenient merely because the plaintiff finds it expensive or because some evidence is located locally?
- Hashmatullah vs Muhammad Shafi Butt And 3 Other1999 CLC 916 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
- Hashim Bin Sayeed and 2 others vs Messrs Sun Language Centre through Proprietor_ Incharge and 6 others1999 MLD 3439 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
- Haris Abdullah vs The State1999 YLR 643 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-15Read full judgment →
- Harijan Evam Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3208 · Allahabad High Court · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
- Hardeva vs Deputy Commissioner of.Income-Tax (Assessment)1999 PTD 3595 · Allahabad High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
- Haral Textiles Limited vs Banqu E Indosuez Belgium, S.A. and others1999 SCMR 591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute where the appellant sought to restrain payment under an irrevocable Letter of Credit, alleging that the machinery supplied by the respondent was defective. The trial court had granted an ad interim injunction, which the High Court subsequently set aside. The core legal question was whether a court is justified in restraining payment under an irrevocable Letter of Credit due to underlying contractual disputes between the buyer and seller. The Supreme Court held that an irrevocable Letter of Credit constitutes an absolute, independent obligation on the bank to pay, which is distinct from the underlying contract of sale. The Court affirmed that such instruments are the 'life-blood' of international commerce and must be honored without interference. Judicial intervention is restricted to exceptional cases involving clear, prima facie evidence of fraud or irretrievable injustice. Since the appellant failed to establish fraud or misconduct by the respondent bank—a holder in due course—the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that disputes regarding the quality of goods do not justify freezing payments under an irrevocable Letter of Credit.
Questions settled- Can a court restrain payment under an irrevocable Letter of Credit based solely on a dispute regarding the quality of goods between the buyer and seller?
- Is an irrevocable Letter of Credit an independent obligation that remains unaffected by the underlying contract of sale?
- Under what circumstances can a court interfere with the enforcement of an irrevocable Letter of Credit or bank guarantee?
- Does a holder in due course of a Bill of Exchange drawn under a Letter of Credit have a superior right to payment regardless of disputes between the original parties?
- Haqiqatullah vs District Education Officer1999 MLD 151 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
- Haqeequllah vs The State1999 YLR 2373 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-16Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 339 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-24Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz vs Muhammad Imran and others1999 SCMR 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal seeks the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Lahore High Court in a case registered under section 364-A and section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. During the hearing, the counsel for the respondent gave an undertaking that the respondent would not hamper the trial and would produce evidence on the next date of hearing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed of the petition by dismissing it and refusing leave, while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within two months. The Court held that if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated timeframe, the petitioner is at liberty to seek bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall decide the matter uninfluenced by observations in the impugned order.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled when an undertaking is given to expedite the trial?
- Can the trial court be directed to conclude criminal proceedings within a specified timeframe?
- What remedy is available to a petitioner if a trial is not concluded within the timeframe directed by the Supreme Court?
- Haq Nawaz Bhutto. vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 214 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-23Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz and others vs Superintendent of Police and others1999 P Cr. L J 1144 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The present writ petition arises from the registration of an F.I.R. under sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to a fraudulent power of attorney over agricultural land. After police investigation, a challan was submitted and the trial commenced before a competent court. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred multiple times at the instance of the accused persons, culminating in an order transferring the case to a new investigating officer without any new evidence or fresh material. The core legal question concerns the legality of successive or reinvestigations after a challan has been submitted and trial commenced. The Lahore High Court held that while the law does not absolutely prohibit further investigation before judgment, police powers to reinvestigate are not unfettered and cannot be exercised arbitrarily, under political pressure, or without fresh material simply to harass parties or appease influential persons. The Court set aside the impugned transfer order, laying down that frequent and unprincipled successive investigations undermine the rule of law and the administration of justice once a matter is seized by a court.
Questions settled- Whether subsequent or successive investigations are absolutely prohibited once a challan has been submitted and trial has commenced?
- Does the police possess unfettered powers to transfer an investigation to a new officer without any fresh material or evidence?
- Can an order transferring an investigation passed under political pressure or without independent application of mind be sustained by the High Court?
