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.

• Dulichand Gulsari Lal Jain and another vs Union of India and others1999 PTD 1997 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Waseem Ismat Chaudhry vs Chairman and Dean, Shaikh Zayed1999 SCMR 2364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-30
  service lawdepartmental promotionpromotion criteriaservice tribunaladministrative lawdisciplinary inquiryservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the promotion of a medical professional. The core legal question was whether an employee, having been recommended for promotion by a Departmental Promotion Committee, could be denied that promotion due to inquiries initiated against them subsequent to the recommendation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal’s decision to direct the department to finalize the promotion. The Court found that the department had no valid basis to withhold the promotion, as the recommendation was made when no inquiry was pending against the respondent. The Court established the principle that an employee cannot be denied a promotion based on an alleged inquiry or misconduct that occurred or was initiated subsequent to the date the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the promotion. Administrative authorities are required to act upon valid recommendations made at the time, and subsequent, unrelated allegations cannot retroactively invalidate a completed selection process.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee be denied a promotion based on an inquiry initiated after the Departmental Promotion Committee has already recommended them for that promotion?
  • Is a department obligated to act upon the unanimous recommendations of a Departmental Promotion Committee when no inquiry was pending against the candidate at the time of the recommendation?
  • Does the initiation of an inquiry regarding subsequent misconduct justify the withholding of a promotion recommended by a Departmental Promotion Committee?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shuja-Ud-Din Khan vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-29
  service tribunallimitationtechnicalitiesdirect appointmentspromotion quotaremandcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a service dispute where the Service Tribunal had dismissed the appellant's case primarily on the ground of limitation. The core legal question addressed is whether the technical plea of limitation should bar a substantive service matter involving systemic violations of promotion and appointment quotas. The Supreme Court held that in matters involving important legal principles and actions that may be void or without legal effect, a fetish of technicalities regarding limitation should not non-suit an aggrieved party. Setting aside the Tribunal's view, the Court condoned the delay and laid down the principle that questions of limitation become secondary when substantial questions of law and proper adherence to appointment quotas are at stake, remanding the case to the Service Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of limitation can be overlooked in service matters involving important legal questions and void administrative actions?
  • Can a service appeal be dismissed on the ground of delay when direct appointments are made in violation of prescribed promotion quotas?
  • Should a case be remanded to the Service Tribunal for a decision on merits when the Tribunal was influenced by assumed facts regarding limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahida Nasreen, Additional Medical Superintendent, Services1999 PLD Lahore 207 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02
  re-evaluation of scriptsUniversity of the Punjabstatutory interpretationvested rightretrospective operationconstitutional petitionscrutiny vs evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several writ petitions challenging the refusal of the University of the Punjab to conduct re-evaluation of examination scripts following the deletion of Regulation 23(b). The core questions were whether the University retains the power to re-evaluate scripts under Section 15(4)(v) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, despite the deletion of the specific regulation, and whether the deletion notification could be applied retrospectively to examinations held before the amendment. The Court held that the power to 'scrutinize' papers under the Act is distinct from 'evaluation,' and the Act does not confer an inherent power of re-evaluation. The deletion of Regulation 23(b) was a valid exercise of authority, and the Court cannot interfere with policy decisions of the University. Furthermore, the Court determined that candidates possess no vested right to re-evaluation, and the amended regulation applies to results declared after its enactment, rejecting claims of retrospective application. The Court affirmed that while statutory re-evaluation powers may be absent, inherent powers exist to redress manifest fraud or perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power to make arrangements for the scrutiny of papers under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 include the power of re-evaluation?
  • Can a university regulation regarding re-evaluation be deleted without violating the parent statute?
  • Does a student have a vested right to have their examination scripts re-evaluated under the regulations in force at the time of the examination?
  • Is the deletion of a regulation regarding re-evaluation applicable to results declared after the date of the amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sayed Rahatullah vs Deputy Director, Crime Circle, Federal1999 P Cr. L J 1549 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Samiullah Khan vs N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission through Chairman, Peshawar and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 345 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Safdar vs Falak Niaz and another1999 YLR 1724 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Riaz Ahmad and 3 others vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Punjab Secretariat, Lahore and 6 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 359 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04
  medical teaching postsinitial recruitmentservice rules interpretationpublic service commissiondiscretion of public authoritytransparency in selectionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two writ petitions challenging the non-selection of the petitioners to the posts of Senior Registrars (Orthopaedic Surgery) and Assistant Professor (Orthopaedic Surgeon) by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The core legal questions involved whether candidates possessing specialized qualifications in a specific medical discipline under category (i) of the relevant rules must be legally preferred over candidates having general qualifications with three years of practical experience under category (ii), and whether the selection process lacked transparency and reasonableness due to an absence of recorded reasons for non-selection. The Lahore High Court held that the relevant provisions of the Punjab Health Department (Medical and Dental Teaching Posts) Service Rules, 1979 place both categories of candidates at par, and in the absence of explicit statutory language mandating preference, the court cannot rewrite the rules or assume the role of the law-maker. Furthermore, the court held that transparency does not require administrative bodies to provide elaborate individual reasons to every unsuccessful candidate absent any initial material demonstrating mala fides or arbitrariness. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether candidates possessing specialized qualifications under category (i) of the Punjab Health Department (Medical and Dental Teaching Posts) Service Rules, 1979 are entitled to preference over candidates under category (ii)?
  • Can the High Court interpret a service rule to grant preference to one category of candidates over another when the statute or rules contain no such express provision?
  • Does the principle of transparency oblige a public service commission to furnish elaborate reasons to every unsuccessful candidate for non-selection in the absence of mala fides?
  • Whether the High Court can conduct a roving and fishing inquiry into the evaluation of candidates by the public service commission under writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ravi Singh and another vs Union of India and others1999 PTD 549 · Delhi High Court · 1995-05-19Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Usman Faruqui vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1052 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-21Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Tauseef Ahmad vs Secretary, Livestock and Dairy1999 PLC (C.S.) 1470 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Tahir Achakzai and others vs Government of Balochistan and others1999 SCMR 1689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-05
  service appealdepartmental remedyexhaustion of remediesmaintainabilitypromotionvires of rulesservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal which had entertained a service appeal by a medical officer (respondent) challenging the promotion of two senior doctors (appellants) to Associate Professor of Cardiology and declared certain provincial recruitment rules ultra vires. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal was maintainable where the aggrieved civil servant had failed to exhaust the departmental remedy provided under the relevant service rules, and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to declare service rules ultra vires independently. Setting aside the Tribunal's judgment, the Supreme Court held that under Section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act 1973, exhausting the departmental remedy (appeal, review, or representation) is a mandatory condition precedent to filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Court further laid down that a Service Tribunal cannot independently adjudicate the vires of service rules in abstract unless a competent, maintainable dispute regarding the terms and conditions of service of an aggrieved civil servant is properly brought before it.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal maintainable without first exhausting available departmental remedies?
  • Can a Service Tribunal independently examine the vires of a service rule in the absence of a maintainable dispute regarding a civil servant's terms and conditions of service?
  • Does failure to approach a departmental authority on time bar a civil servant from seeking relief before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department, Sindh Civil Secretariat, Karachi and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 747 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-17
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderhabeas corpusalternative remedybail cancellationconstitutional petitionlibertyultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, a senior police officer, challenging his preventive detention ordered by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1961. The petitioner was earlier accused in a murder case, granted pre-arrest bail by the Supreme Court, and subsequently detained through successive orders under the Ordinance based on apprehensions that he might abscond or tamper with evidence following the release of a tribunal report. The Sindh High Court examined the maintainability of the petition in light of the alternate remedy of representation under Section 3(6) of the Ordinance and Article 10(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that the availability of such a representation does not bar the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, particularly in habeas corpus-style matters concerning personal liberty. On merits, the Court ruled that the grounds of detention relating to the potential abscondence of an accused or destruction of evidence do not constitute activities prejudicial to public safety or public order under the Ordinance, and that executive authorities cannot use preventive detention to bypass bail matters pending before regular courts. The detention order was declared without lawful authority and set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the availability of a statutory representation to the Provincial Government under Section 3(6) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1961 bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenging preventive detention?
  • Can an order of preventive detention under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1961 be legally sustained on the grounds that an accused on bail is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence in a pending criminal case?
  • Does a detaining authority have the power to issue a preventive detention order to counteract the release of an accused on bail granted by a superior court?
  • What is the distinction between the constitutional jurisdiction exercised under Article 199(1)(a) and Article 199(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 regarding the legality of a citizen's detention?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Saleem Mirza, Incharge, District Health Development1999 SCMR 2538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-27
  service matterdepartmental representationstatutory periodtransfer orderexhaustion of remediesproper channelservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a transfer order on the grounds that it was premature, as the statutory ninety-day waiting period following a departmental representation had not elapsed. The core legal question was whether a civil servant is barred from approaching the Service Tribunal when a departmental authority, by refusing to forward a representation through the proper channel, effectively prevents the exhaustion of departmental remedies within the statutory timeframe. The Supreme Court observed that the Director, Health Services, created an anomalous situation by filing the petitioner's representation rather than forwarding it, thereby obstructing the petitioner's access to administrative redress. Consequently, the Court, by consent of the parties, converted the petition into an appeal and directed the petitioner to submit the representation directly to the Secretary, Health Department. The Court held that the Secretary must decide the representation within fifteen days, during which time the impugned transfer orders remain suspended, ensuring the petitioner's right to seek administrative remedy is not defeated by procedural obstruction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant approach the Service Tribunal if a departmental authority refuses to forward a representation through the proper channel before the expiry of the statutory ninety-day period?
  • Does the refusal of a departmental authority to forward a representation constitute a rejection that allows a civil servant to seek judicial intervention?
  • Is the ninety-day waiting period for departmental remedies applicable when the departmental authority fails to process the representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Ayub Manager Govt. Farm Loralai vs The Province of Balochistan Through the Secretary, Govt. of Balochistan Livestock and Dairy Development Department, QuettaK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 99 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Mrs. Mary Koshy and others vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1999 PTD 945 · Kerala High Court · 1996-09-06Read full judgment →
• Dr. M. Sarwar vs Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad1999 PLC (C.S.) 1099 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Dr. M. Afzal Beg vs University of Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 60 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-20
  quo warrantoVice-Chancellor appointmentseniority listmisrepresentationdiscretionary powersconstitutional petitionmaster and servant principle
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the notification appointing respondent No. 3 as Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Punjab through a constitutional petition. The core legal questions involved whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable against such an appointment, whether the appointment was vitiated due to incorrect and misleading facts placed before the Chancellor regarding seniority, and whether discretion in making such appointments is subject to judicial review. The Lahore High Court held that while the petitioner had no vested right to promotion and personal relief could not be granted, a writ of quo warranto is maintainable to challenge public appointments made in violation of law or based on misrepresentation. The Court ruled that fraud and misrepresentation vitiate solemn acts and that the summary submitted to the Chancellor reflected incorrect facts regarding the seniority of the appointees. Consequently, the Court issued a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 3 without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that executive discretion in making appointments must be exercised transparently, and appointments secured through misleading summaries or suppression of correct material facts are liable to be struck down under quo warranto.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable to challenge the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor when the rules are non-statutory?
  • Does the submission of an incorrect and misleading summary to the appointing authority vitiate an appointment?
  • Whether the Chancellor's discretion in appointing a Vice-Chancellor is subject to judicial review?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to claim promotion to the post of Vice-Chancellor?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Liaqat Ali vs Vice-Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 454 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-25
  provisional admissioninterim orderequitable reliefcompletion of courseIntra-Court Appealuniversity admission
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant's constitutional petition challenging the denial of his admission to the M.Sc. course by the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The appellant had originally been denied admission for lacking a nomination from the Northern Area, but obtained a provisional admission order from the High Court during the pendency of the writ petition. Under the protection of that interim order, the appellant completed his entire course of study, although his writ petition was ultimately dismissed on merits by the learned Single Judge. The core legal question was whether an applicant who completed their educational course under a provisional interim order should be deprived of their qualification following the dismissal of their writ petition. Following Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that since the appellant had completed his studies, it would be inequitable and harsh to undo his admission at this stage. Without deciding his eligibility on merits, the Court treated his admission and completion of studies as legal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an educational institution cancel a student's admission after they have completed their studies under a provisional court order?
  • Whether it is equitable to adjudicate an applicant's admission eligibility on merits after they have already completed the academic course under an interim order?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Karni Singh Ji of Bikaner vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3773 · Delhi High Court · 1999-03-05Read full judgment →
• Dr. K. Satyanarayana vs Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal and another1999 PTD 1573 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-03-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Irfan Ullah Kundi vs Mst. Afzala Irfan and 2 others1999 MLD 2759 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Haider Ali Mithani and another vs Ishrat Swaleh and others1999 PLD Karachi 81 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-13
  stay of suitres sub judiceCode of Civil Procedureinherent powers of courtmultiplicity of litigationillegal dispossessioncivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order staying proceedings in a subsequent suit (Suit No. 1190 of 1989) due to the pendency of earlier suits (Suit No. 61 of 1988 and Suit No. 529 of 1988) between the same parties regarding the same property. The appellants alleged illegal dispossession and sought possession, injunctions, and damages. The core legal question was whether the subsequent suit should be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the sum and substance of the suits involved the same parties and the same vital issue of illegal dispossession. The Court affirmed that the purpose of Section 10 is to avoid duplication of trials and conflicting decisions. It further held that even if the strict technical requirements of Section 10 were not fully met, the Court possesses inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to stay proceedings to secure the ends of justice and suppress mischief. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the appellants should have pursued their earlier instituted suits rather than initiating fresh litigation.

  Questions settled

  • What are the five essential ingredients required to stay a subsequently instituted suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court stay proceedings in a subsequent suit under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the strict conditions of Section 10 are not fully satisfied?
  • Does the pendency of a suit for possession under the Specific Relief Act 1877 justify staying a subsequent suit involving the same parties and subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Murtaza Cheema vs Government of Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 257 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
• Dr. Capt. Muzaffar Ali Memon vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Military Land and Cantonment Board, Government of Pakistan Rawalpindi and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 1273 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Dr. Amjad Yasin and 5 others vs Mian Muhammad Ataullah1999 YLR 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ali Akbar M. Dhakan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1015 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abrar Hussain Baloch vs Additional Director, Anti-Corruption1999 PLD Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
• Dr. A. A. Hai vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and another1999 PTD 1917 · Patna High Court · 1996-12-16Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1723 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi and others vs Muhammad Yousuf and others1999 PLC 434 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
• Divisional Engineer Phones, Phones Division, Sukkur and anothers vs Muhammad Shahid and others1999 SCMR 1526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-28
  civil servantmaster and servantFederal Service TribunalPakistan Telecommunication Corporationstatutory corporationjurisdictiontermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves twelve appeals by the Divisional Engineer Phones, Sukkur, against respondents who were appointed as Telephone Operators on an ad hoc basis in the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) between 1990 and 1991 and whose services were later terminated. The core legal question is whether these employees, appointed directly by the Corporation after its establishment, fall within the definition of 'Civil Servant' so as to make their appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal maintainable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that employees appointed directly by a statutory corporation after its inception do not enjoy the status of civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and thus their service disputes could not be entertained by the Service Tribunal prior to the enactment of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court established that while employees transferred en bloc to a corporation whose terms preserve their prior status continue as civil servants, newly appointed corporation employees are governed by the principle of master and servant unless protected by statutory rules or subsequent statutory fictions like section 2-A.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees appointed directly by a statutory corporation after its establishment are civil servants?
  • Does the en bloc transfer of government employees to a newly created corporation affect their status as civil servants?
  • What is the nature of the employment relationship between a statutory corporation and its directly appointed employees in the absence of statutory rules?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal had jurisdiction over service disputes of corporation employees prior to the insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Engineer Phones, Phones Division, Sukkur and another vs Muhammad Shahid and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-28
  civil servant statusmaster and servant principlestatutory corporationservice tribunal jurisdictionwrongful dismissalservice of Pakistanen bloc transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the Federal Service Tribunal's decision regarding the status of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) employees. The core legal question was whether employees appointed after the Corporation's establishment qualify as 'civil servants' entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal for service disputes. The Supreme Court held that the relationship between a statutory corporation and its employees is governed by the principle of 'master and servant' unless statutory service rules exist. Consequently, employees appointed after the Corporation's inception do not qualify as 'civil servants' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and cannot approach the Service Tribunal. However, the Court clarified that employees transferred en bloc to the Corporation upon its establishment retain their prior status as civil servants. The Court further noted that while the 1997 amendment (Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act) expanded the Tribunal's jurisdiction, it did not retroactively confer 'civil servant' status under the Civil Servants Act upon all corporate employees. The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the transfer of employees to a statutory corporation upon its establishment change their status as civil servants?
  • Are employees appointed to a statutory corporation after its inception considered civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to the relationship between a statutory corporation and its employees in the absence of statutory service rules?
  • Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, retroactively confer the status of 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, upon all corporate employees?
  Read full judgment →
• District Manager, Sindh Road Transport Corporation, Badin Depot vs Muhammad Ishaq1999 PLC 485 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-04-30Read full judgment →
• District Manager, S.R.T.C., Hyderabad Depot, Hyderabad vs Mushtaq1999 PLC 489 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-04-30Read full judgment →
• District Manager, S.R.T.C., Badin Depot vs Noor Uddin1999 PLC 493 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-04-30Read full judgment →
• District Council,Abbottabad through Administrator vs Akbar and anothers1999 MLD 1652 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
• Directorgeneral, Directorate General of Registration and others vs Naseem Ahmad Jafri and others1999 SCMR 2462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-07
  Secretariat Allowanceleave to appealprecedentmerger of allowancewrit petitioncivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal were filed against judgments of the Lahore High Court and the Peshawar High Court, wherein the respondents were granted 20% Secretariat Allowance based on earlier precedent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Courts' judgments complied with the law laid down in the Supreme Court Full Bench judgment of Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Nasir v. Secretary, Finance Division (1997 SCMR 1026), which held that Secretariat Allowance was only admissible up to 31 May 1994, as it was subsequently merged into basic salaries under a new policy. For petitions where counsel for the respondents/caveators consented, the Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and disposed of them with the clarification that the High Courts' judgments would remain operative only up to 31 May 1994. In the remaining petitions, leave to appeal was granted subject to limitation to examine the consistency of the impugned judgments with the precedent laid down in Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Nasir.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Secretariat Allowance could be granted to employees beyond 31 May 1994 after its merger into salaries under the new scheme?
  • Whether High Court judgments granting Secretariat Allowance must conform to the Supreme Court precedent in Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Nasir v. Secretary, Finance Division?
  Read full judgment →
• Director-General, National Logistic Cell, Rawalpindi vs Muhkam Din1999 PLC (C.S.) 519 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
• Director, Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs1999 MLD 2233 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-31Read full judgment →
• Director Remounts, Veterinary and Farms, GHQ Through Major AbdulK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 187 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Director of School Education, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and anothers vs Provincial Ombudsman and anothers1999 MLD 2856 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
• Director of Income-Tax (Exemption) vs Shilpam1999 PTD 3421 · Calcutta High Court · 1997-11-21Read full judgment →
• Dilmurad Haqani and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1702 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
• Dildar Ali vs The State1999 SCMR 1316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-08
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirycriminal breach of trustbail confirmationinterim bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Dildar Ali, who was charged under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a case registered at Police Station Chobara, District Layyah. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail, given the circumstances of the case and the arguments presented by the State. Upon reviewing the record and hearing arguments from both the petitioner's counsel and the Assistant Advocate-General, the Court determined that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court held that the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner should be confirmed. The petition was accordingly converted into an appeal and allowed. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a criminal case involves allegations that necessitate further investigation or inquiry, the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail is appropriate to protect the liberty of the accused pending the final determination of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Is a case requiring further inquiry a valid ground for confirming interim pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a petition for pre-arrest bail be converted into an appeal and allowed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan vs Baber Shahzad And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 62 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan Bangash vs The State1999 MLD 1827 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-25Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain Butt vs Sheikh Zulriqar Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 364 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain Butt vs Sheikh Zulfiqar Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 534 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain Butt vs Sheikh Zulfiqar Ali and 4 others1999 MLD 2602 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain and 3 others vs S.H.O., Police Station Dhanoot, District Lodhran and 2 others1999 MLD 881 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Dil Bahadur Khan vs Pakistan Engineering Council through Deputy1999 PLC (C.S.) 1464 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
• Dharamdas and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1999 MLD 2968 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-26Read full judgment →
• Dharam Chand Jain vs State of Bihar and another1999 PTD 3876 · Patna High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
• Dhani Bux vs The State1999 MLD 2028 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-24Read full judgment →
• Dhanalaxmi Steel Re-Rolling Mills vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2732 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
• Dewan Kumar Malhi vs Giyanoomal And 83 Other1999 CLC 441 · Election Tribunal · 1999-05-04
  election petitionverification of pleadingsoath commissionerdismissal of petitiontechnical defectsrepresentation of the people act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two miscellaneous applications filed in separate election petitions, seeking the dismissal of the petitions due to alleged non-compliance with statutory requirements. The core legal question was whether the election petitions should be dismissed for failure to file the names and particulars of witnesses along with their affidavits, and for alleged defects in the verification of the petitions. The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to comply with Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and that the verification was not properly conducted on oath. The Election Tribunal held that the petitions could not be dismissed on these grounds at this preliminary stage. The Tribunal found that the verification bore the endorsement of an Oath Commissioner, and in the absence of an express challenge to the administration of the oath, it could not be deemed defective without evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that election petitions should be decided on merits rather than hyper-technicalities. Consequently, the applications for dismissal were rejected, allowing the election petitions to proceed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an election petition be dismissed at a preliminary stage for alleged defects in verification without recording evidence?
  • Does the endorsement of an Oath Commissioner on a verification create a presumption that the oath was duly administered?
  • Is the failure to file names and particulars of witnesses along with an election petition sufficient grounds for summary dismissal under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner/Collector And Another vs Mir Abdul Nabi And 131999 CLC 252 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Deputy Commandant, F.R.P., N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and another vs Muhammad Siddique, Ex-Constable No. 2867 of Platoon No. 20 of Karak and 28 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-04
  service appealdisciplinary proceedingspolice rulesremand of casemajor penaltyprocedural irregularityservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had reduced the major penalty of removal from service imposed on several police constables to a minor penalty of withholding two annual increments. The constables were dismissed following allegations of disobeying lawful orders during an emergency deployment. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal acted correctly in reducing the penalty without addressing alleged procedural irregularities in the inquiry proceedings, and whether the proper course, upon finding such irregularities, was to remand the matter for a fresh inquiry rather than substituting the penalty. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had failed to properly address the procedural defects and that the alleged admission of guilt by the respondents was not supported by the record. Consequently, the Court held that the appropriate legal course was to remand the case for a regular inquiry in accordance with the applicable rules. The Court set aside the Tribunal's modification of the penalty and directed the authorities to conduct a fresh inquiry under the N.-W.F.P. Police Rules, 1975, while ordering the respondents to remain in service pending the outcome.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Service Tribunal can reduce a major penalty to a minor penalty without addressing procedural defects in the underlying inquiry?
  • Is it the correct legal course for a Service Tribunal to remand a case for a fresh inquiry when procedural irregularities in disciplinary proceedings are identified?
  • Does the failure to follow the correct rule under the N.-W.F.P. Police Rules, 1975, in disciplinary proceedings necessitate a fresh inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Department vs AssesseePTCL 1999 CL. 48 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1998-02-16Read full judgment →
• Delhi Development Authority vs Income-Tax Officer C.1999 PTD 3387 · Delhi High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
• Deedar Ahmed alias Eidan vs The State1999 YLR 240 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
• Dawood Khan Pathan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2099 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Daulat Khan vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 105 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
• Daulat Khan and others vs Fazal Ahmad and 2 others1999 MLD 1770 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-08-20Read full judgment →
• Daga & Co. (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 1736 · Calcutta High Court · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad vs Noor Ali1999 MLD 2117 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-09-11Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad and another vs Mirza Hafeez Ahmed1999 SCMR 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-23
  ejectment proceedingsrent controller jurisdictionlimitation periodnullity in lawfinding of facthotel definitiontenancy dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against tenants for default in rent and unauthorized use of premises. The tenants challenged the Rent Controller's jurisdiction, asserting the premises were a 'hotel' and thus excluded from the Rent Controller's purview under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Rent Controller, relying on evidence, found the premises were merely serving refreshments and did not constitute a 'hotel,' subsequently ordering ejectment. The tenants filed an appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed as time-barred. Before the Supreme Court, the tenants argued the Rent Controller's order was a nullity in law due to lack of jurisdiction, thereby bypassing limitation periods. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller's findings of fact regarding the nature of the premises were based on evidence and were not a nullity. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the mere conversion of premises into a hotel by a tenant does not automatically oust the Rent Controller's jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was correctly dismissed as time-barred, and the petition for leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conversion of rented premises into a hotel by a tenant automatically exclude the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller?
  • Can an appeal filed beyond the limitation period be entertained on the sole ground that the lower court's order was a nullity?
  • Are findings of fact recorded by a Rent Controller based on evidence considered a nullity in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Custodian of Evacuee Property, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad vs Muhammad Najeeb and another1999 YLR 2311 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-06-30Read full judgment →
• Criminal Appeals Nos.23, 24 and Murder Reference. No,9 of 1997(Atsc) vs The State1999 YLR 858 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 1998-01-27Read full judgment →
• Court on Its Own Motion vs Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce1999 PTD 509 · Himachal Pradesh High Court · 1996-09-04Read full judgment →
• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Messrs1999 MLD 1626 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• Cornpak Limited through S.H.A. Jasbi, Divisional Manager, Personnel and Administration and Notified Manager, Under Factory Act, 1934 vs S. M. Asim1999 PLC 478 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
• Cooperative Insurance Society of Pakistan Limited, Karachi and others vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi and 12 others1999 SCMR 2799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-29
  Insurance Appellate Tribunalcooperative societiesstatutory interpretationsuit versus applicationnotice requirementnationalization
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals against a High Court judgment that set aside an Insurance Appellate Tribunal order dismissing four applications filed by the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (SLIC) against the Cooperative Insurance Society of Pakistan Limited (CISP) under Article 22 of the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972. The Tribunal had dismissed the applications as not maintainable for want of a mandatory pre-suit notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, treating the applications as suits. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that proceedings initiated by an application under Article 22 are distinct from a suit, rendering Section 70 inapplicable unless a formal suit is brought under Article 22(4). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that where the legislature distinctly employs the terms 'application' and 'suit' within the same statutory provision, redundancy cannot be imputed, and an application under Article 22 cannot be equated to a suit so as to attract the procedural constraints of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The matters were rightly remitted to the Tribunal for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application filed under Article 22 of the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 constitutes a 'suit' for the purposes of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Does the requirement of a mandatory notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 apply to proceedings commenced by way of an application rather than a plaint before the Insurance Appellate Tribunal?
  • Can redundancy be imputed to the legislature when different terms such as 'application' and 'suit' are used separately within the same statutory provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Cooperative Bank, Haripur through Manager vs Tahir Mehmood1999 MLD 2074 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
• Conticotton S.A. Co. vs Farooq Corporation and others1999 CLC 1018 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-04
  foreign arbitration awardforce majeurefrustration of contracttemporary government suspensionarbitration rulesexhaustion of remediesobjections to awardrule of the court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a suit filed under section 5 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 to enforce a foreign arbitration award rendered under the rules of the Liverpool Cotton Association Limited. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had entered into a contract for the sale of cotton bales, which was subject to the association's rules and by-laws. Due to a temporary government suspension of cotton exports, defendant No. 1 failed to deliver the balance of the cargo, prompting the plaintiff to initiate arbitration. An award was issued against defendant No. 1, who failed to pursue their internal appeal and subsequently raised objections in court, claiming contract frustration due to force majeure and illegality under section 23 of the Contract Act. The Sindh High Court held that the temporary suspension did not frustrate the contract or render it illegal, and that the force majeure clause did not apply to a refusal to perform. The court ruled that objections to foreign arbitration awards should only be entertained if they fall strictly within section 7 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, and that parties must exhaust all internal appellate remedies before seeking judicial interference. The award was made a rule of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary suspension of export by the government amounts to frustration of a contract under section 23 of the Contract Act?
  • Can a party invoke a force majeure clause to justify non-performance when there was no intention to perform the contract?
  • Whether a party is entitled to challenge a foreign arbitration award in court without exhausting the appellate remedies available under the governing arbitration rules?
  • On what grounds can a court interfere with or entertain objections against a foreign arbitration award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937?
  Read full judgment →
• Constututiional Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, Leader of the Opposition, Bilawal House, Clifton, Karachi and another vs The State through Chief Ehtesab Commssiioner, Islamabad1999 SCMR 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-14
  Ehtesab Actterritorial jurisdictiontransfer of casesArticle 186-AHigh Court benchcorruption and corrupt practicesSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses a series of constitutional and criminal petitions filed by former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and another, challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Ehtesab Bench at the principal seat of the Lahore High Court and seeking the transfer of Ehtesab references to the High Court of Sindh under Article 186-A of the Constitution. The core legal questions involved whether Ehtesab Benches of High Courts act as Special Courts or as High Courts, how territorial jurisdiction is determined under the Ehtesab Act 1997, and the scope of the Supreme Court's power to transfer cases between High Courts. The Court held that an Ehtesab Bench functions as a Bench of the High Court rather than a Special Court, and that territorial jurisdiction for corruption cases involving disproportionate property is determined by where the property is acquired or where the alleged acts took place. The Court declined to transfer the references to Sindh given their advanced stage, but directed that all references pending at the Lahore High Court be consolidated and heard at its Rawalpindi Bench, ensuring adequate intervals between hearings in Rawalpindi and Karachi.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ehtesab Bench hearing an Ehtesab Reference under the Ehtesab Act 1997 act as a Special Court or as a Bench of the High Court?
  • How is the territorial jurisdiction of an Ehtesab Bench determined under the Ehtesab Act 1997 in cases involving corruption and corrupt practices?
  • Can the Supreme Court transfer a case from one High Court to another under Article 186-A of the Constitution solely on the ground of the convenience or inconvenience of a party?
  • What criteria govern the exercise of the extraordinary power of case transfer between High Courts under Article 186-A of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Competent Authority (Acquisition) vs Smt. Lalita Todi and others1999 PTD 866 · Patna High Court · 1996-09-30Read full judgment →
• Comorin Match Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3667 · Madras High Court · 1997-03-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner. of Income-Tax vs P.D. Agrawal & Co.1999 PTD 1561 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-04-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Southern Region, Karachi vs Abid1999 PTD 2895 · Sindh High Court
  Wealth Taxresidential house exemptionownership occupationwaiver of exemptionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This Wealth-tax Case arises from a reference application filed by the Department under section 27(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, raising questions regarding the eligibility of a residential house for exemption under section 5(1)(xvi) of the Act and the stage at which such a claim can be raised. The respondent's wife purchased a house which was let out to a company, and the company provided the same house rent-free to the respondent (its Managing Director) for his residence. The Department contended that the house was not exempt since it was let out and occupied by the assessee as a lessee rather than strictly in the capacity of an owner, and that the exemption could not be claimed for the first time before the appellate authority. The Sindh High Court held that there is no waiver or estoppel against a provision of law, and a pure question of law regarding exemption can be raised at any stage of proceedings. The Court further held that section 5(1)(xvi) only requires that the house be owned and occupied by the assessee for their residence, without prescribing any restrictive condition regarding the specific legal capacity or nature of occupation. The Court answered both questions in the affirmative, dismissing the Department's reference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a claim for exemption under section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 can be entertained when it was not raised before the Wealth Tax Officer in the return?
  • Whether a residential house owned by an assessee and let out to a company, which in turn provides it to the assessee for residence, qualifies for exemption under section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963?
  • Does section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 require that the assessee's occupation of the residential house must strictly be in the capacity of an owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Trustees of Sahebzadi Anwar Begum1999 PTD 1705 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1998-08-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs T. S. Sundaram1999 PTD 3811 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs T. M. Joseph T. , . (1999 PTD 2209 · Madras High Court · 1997-11-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Sushiladevi1999 PTD 960 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-07-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Shanti Devi and another1999 PTD 1689 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1997-08-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Asha Digvijaya Singh1999 PTD 1684 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-08-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Seth Lalit Modi and others1999 PTD 957 · Delhi High Court · 1996-09-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs S.B. Anwar Begum1999 PTD 947 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs S.B. Amina Mirza Fund1999 PTD 955 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs S. Muthukumarasamy Udayar and another1999 PTD 977 · Madras High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs P. Devasahayam1999 PTD 3297 · Madras High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Nawab Fazal Yar Jung1999 PTD 1232 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1998-03-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Natwarlal J. Jadawala1999 PTD 3277 · Gujarat High Court · 1998-12-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs N. Thavamani1999 PTD 3736 · Madras High Court · 1997-11-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Master Rohit Bagaria and others1999 PTD 1248 · Gauhati High Court · 1998-02-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs M. Ramamurthy1999 PTD 940 · Madras High Court · 1996-04-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs M. Rajagopal1999 PTD 3286 · Madras High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs M. Appuswamy1999 PTD 1241 · Madras High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Labh Kavar Bai1999 PTD 3311 · Madras High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →