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.

• Fayyaz Hussain vs National Radio Telecommunication Corporation1999 SCMR 2668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-20
  Service Tribunals ActIndustrial Relations OrdinanceAbatement of proceedingsCivil servant statusLimitation periodLeave to appealJurisdiction of Labour Court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Store Keeper, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment dismissing his appeal regarding his dismissal from service. The petitioner had previously challenged his dismissal through various labour forums, spanning over a decade. Following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which classified employees of corporations as civil servants, the Labour Court abated the petitioner's proceedings, directing him to seek remedy before the appropriate forum. The petitioner subsequently approached the Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal as incompetent and time-barred. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legal implications of the amendment to the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, specifically regarding the abatement of pending labour proceedings and the subsequent limitation period for filing appeals before the Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the proper interpretation of the statutory amendment and the resulting procedural consequences for employees whose cases were pending before labour courts at the time of the amendment's enactment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act 1974 necessitate the abatement of pending proceedings before a Labour Court?
  • Is an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal by an employee whose case was previously pending before a Labour Court barred by time if filed after the enactment of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Fawad Fiaz and 2 others vs General Manager (Zonal Head), State Life1999 YLR 2123 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-25Read full judgment →
• Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited through Managing Director and another1999 PLC 273 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-01-29Read full judgment →
• Fatima Enterprises Ltd. vs The Chief Manager, State Bank of Pakistan, Deposit Account Department, Multan and 4 others1999 SCMR 1497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-19
  foreign exchange risk coveragePAYE schemenovation of contractextension of timeState Bank of Pakistanadministrative commitmentcontractual interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the denial of foreign exchange risk coverage by the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) for a "Pay-as-You-Earn" (PAYE) scheme contract. The appellant contended that an Addendum extending the letter of credit deadline constituted a novation of the contract, thereby resetting the 30-day option period for exchange risk coverage. The core legal questions were whether the Addendum amounted to a novation under the Contract Act 1872, and whether the SBP was bound by its subsequent correspondence offering coverage. The Court held that the Addendum was merely an extension of time, not a novation, and thus did not reset the statutory option period. However, the Court ruled that the SBP, having previously agreed with the Ministry of Finance to provide coverage as a special case via a specific directive, was bound by those terms. The principle established is that mere extension of time for performance does not constitute novation, and administrative commitments made with government concurrence are binding upon the issuing authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere extension of time for the performance of a contract constitute a novation under the Contract Act 1872?
  • Is a government-authorized special concession for exchange risk coverage binding on the State Bank of Pakistan?
  • Can a subordinate official's letter offering terms contrary to a superior directive bind the State Bank of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Fatima Bi vs Mehnar Gul1999 YLR 759 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-07
  Succession CertificateNomineeTarkaShia Personal LawProvident FundGroup InsuranceInheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a petition for a Succession Certificate filed by Fatima Bi, the second wife of the deceased Ghulam Muhammad, against the objector minor Mehnar Gul, the daughter of the deceased from a divorced wife, concerning the distribution of the deceased's assets including Provident Fund, Death Claims, Voluntary Claim, Group Insurance, and Pension Dues under Shia Personal Law. The core legal question was whether the assets automatically passed to the legal heirs as 'Tarka' or whether items where the petitioner was named as a nominee belonged exclusively to her. The Sindh High Court held that nomination merely confers a right to receive or collect money as a trustee and does not operate as a gift or will to deprive other legal heirs of their shares under personal law. The court laid down the principle that provident funds, pension dues, and compensation grants such as death and group insurance claims constitute part of the estate or trust for the benefit of all legal heirs and must be distributed according to their legitimate Sharai shares rather than exclusively to the nominee.

  Questions settled

  • Does the nomination of a person in respect of a deceased employee's funds operate as a gift or will to exclude other legal heirs?
  • Whether Provident Fund and pension dues form part of the 'Tarka' of a deceased person under personal law?
  • Does a nominee receive insurance and death claim moneys as an absolute owner or as a trustee for all legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Sher/ vs Mst. Niaz Bibi and 4 others1999 PLD Lahore 43 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-18Read full judgment →
• Fateh Sher vs (Mst.). Niaz Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 22 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Mst. Arshad Afza1999 MLD 1481 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15
  Succession CertificateSuccession Act 1925Summary procedureEstoppelWaiverLegal heirsMovable assets
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which granted a Succession Certificate to the respondent, a daughter of the deceased, for her share in specific assets. The petitioner, another legal heir, contended that the application was collusive, barred by estoppel and waiver due to a previously withdrawn application by the widow, and that the court should have consolidated all pending applications. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Succession Act 1925 provides a summary procedure intended to facilitate the speedy disbursement of assets to heirs. It ruled that an heir is not legally compelled to include the entire estate in a single application, and separate applications for portions of an estate are permissible. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the withdrawal of a prior application by another heir does not create an estoppel against subsequent independent applications by other heirs. The judgment affirms that the primary objective of the Act is to enable heirs to obtain a valid discharge for their shares without unnecessary delay, and separate certificates for portions of an estate are legally valid.

  Questions settled

  • Can a legal heir file an application for a Succession Certificate for only a portion of the deceased's estate?
  • Does the withdrawal of a prior application for a Succession Certificate by one heir create an estoppel against other heirs filing independent applications?
  • Is a court required to consolidate all pending applications for Succession Certificates regarding the same estate?
  • What is the primary objective of the summary procedure prescribed under Part X of the Succession Act 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Barkat Ali1999 YLR 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-24Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs (Mst.) Arshad Afzal And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 84 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Hajra and others1999 CLC 143 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-07
  civil revisionsettlement lawspower of reviewcoram non judicepermanent transfer deedevacuee propertyallotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arises from a dispute over the transfer of a disputed cell forming part of an evacuee property in Hyderabad under settlement laws. The predecessor of the applicant was initially allotted the property, but a subsequent review order by the Additional Settlement Commissioner excluded the cell. The core legal questions involved the legality of the review order in light of statutory amendments, the effect of a compromise between parties, and whether the respondent could claim title without a valid subsisting allotment or transfer order. The Sindh High Court held that statutory tribunals possess no inherent power of review unless expressly conferred by law, and the omission of review provisions by Ordinance II of 1962 rendered the subsequent review order coram non judice and without jurisdiction. The Court established that an order passed without jurisdiction cannot affect a properly issued Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.), and a party whose initial claim was rejected and who failed to establish an independent title cannot claim the property upon its reversion to the Provincial Government under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974. The revision application was consequently allowed, setting aside the appellate court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether statutory tribunals possess an inherent power of review in the absence of explicit statutory conferment?
  • Does the omission of review provisions in a statute render a subsequent review order passed by a tribunal coram non judice and without jurisdiction?
  • Can a party whose claim to a property was conclusively rejected by a settlement authority claim rights based on a review order obtained by a third party?
  • What is the legal effect on undisposed evacuee properties upon the promulgation of the Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad And 6 Others vs Fazala Through Legal Heirs1999 CLC 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and 5 others vs Muhammad Arshad and anothers1999 MLD 3390 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad alias Fatoo Mahesar and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1686 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs The State1999 MLD 556 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-20Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs Mosam Khan and 25 others1999 MLD 2378 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1999 MLD 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Fatah Khan vs Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 4 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Farrukh Jamal vs Iqbal Ahmed1999 CLC 2088 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-25Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Ejaz Mehdi and others vs Mrs. Sofia Mohyuddin and others1999 SCMR 1847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-07
  civil revisioninterim suspensiondeposit of decretal amountcontumacious conductpetitions for leave to appealrental compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an order passed by the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' civil miscellaneous application seeking modification of an earlier order. The core legal question involved the consequences of the petitioners' failure to deposit the decretal amount as directed by the High Court as a condition for interim suspension of decrees in a pending civil revision. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners, having repeatedly failed to avail opportunities or comply with undertakings given to deposit the decretal amount within the granted time, exhibited contumacious conduct and were not entitled to any discretionary indulgence or relief from the Court. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that parties failing to comply with conditional interim orders of deposit cannot claim leniency, though noting that the main case remains pending before the High Court where appropriate permission to deposit may be sought.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party failing to comply with a conditional interim order to deposit a decretal amount is entitled to discretionary relief?
  • Can a petitioner seek indulgence from the court after failing to avail opportunities granted for depositing outstanding rental amounts in a civil revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 327 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-24Read full judgment →
• Farooq Jamil and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-25Read full judgment →
• Farooq Azam vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1787 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-05-04Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad vs State1999 YLR 2119 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-28Read full judgment →
• Farmanullah and others vs Qalandar and 5 others1999 YLR 1610 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-15
  Revision petitionDeclaration suitSpecific Relief ActForeclosureMortgagePossessionConsequential reliefBurden of proofTenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged concurrent judgments of the Civil Judge and District Judge, which dismissed the petitioners-plaintiffs' suit for a declaration of ownership by foreclosure and permanent injunction. The petitioners claimed ownership of a house through a mortgage from 1912, asserting non-redemption and possession for over 60 years, rendering a subsequent sale by the original owners inoperative. The lower courts found that the petitioners failed to provide positive or tangible proof of their claim, relying on an unregistered mortgage document. Evidence suggested the petitioners were tenants paying 'Khakshora' and had abandoned the property years prior, contradicting their claim of possession as mortgagees. The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings, noting that the petitioners were out of possession and had sought a mere declaration of title without the consequential relief of possession, which is barred under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The revision petition was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for a mere declaration of title maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act if the plaintiff is out of possession and does not seek consequential relief?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an unregistered mortgage document when its scribe or marginal witnesses are not produced?
  • Does a plaintiff claiming ownership through foreclosure have the burden to prove continuous possession as a mortgagee?
  • Can a claim of ownership by foreclosure be defeated by evidence suggesting the claimant was a tenant who abandoned the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2102 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-26Read full judgment →
• Farid Bakhsh vs Allah Bakhsh And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 346 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-24Read full judgment →
• Farid Bakhsh Alias Ghulam Farid vs Niaz Muhammad And Other1999 CLC 738 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24
  partition suitpreliminary decreefinal decreecivil revisionSection 97 CPCcurable irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a partition suit where the trial court, following appellate directions, determined the shares of the parties and appointed a Local Commissioner to effect partition. The petitioner challenged the final decree, arguing that the trial court's earlier order determining shares was not a preliminary decree and that the final decree was flawed. The core legal question was whether an order determining shares, which lacked the explicit label of 'preliminary decree,' could still be treated as such under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby triggering the bar under Section 97 against challenging the final decree if the preliminary decree was not appealed. The Court held that the substance of the order, rather than its nomenclature, determines its legal character. Since the order conclusively determined the rights of the parties, it constituted a preliminary decree. The failure to label it as such was a mere irregularity curable under Section 99. Consequently, the petitioner, having failed to appeal the preliminary decree, was precluded by Section 97 from challenging the final decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order determining the shares of parties in a partition suit constitute a preliminary decree even if it is not explicitly labeled as such?
  • Can a party challenge the validity of a preliminary decree in an appeal filed against the final decree if the preliminary decree was not appealed?
  • Does the failure to label an order as a 'preliminary decree' constitute a material irregularity that vitiates the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Farid Ahmad Bhatti vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1237 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-16
  post-arrest bailcounterfeit currencymedical groundssick personheart ailmenthypertension
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Farid Ahmad Bhatti, who was accused in a case registered under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly printing and dealing in counterfeit currency. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a sixty-year-old accused suffering from chronic hypertension and heart ailments, was entitled to post-arrest bail as a sick person under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail. The court held that the medical reports, including the Thallium Stress Test from the Punjab Institute of Cardiology, established that the petitioner was suffering from heart ailments and chronic hypertension, thereby bringing his case within the ambit of the humanitarian proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for sick persons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused suffering from heart ailments and chronic hypertension is entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a medical report showing minimal ischemic changes qualify an accused as a sick person for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhatullah Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue1999 MLD 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Fareeha Naz vs Muhammad Faisal Hayat Khan1999 YLR 757 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-19Read full judgment →
• Fareeda vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Ministry of Local1999 YLR 362 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →
• Fareed vs The State1999 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-02
  criminal appealmurderinimical witnessesinterested witnessbenefit of doubtacquittalprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 and section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the testimony of close relatives, which was rejected by the courts regarding five co-accused, could solely form the basis of the appellant's conviction in the presence of deep-seated enmity and flawed police investigation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt when the sole surviving witness was disbelieved as to multiple co-accused and no corroborative independent evidence was safely established. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of an interested and inimical witness must be subjected to strict scrutiny, and the rejection of such evidence against multiple co-accused weakens its reliability against a remaining accused unless independently corroborated.

  Questions settled

  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of an injured witness form the basis of a conviction when the same witness has been disbelieved regarding multiple co-accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of interested and inimical witnesses in criminal trials?
  • Does the failure of the police to properly investigate firearm injuries and discharge co-accused without sound reasoning impact the credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Faraz Akram vs The State1999 SCMR 1360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-31
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycriminal appealmurder casecommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the rejection of a post-arrest bail application in a criminal case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of participating in an attack resulting in the death of the deceased, Abid Mohsin, following a dispute over reckless driving and loud music. The petitioner argued that no specific overt act was attributed to him other than an ineffective firing, which was unsubstantiated by evidence, and that the fatal blow was attributed solely to a co-accused, Hasnain. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's vicarious liability remained a matter for determination at trial. Consequently, the Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court granted the petition, converted it into an appeal, and allowed the petitioner to be released on bail subject to the provision of security.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a specific fatal overt act attributed to an accused in a murder case justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Is the question of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a matter to be determined at the trial stage rather than at the bail stage?
  • When does a criminal case qualify for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad And Other vs Muhammad Yousaf Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 505 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Faqir Khan vs Muhammad Safeer and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1172 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
• Faqir Hussain Dogar vs Chairman/Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad1999 MLD 3408 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
• Faqir Gul And Others vs Abdur Rehman And Other1999 CLC 346 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-25
  redemption of mortgagelimitation periodacknowledgment of mortgageoccupancy tenantsrepugnancy to Islamcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Kohat, which set aside the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit and decreed the suit for possession through redemption of mortgaged property upon payment of Rs.66. The core legal question involved whether the suit for redemption was barred by limitation and the effect of the declaration regarding section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Peshawar High Court held that the transfer of mortgagee rights and entries in the revenue record constituted an acknowledgment extending the limitation period, and further noted that section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 had ceased to have effect from 31st August 1991 upon being declared repugnant to Islamic injunctions. The court thereby dismissed the revision petition, upholding the lower appellate court's decision in favor of the redemption of the property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the transfer of mortgagee rights and entries in the revenue record constitute a sufficient acknowledgment under section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908 to extend the period of limitation for redemption?
  • What is the legal effect of the declaration of section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Does the expiry of the sixty-year limitation period automatically extinguish the mortgagor's right to redeem the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 591 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-17Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur1999 YLR 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-03Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Ali Ahmad Noor And Other1999 CLC 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-16Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Addl. Deputy Commissioner (G), Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-23Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher alias Phalli vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 947 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• Fakir Adam Ali Hasbani vs Noor Muhammad Jalbani and another1999 PLC 86 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-02-28Read full judgment →
• Fakharuddin vs Fazal Karim and others1999 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-21
  condonation of delaylimitation periodleave to appealacquittalcriminal petitionjeopardy of lifeSupreme Court Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that altered a conviction from Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and dismissed revisions against the acquittal of other co-accused. The core legal question was whether a 33-day delay in filing the petition could be condoned based on the petitioner's claim of confusion regarding the applicable limitation rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The Court held that in criminal matters, particularly those involving an acquittal or a reduction of sentence, the technical requirements of limitation are of paramount importance to protect the accused from being placed in renewed jeopardy of their life or liberty. The Court affirmed that ignorance or confusion regarding limitation rules does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay. The principle laid down is that the law enabling interference with an acquittal must be strictly applied in favour of the accused, and delay will not be condoned where the petitioner fails to show they were kept in the dark regarding the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal be condoned on the ground of the petitioner's confusion regarding limitation rules?
  • Does the failure to comply with limitation rules in a criminal petition against an acquittal constitute a mere irregularity under Order XXXIII, Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
  • Is the right to life of an accused person a factor in the strict application of limitation periods for appeals against acquittals?
  Read full judgment →
• Fakhar-Uz-Zaman and 2 others vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 735 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-01Read full judgment →
• Faizullah Khan and others vs The State1999 MLD 666 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
• Faizullah Khan and anothers vs Robkareadalat and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 861 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
• Faizanul Haq vs Muhammad Nadim1999 CLC 1233 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
• Faiza Butt vs Sheikh Adnan Sheraz Sandal and others1999 YLR 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-19Read full judgment →
• Faiz Sons vs Hakim Sons (Impex) Private Ltd.1999 SCMR 2771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-26
  ejectmenttenancy agreementdefault in rentrent ordinanceattestation of agreementlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner tenant for default in paying rent at an enhanced rate agreed upon in a new tenancy agreement. The petitioner contended that the agreement was invalid because it was not attested and signed in accordance with section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and therefore failure to pay the enhanced rent did not constitute default. The core legal question was whether non-compliance with the attestation and registration requirements of section 5 of the Ordinance renders a tenancy agreement void and unenforceable. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 5 are directory rather than mandatory since the statute prescribes no specific consequences for non-compliance; its object is merely to provide proof of the landlord-tenant relationship and terms. Consequently, where the existence of the agreement is undisputed and its terms are not inconsistent with the Ordinance, the agreement remains valid and enforceable. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does non-compliance with the attestation requirements of section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 render a tenancy agreement invalid?
  • Whether failure to pay rent at an enhanced rate agreed upon in an unattested tenancy agreement constitutes default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Are statutory provisions that do not prescribe consequences for their non-compliance to be considered directory or mandatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Rasool through Attorney and anothers vs Mst. Nousheen Aslam and 2 others1999 MLD 943 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 991 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs A. Rauf and others1999 P Cr. L J 864 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-30Read full judgment →
• Faiz Bakhsh vs Muhammad Ramzan1999 YLR 584 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-30Read full judgment →
• Faiz Bakhsh and 34 others vs The Deputy Commissioner/ Acquisition1999 YLR 444 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs Superintendent of Police, Rahimyar Khan1999 PLC (C.S.) 665 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-10-09
  unauthorized absenceregular inquiryshow-cause noticepolice servicemisconductdepartmental proceedingsreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an ex-constable, challenged his removal from service by the Superintendent of Police, Rahimyar Khan, which was upheld by departmental appellate and revisional authorities. The appellant had been removed following a show-cause notice regarding his unauthorized absence from duty, without the conduct of a regular inquiry. The appellant contended that his absence was due to severe domestic distress, specifically his wife's elopement and the inundation of his home during floods, and argued that a regular inquiry was mandatory to verify these claims. The Punjab Service Tribunal considered whether the summary removal of a police official, without a regular inquiry into disputed facts regarding the reasons for absence, was legally sustainable. The Tribunal held that the impugned removal order was improper, emphasizing that the appellant's stated justifications for his absence warranted verification through a regular inquiry. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the removal order, reinstated the appellant, and granted the respondents the discretion to initiate a de novo departmental inquiry to determine the extent of the appellant's guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police official be removed from service for unauthorized absence without holding a regular inquiry when the reasons for absence are disputed?
  • Is a show-cause notice sufficient to dispense with the services of a civil servant in cases of alleged misconduct involving factual disputes?
  • Does the failure to conduct a regular inquiry into the reasons for a public servant's absence render a removal order invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs Muhammad Siddique and anothers1999 MLD 1270 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-05-25Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad Khan and another vs Muhammad Ramzan Abid and 2 others1999 SCMR 2383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-24
  service tribunalpromotionnecessary partyright of audienceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal challenging an order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which accepted the respondent's appeal regarding the refusal of promotion against the department's wishes. The core legal question concerns whether an order affecting a party could be passed without affording them an opportunity of being heard and whether such a party qualifies as an aggrieved person. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the petitioner, Faiz Ahmad Khan, was not a party before the Tribunal when the respondent's appeal was accepted, the matter warranted a remand. The Court set aside the proceedings and disposed of the petitions by converting them into appeals and granting liberty to aggrieved persons to apply for impleadment as respondents before the Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that necessary parties must be impleaded and heard before a service tribunal passes an order affecting their rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service tribunal pass an order affecting a party without hearing them?
  • Is a person who was not a party before the service tribunal entitled to be impleaded upon remand?
  • What is the appropriate course of action when an order is passed by a tribunal without impleading a necessary party?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Waheed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 882 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
• Faisal Shafique vs Vicechancellor, Aj&K University and 5 others1999 MLD 175 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-01-24
  educational admissionmerit-based admissionchancellor's quotaequality before lawwrit jurisdictiondoctrine of lachesuniversity emergency powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the denial of admission to the M.A. English program at the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner, despite having higher merit, was denied admission while candidates with lower merit were admitted against special seats created under the Chancellor’s quota. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the Vice-Chancellor’s exercise of emergency powers under the University Act to create these seats, the applicability of the doctrine of laches, and whether the denial of admission constituted a violation of the constitutional right to equality. The Court held that the creation of seats was not an emergency under the Act and constituted arbitrary favoritism. It ruled that the Chancellor’s quota must be exercised fairly, and denying admission to a higher-merit candidate while admitting lower-merit candidates violated the principle of equality before the law. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the 75% attendance requirement for examinations applies only from the date of actual admission. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the University was directed to grant the petitioner admission.

  Questions settled

  • Does the creation of special admission seats by a Vice-Chancellor to accommodate specific candidates constitute an 'emergency' under Section 11(3) of the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act?
  • Can a university deny admission to a higher-merit candidate while admitting lower-merit candidates under a discretionary quota without violating the principle of equality?
  • Does the doctrine of laches apply to a writ petition where the petitioner does not seek to disturb the existing admissions of others but merely seeks parity in admission?
  • Does the mandatory 75% attendance requirement for university examinations apply retrospectively to a student admitted late by court order?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahim Saulat through Special Attorney vs Additional District Judge, Islamabad and another1999 YLR 184 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-05Read full judgment →
• Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2574 · Madras High Court · 1996-08-07Read full judgment →
• Export Processing Zones Authority vs Messrs Synthetic Leather1999 MLD 673 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-09Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer, Pak P.W.D., Central Civil Division No. 3, Lahore vs Agha Saleem Khurshid, Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, Lahore and 2 others1999 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer, Irrigation Workshop Division, Mughalpura, Lahore vs Abdul Qayyum and 4 others1999 PLC 176 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-03-14Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer, Irrigation Ghotki Division, Ghotki and another vs Ghulam Hyder and 191 others through Attorney1999 PLC 468 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-03-03Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer (E), WAPDA and 2 others vs Rahat Shah and 12 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-14
  probationary periodtermination of serviceprocedural lapseWAPDA employeesservice tribunalshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions filed by WAPDA against the reinstatement of its employees by the Service Tribunal, whose services were terminated during their probationary period following appointments made against the sons of WAPDA-employees quota. The core legal questions involve whether an employer can terminate a probationer's service for procedural irregularities committed by the employer itself, and whether such termination is justified under the terms of appointment or under statutory powers when the mandatory procedure is not followed. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly reinstated the respondents, ruling that an authority cannot take advantage of its own procedural lapses in making appointments, and that services during probation can only be terminated if work or conduct is unsatisfactory. Furthermore, statutory termination powers under Section 17(1-A) require adherence to procedural safeguards including a show-cause notice, which was not done. The key principle laid down is that an employer cannot benefit from its own irregularities in the appointment process, and probationary terminations must strictly adhere to the stipulated contractual conditions and statutory procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer terminate an employee's service during probation due to an irregularity committed by the employer itself during the appointment process?
  • Whether the services of a probationer can be dispensed with on grounds other than unsatisfactory work or conduct when so mandated by the terms of appointment?
  • Does Section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 require a show-cause notice and written grounds before an employee's services can be terminated?
  Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Umar Din1999 YLR 1976 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-18Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board and others vs Sh. Abdul Sattar and others1999 YLR 1838 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-18Read full judgment →
• Eric And Others vs Hakim Muhammad Younas And Other1999 CLC 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
• Engr. Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and anothers vs Khalilur Rehman and 4 others1999 SCMR 2939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-08-31
  Senate electionreserved seatstechnocratprofessionalPresident's Order 5 of 1977election petitionlarger bench reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves civil appeals arising from judgments of the Election Tribunal N.-W.F.P., which declared the election of certain senators to reserved seats for technocrats and professionals void and ordered bye-elections, while refusing to declare the runners-up as elected. The core legal question centered upon the interpretation of the terms 'technocrat' and 'professional' as defined in President's Order 5 of 1977, and whether said Order survived as a valid existing law under the Constitution. Upon examining the legislative history, previous judicial views, and subsequent amendments including the omission of restrictive clauses and Articles 20 to 23 of the Order, the court identified a conflict with a previous coordinate bench ruling in Sheikh Rafique Ahmed v. Zia Shahid regarding the temporary nature of President's Order 5 of 1977. Consequently, the court held that the legal instrument was not a one-time temporary legislation and referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench to resolve the conflicting interpretations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether President's Order 5 of 1977 was a temporary one-time legislative instrument that expired with the restoration of the Constitution, or a continuing valid law protected under Article 270-A of the Constitution?
  • Do the definitions of 'technocrat' and 'professional' introduced through amendments to President's Order 5 of 1977 govern the qualifications for candidates contesting against reserved Senate seats?
  • What is the legal effect of the omission of clause (2) of Article 1 and Articles 20 to 23 of President's Order 5 of 1977 on its continued operativity?
  Read full judgment →
• Enamul Haq and another vs Mst. Qaseemunnisa1999 MLD 435 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
• En-Em Stores (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1999 PTD 2762 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Employees' Union, Pak American Fertilizers Ltd. and others vs Registrar, Trade Unions, Sargodha Region, Sargodha and others1999 PLC 182 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
• Emirates Bank International PJSC vs Rana Zahid Iqbal1999 PLC 297 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-08-01Read full judgment →
• Emirates Bank International and another vs Rana Zahid Iqbal and 21999 PLC 302 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-11
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantworkmandismissal from servicelabour court jurisdictionsubstantial justiceindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had modified the dismissal of an Assistant Manager of a bank into a resignation. The petitioners argued that the lower forums failed to provide adequate reasoning, lacked the authority to convert dismissal into resignation, and that the respondent was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the master-servant relationship precluded Labour Court interference. The Court held that dismissing an employee without an inquiry, which attaches a permanent stigma, is unjust. It affirmed that Labour Courts possess the jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to pass just and proper orders to safeguard workmen's rights, even within a master-servant relationship. The Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned orders, finding them to be fair and based on substantial justice, despite the petitioners' hyper-technical objections regarding the form of the lower courts' judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Labour Court convert an order of dismissal from service into an order of resignation?
  • Does the master-servant relationship divest a Labour Court of its jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is an employer justified in dismissing an employee without holding an inquiry?
  • Can the High Court refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction against a technically flawed order if the order achieves substantial justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Eman Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs I.D.B.P. and others1999 CLC 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
• Ellahi Bakhsh and 8 others vs Ahmad Bakhsh and 2 others1999 YLR 777 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22
  civil revisionlimitationcondonation of delayoffice objectionscertified copiesre-filing delayproperly constituted petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from an objection raised by the High Court office regarding the failure of the petitioners to file certified copies of the evidence and other trial court annexures. The petitioners had re-filed the revision petition after a delay of 228 days without submitting an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, arguing that the documents were already placed on record in a connected revision petition. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petitions, holding that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is mandatory for a petitioner to annex certified copies of the pleadings, documents, and orders of the subordinate court. The Court ruled that any extra time taken beyond the period allowed by the office to remove objections cannot be excluded when computing the limitation period. Consequently, the failure to re-file the petition within the stipulated time, coupled with the absence of a condonation application, rendered the petitions time-barred and improperly constituted.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for a petitioner to annex certified copies of the pleadings and documents of the subordinate court?
  • Can the extra time taken by a party to remove office objections and re-file a petition be excluded when computing the period of limitation under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to re-file a memorandum of appeal or revision within the time allowed by the High Court office to remove objections?
  Read full judgment →
• Electric Lamp Manufacturer of Pakistan vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1999 CLC 123 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-21Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Rahim vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 38 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Javed and 4 others vs The State and another1999 YLR 2338 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-22Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Hussain And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 148 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmed, D.S., Finance Department, Sindh, Karachi vs Government of Pakistan through Establishment Division and others1999 SCMR 2546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-14
  civil service senioritydepartmental promotion examinationprobationary rulesservice tribunalretrospective senioritycivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a service matter regarding the seniority of a civil servant in the District Management Group. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s seniority should be governed by the Occupational Groups and Service (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990, or the earlier Civil Service of Pakistan (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1954, and whether he was entitled to seniority despite failing the departmental promotion examination three times. The Supreme Court held that while the 1954 Rules applied because the appellant qualified before the 1990 Rules were enacted, his claim for seniority remained unsustainable. The Court determined that Rule 9-A of the 1954 Rules explicitly permitted penalties, including the loss of seniority, for probationers who failed to qualify in the prescribed attempts. Consequently, the appellant could not claim seniority from a date prior to his successful completion of the examination. The Court further noted that the appellant failed to substantiate claims regarding discriminatory treatment of other batchmates. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that failure to pass departmental examinations justifies the loss of seniority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Occupational Groups and Service (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990 apply to a civil servant who qualified the departmental promotion examination before the rules came into effect?
  • Can a probationer who fails to qualify the departmental promotion examination in the prescribed number of attempts claim seniority from the date of their batchmates' promotion?
  • Does Rule 9-A of the Civil Service of Pakistan (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1954 authorize the imposition of a penalty of loss of seniority for failing to qualify the departmental promotion examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1495 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-31Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmed alias Gandhi and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 439 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad vs Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab And Other1999 CLC 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad vs Mst. Hameed Fatima and 3 others1999 YLR 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-17Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad Awan and 5 others vs Syed Manzoor Ali Shah and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 1439 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-03-01
  writ jurisdictionseniority listservice mattersterms and conditions of servicecivil servantimplementation of departmental orderservice tribunalpromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that directed the Director Education to implement an order by the Secretary Education, which had placed the respondent, Syed Manzoor Ali Shah, at a specific serial number in the seniority list of Senior Teachers (Grade B-17). The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction to enforce a departmental order concerning seniority, a matter typically falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, and whether such an order was legally valid. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court may, in limited circumstances, issue a writ to implement a valid, final, and uncontested departmental order, it cannot do so when the order is patently illegal or when the matter involves complex service conditions like seniority disputes. The Court clarified that seniority is determined by the date of continuous appointment in a grade, not merely by the date of passing a qualification like the B.Ed. examination. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the respondent's placement in the seniority list was based on an erroneous interpretation of service rules and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce such an order.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to enforce a departmental order regarding the seniority of a civil servant?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to implement a departmental order that is patently illegal or violates service rules?
  • Is the seniority of a civil servant determined by the date of continuous appointment in a grade or by the date of passing a specific qualification examination?
  • Does the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal exclude the High Court from entertaining proceedings related to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad Alias Gandhi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 239 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
• Ehsanullah vs The Zila Council, Gujranwala and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 190 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-18
  service terminationillegal appointmentselection committeerecruitment committeevested rightprobation periodconstitutional jurisdictionlocal council
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a batch of writ petitions challenging the termination of services of employees, including gunmen, naib-qasids, vaccinators, and dispensers, who were appointed in various local councils in 1995. The core legal questions involve the validity of appointments made by a 'Recruitment Committee' instead of the statutory 'Selection Committee' under the local government framework, whether such irregular appointments create a vested right, and if the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked to protect illegal appointments. The Lahore High Court held that appointments made by an unauthorized committee usurping the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee are void ab initio and do not create any vested right or basis for promissory estoppel. The Court ruled that illegalities cannot be perpetuated through constitutional petitions and authorities have the inherent power to rectify illegal orders and terminate services during the extended probation period without a stigma. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will decline relief in its constitutional jurisdiction where granting it would protect illegal benefits or perpetuate administrative illegalities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether appointments made by a Recruitment Committee instead of the statutory Selection Committee under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance are legal?
  • Does an irregular or illegal appointment create a vested right or attract the principle of locus poenitentiae?
  • Can the services of a probationer be dispensed with without a stigma when the foundational appointment order is declared illegal?
  • Whether the High Court should issue a writ in its constitutional jurisdiction to protect illegal and irregular appointments from being corrected?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah vs The State1999 MLD 2555 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Elahi Cheema vs Secretary Health and 2 others1999 SCMR 2482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-22
  civil servanttransfer and postingmala fidesservice tribunaladministrative prerogativeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his transfer from his position as a Pharmacist. The petitioner, a civil servant, contended that his transfer was motivated by mala fides, alleging victimization due to his efforts to expose departmental irregularities, and argued that the Service Tribunal failed to consider supporting documents. The Supreme Court addressed whether a transfer order of a civil servant constitutes a justiciable grievance when mala fides are alleged but unsubstantiated. The Court held that posting and transfer are the prerogative of the employer, and no vested right exists for a civil servant to remain at a particular station unless specific rules dictate otherwise. Finding that the petitioner had exceeded the normal three-year tenure and that his allegations of irregularities were proven false, the Court concluded the transfer was made for valid administrative reasons. The Court affirmed that mere transfer does not involve a question of law of public importance, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to remain posted at a specific station?
  • Is a transfer order of a civil servant subject to judicial interference if the allegations of mala fides are found to be false?
  • Does a transfer order of a civil servant generally involve a question of law of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• East West Trading and others vs Emirates Bank International and others1999 MLD 3402 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• East West Insurance Company Limited vs Wafaqi Mohtasib and s1999 MLD 3050 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
• East India Hotels Ltd. and another vs C . R. Shekhar Reddy and another1999 PTD 3350 · karnataka High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• E.I.D. Parry Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2118 · Madras High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Duray Shahwar Nayyar vs Ladies Staff Officer, P.I.A. and anothers1999 PLD Lahore 15 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-17Read full judgment →