- Hanif Brothers vs Federation of Pakistan And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 769 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
- Hamza Khel Alias Kalu And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 450 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
- Hameedullah and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1055 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-16Read full judgment →
- Hameed-Ul-Zafar vs Collector of Customs (Preventive) and others1999 P Cr. L J 547 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-12Read full judgment →
- Hameed Ullah Khan Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 403 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Hameed Jaffery vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2413 · Bombay High Court · 1997-02-27Read full judgment →
- Hameed Hayat and others vs Pakistan International Airlines1999 PLC (C.S) 965 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-07Read full judgment →
- Hamayun Khan and another vs Muhammad Ayub Khan and 4 others1999 P Cr. L J 1706 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of a second First Information Report (F.I.R. No. 17) registered against the petitioners. The petitioners contended that since a prior F.I.R. (No. 357) regarding the same occurrence had already been registered, the subsequent registration of a second F.I.R. for the same incident was illegal. The core legal question was whether a second F.I.R. can be registered regarding the same occurrence when the complainant and the allegations differ from the first. The Peshawar High Court held that the registration of a second F.I.R. is permissible when it is lodged by a different complainant regarding distinct injuries not covered in the initial report. The Court clarified that section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, does not bar a second F.I.R. if it discloses separate cognizable offences and involves different circumstances. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to exercise its inherent powers to quash the investigation.
Questions settled- Is the registration of a second F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence legally barred under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a second F.I.R. be registered if the complainant and the specific allegations of injury differ from the first F.I.R.?
- Does the inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allow for the quashment of a police investigation based on a second F.I.R.?
- Hakim Muhammad Ibrahim vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 4 others1999 MLD 1738 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
- Hakeem Muhammad Saleem Safdar And Others vs Khurshid Ahmad And Other1999 CLC 74 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
- Haji Wazir Khan vs The State and another1999 YLR 2611 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
- Haji Wali Jan Habib Jan Through Proprietor Haji Wali Jan vs The District1999 CLC 1568 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
- Haji Sobha vs The State1999 YLR 281 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-13Read full judgment →
- Haji Shafi Muhammad Jamote vs Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited1999 MLD 1668 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil suit challenging a Government of Sindh notification that nominated eight directors to the Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited. The plaintiff sought to suspend the notification and restrain the nominated directors from participating in board meetings. The core legal question was whether the suit was maintainable in light of the statutory bars contained in Sections 70 and 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, specifically regarding the requirement of a two-month notice and the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction over matters concerning the society's business. The court held that the nomination of directors directly impacts the management and business affairs of the society. Consequently, the court determined that the suit was barred by the Act because the plaintiff failed to serve the mandatory notice and the subject matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of authorities under the Act. The court laid down the principle that civil courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate matters touching the business of a cooperative society or to issue injunctions regarding proceedings under its by-laws, and affirmed the court's inherent power to reject a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the nomination of directors by the government constitute a matter touching the business of a cooperative society under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
- Can a civil court reject a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on its own initiative if the suit is barred by statute?
- Is a civil suit maintainable against a cooperative society without serving the mandatory two-month notice required under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to grant an injunction in relation to proceedings conducted under the by-laws of a cooperative society?
- Haji Sardar Muhammad Amin and others vs Auqaf and others1999 MLD 3182 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
- Haji Rozi Gul vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum and others1999 SCMR 1915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which partially allowed a revision petition and upheld the decree in favour of respondent No. 1 for possession of a property through pre-emption upon payment of Rs. 60,000. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings regarding the respondent's superior right of pre-emption as a contiguous owner were sustainable, given the appellant's contentions regarding the lack of evidence and his alleged co-sharer status. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, duly affirmed by the High Court based on a proper appraisal of the evidence, do not warrant interference by the apex court simply because an alternative view might be possible. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence in pre-emption matters.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a pre-emptor's superior right of pre-emption?
- Does ownership of contiguous property establish a superior right of pre-emption under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950?
- Can a new factual plea regarding co-sharer status, not raised before the lower courts or the High Court, be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Haji Rana Nooruddin vs Sharafat Ali Nisar and 3 others1999 SCMR 2275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an order passed by the Election Authority regarding Electoral Unit No. 79, Zila Council, Kasur. The dispute originated when a candidate was initially assigned an incorrect election symbol, which was later changed. Following the election, the Election Authority, acting under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, ordered re-polling, citing the Returning Officer's failure to allocate a valid symbol as a vitiating factor. The High Court subsequently declared this order to be without jurisdiction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Election Authority possesses the jurisdiction to pass such an order or whether the matter falls exclusively within the purview of an Election Tribunal under the statutory framework. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the Election Authority's powers under section 17(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, specifically regarding its authority to intervene in election matters that might otherwise be subject to an election petition.
Questions settled- Does the Election Authority have the jurisdiction to order re-polling under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
- Does section 17(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 bar the Election Authority from inquiring into election matters that can be challenged before an Election Tribunal?
- Can an election be vitiated by the failure of a Returning Officer to allocate a correct election symbol to a candidate?
- Haji Qasim through Legal Heirs. vs Syed Rahim Shah1999 MLD 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
- Haji Qadar Gul vs Secretary to the Government of N.W.F.P., Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Peshawar and 2 others1999 MLD 840 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-21Read full judgment →
- Haji Qadar Gul vs Returning Officer And Other1999 CLC 1250 · Election Tribunal · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
- Haji Noor Muhammad vs Mrs. Nafees Shaukat1999 CLC 1856 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
- Haji Noor Muhammad vs Collector (Customs), Lahore and 6 others1999 P Cr. L J 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
- Haji Nazir Ahmad vs Habib and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
- Haji Naseer Ahmed vs The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi1999 SCMR 1121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's miscellaneous application seeking further benefits for an intervening period following his reinstatement. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal correctly declined to re-open the matter after the initial judgment—which ordered reinstatement and a determination of benefits—had already been implemented by the respondents, and whether the petitioner's subsequent application was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal acted correctly in disposing of the miscellaneous application, as the original directions had been implemented, including payment for half of the intervening period. The Court further held that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient grounds for condonation of an 8-day delay in filing the petition, particularly since the impugned order was passed in the presence of the petitioner's counsel. The principle laid down is that a party cannot seek to re-litigate a matter through a miscellaneous application once the original tribunal order has been substantially implemented, and that a failure to explain the delay of each day precludes the condonation of time-barred petitions.
Questions settled- Can a party seek to re-open a decided appeal through a miscellaneous application after the original order has been implemented?
- Is a plea for condonation of delay sufficient if it fails to explain the delay of each day?
- Does the presence of a party's counsel during the announcement of an order negate a claim that the order was not communicated?
- Haji Muhammad Sharif Khan and anothers vs Zahir Hussain Shah and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 903 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Sattar vs Haji Ahmed1999 MLD 3429 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Sadiq vs Visa International and others1999 CLC 844 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-15Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Rahim and others vs Mst. Surayya Rahim1999 CLC 1392 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-28Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Pervez and 3 others vs Engineer Aziz Ullah Khan and 41999 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged the maintainability of an objection petition filed by the Acquiring Department (WAPDA) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding compensation awarded for acquired land. The core legal question was whether a department of the Federal Government, for whose benefit land is acquired, possesses the legal standing to file an objection petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to challenge the compensation amount. Relying on the precedent established by the Federal Shariat Court and upheld by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court, the High Court held that denying such entities the right to file a reference or objection is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The court affirmed that entities paying compensation from public funds must be treated equitably, granting them the same rights as landowners to seek a reference and adduce evidence regarding compensation. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the maintainability of the objection petition filed by the Acquiring Department.
Questions settled- Does the Acquiring Department or the entity for whose benefit land is acquired have the right to file an objection petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Is the denial of the right to file a reference or appeal to the Federal Government or its departments under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, considered repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Are entities paying compensation from public funds entitled to the same rights as landowners to challenge compensation awards through a reference?
- Haji Muhammad Ishaq Shah vs District Magistrate, Lakki Marwat and 21999 P Cr. L J 1558 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This habeas corpus petition challenged the detention of the petitioner's brother, Gul Khan Shah, ordered by the District Magistrate under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether a detention order issued on vague, generalized allegations of acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety, without supporting material or specific particulars, satisfies the legal and constitutional requirements for depriving a citizen of liberty. The Court held that the detention order was illegal and without lawful authority. The ratio of the decision is that the power to detain under the Ordinance is not subjective or whimsical; it requires objective satisfaction based on sufficient material. The Court laid down the principle that detention grounds must be specific, factual, and communicated to the detenu. Vague allegations or the mere use of statutory terminology without underlying evidence infringe upon constitutional guarantees and statutory obligations, rendering such detention orders unlawful. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu.
Questions settled- Is a detention order issued under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 valid if it relies on vague, generalized allegations without supporting material?
- Does the power to order preventive detention under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 require objective satisfaction based on specific facts?
- Are the grounds of detention communicated to a detenu required to contain specific particulars of facts?
- Haji Muhammad Azam vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 604 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Ashraf vs The State and 3 others1999 MLD 330 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of acquittal passed by a Magistrate. The core legal question is whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to acquittal appeals filed under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby enabling the court to condone delay beyond the prescribed period. The Sindh High Court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded by virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act when a special or local law prescribes a different period of limitation. The court ruled that it has no competence to condone delay in filing an appeal against acquittal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the thirty-day limitation period is statutorily mandated by the Code itself. Furthermore, ignorance of the law does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply to acquittal appeals governed by the special limitation period prescribed under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Questions settled- Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to acquittal appeals filed under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the High Court possess the competence to condone delay in filing an appeal against acquittal beyond the prescribed period of thirty days?
- Whether ignorance of the amended provisions of law constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Do the provisions of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act exclude the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act to special or local laws?
- Haji Mohibullah And Others vs Sheikhul Islam1999 CLC 1656 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Moghul vs Mumtaz and 2 others1999 MLD 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-09Read full judgment →
- Haji Mehr Liaqat Ali and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Mahesar and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1642 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Khuda Bakhsh vs Muhammad Saleem Akbar Shah And Other1999 CLC 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning land in Muzaffargarh. The appellant/plaintiff sought to pre-empt a sale on the grounds of being a collateral and a Khewat Dar, claiming a superior right of purchase. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, primarily relying on the assertion that the vendor and vendees were of the Shia faith, which would alter the pre-emption rights. The core legal question was whether a party can introduce a new case through evidence that was not pleaded in the written statement, and whether the appellate court misread the evidence regarding the religious faith of the parties. The High Court held that facts not stated in the pleadings cannot be proven in evidence, and that the appellate court erred by considering an unpleaded defense. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the legal presumption that Muslims in Pakistan are Sunnis unless proven otherwise. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment, restored the trial court's decree, and upheld the appellant's superior right of pre-emption.
Questions settled- Can a party lead evidence on a fact that was not specifically pleaded in the written statement?
- Is there a legal presumption that Muslims in Pakistan are of the Sunni faith unless proven otherwise?
- Does the appellate court have the authority to rely on evidence regarding a defense that was never raised in the pleadings or issues?
- Can the testimony of a witness be rejected solely on the basis of their relationship to a party or receipt of a stipend?
- Haji Jumma Khan vs Haji Zarin Khan1999 PLD Quetta 18 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-07-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Jan Muhammad vs Payo Khan and 2 others1999 MLD 1363 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
- Haji Hassan and another vs The State1999 MLD 873 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
- Haji Fakir Muhammad vs Chairman, Federal Land Commission and others1999 MLD 2979 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
- Haji Bismillah vs Abdul Ali and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1501 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
- Haji Barkat Ali vs Tariq Mehmood Sajjid1999 CLC 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
- Haji Baig vs The State1999 YLR 792 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-23Read full judgment →
- Haji Ata Muhammad vs Ch. Muhammad Akram Gujjar, A.C., Sheikhupura1999 MLD 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-16Read full judgment →
- Haji Allah Ditto vs Ishtiaque Ahmed Soomro and 10 others1999 P Cr. L J 1996 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
- Haji Ahmad and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdullah through Legal Heirs vs Haji Abdul Majeed1999 MLD 2670 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Latif through Legal Heirs vs Additional District and Sessions1999 YLR 1611 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-02Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Latif Memon vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Home Department. Karachi and 2 others1999 YLR 577 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Hameed & Co. vs Insurance Company of North America and others1999 YLR 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves applications under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, objecting to an arbitration award rendered in a dispute arising from the repudiation of a burglary insurance claim. The core legal question was whether the court could set aside or interfere with an arbitration award on the ground of misreading or reappraisal of evidence. The Sindh High Court held that a court examining the validity of an arbitration award does not act as an appellate court, cannot undertake a reappraisal of evidence, and should only interfere if there is an error apparent on the face of the award. The key principle laid down is that arbitration awards ought to be commercial in nature, and courts must not re-examine evidence unless a manifest error appears on the face of the award itself.
Questions settled- Can a court reappraise evidence when hearing objections to an arbitration award?
- What constitutes a valid ground for a court to interfere with an arbitration award?
- Whether an arbitration award can be set aside merely because a party disagrees with the evaluation of the evidence?
- Haji Abdul Aziz vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 356 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-20Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Aziz vs Government of Balochistan through Deputy1999 SCMR 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court order that upheld the setting aside of an ex parte decree against the Government of Balochistan. The appellant had sued the Government through the Deputy Commissioner, Khuzdar, rather than the Province as required by law. Although the defendant's appeal against the ex parte decree was time-barred by 55 days, the High Court dismissed the appellant's revision, citing the failure to comply with mandatory provisions regarding the proper naming of the Government as a defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that while courts have a duty to address limitation issues even if not raised, the failure to sue the Government through the proper authority (the Province) is a fundamental defect that goes to the root of the matter. The Court ruled that the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, was empowered to notice such defects apparent on the face of the record to prevent prejudice, regardless of procedural lapses by the defendant in the lower appellate court.
Questions settled- Is a court required to address the issue of limitation even if the parties have waived it or failed to raise it?
- Can a High Court in its revisional jurisdiction take notice of a fundamental defect in a suit, such as improper naming of the Government as a defendant, even if the lower appellate court overlooked it?
- Does a suit filed against the Government through an improper authority constitute a defect that goes to the root of the matter?
- Haji Abdul Aziz and 2 others vs Haji Dost Muhammad and 5 others1999 P Cr. L J 31 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →