Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,813 judgments in total.
- Ch. Javed vs Zila Council, Gujrat through Administrator and 3 others1999 MLD 3366 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. Habibullah And Others vs Ali Muhammad Mohsin1999 CLC 1798 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
- Ch. Fazal Karim vs Secretary Agriculture and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 744 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1997-06-12Read full judgment →
- Ch. Attahmohayouddin vs The State and 2 others1999 MLD 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-14Read full judgment →
- Ch. Alla-Ud-Din vs S.S.P., District Sargodha and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1909 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by Ch. Alla-ud-Din against the Superintendent of Police, District Sargodha and the S.H.O. Police Station Bhera, seeking to restrain them from harassing him and his family regarding the alleged misdeeds and money dispute involving his disinherited son, Rana Muhammad Anwar. The core legal question was whether the local police possessed the statutory jurisdiction to entertain a complaint and conduct an inquiry into matters falling exclusively under the Immigration Ordinance, 1979, which fall within the domain of the Federal Investigation Agency pursuant to the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975, and whether a father could be harassed or held liable for the acts of his adult son. The Lahore High Court held that the local police lacked jurisdiction to interfere in matters allocated to specialized agencies like the Federal Investigation Agency, and that holding an inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the local police was illegal and without foundation. The Court laid down the principle that different branches of the police operate within watertight compartments of statutory jurisdiction, that local police cannot usurp the powers of specialized investigative bodies, and that no person can be held liable or harassed for the crimes or acts of their relatives.
Questions settled- Whether the local police have the legal jurisdiction to initiate inquiries into offenses triable or investigated exclusively by the Federal Investigation Agency?
- Does section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empower a police officer to hold an inquiry or investigate a case beyond their statutory jurisdiction?
- Can a person be held legally liable or harassed by law enforcement for the alleged offenses or debts of their adult, disinherited son?
- Whether the Superintendent of Police has the authority to entertain a complaint and initiate preliminary inquiries into matters falling outside the allocated sphere of the local police?
- Ch. Ajaib Hussain and another vs Mst. Zareen Akhtar and 11 others1999 YLR 1426 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from the dismissal of an appeal by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on the ground that the appellants failed to file a certified copy of the writ petition along with their petition for leave to appeal, violating the mandatory requirement under Rule 3 of Order XIII of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules. The primary question before the court was whether the omission to file a mandatory certified copy could be deemed to have been condoned by implication upon the grant of leave to appeal, and whether a new ground could be raised in a review petition. The court held that a new ground cannot be raised for the first time in a review petition, and that the power of condonation or relaxation under the Supreme Court Rules cannot be exercised implicitly but requires a conscious application of mind upon showing sufficient cause. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that procedural rules regarding mandatory documents must be strictly followed.
Questions settled- Can a new ground be raised for the first time in a review petition?
- Whether the failure to file a mandatory certified copy of a writ petition along with a petition for leave to appeal can be condoned by implication upon the grant of leave?
- Does the power of the court to condone procedural lapses under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules require the showing of sufficient cause?
- Does Order XIII of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules cease to apply after leave to appeal is granted?
- CH. Ahmadyar, Advocate vs Sartaj Aziz, Federal Finance Minister, Ministry of Finance and anothers1999 MLD 3341 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-11Read full judgment →
- Ch. Ahmad Din vs Administrator, Municipal Committee, Arifwala and others1999 YLR 724 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
- Ch. Abdul Karim and 5 others vs Raja Muhammad Nisar and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 624 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a Service Tribunal judgment that set aside the promotion of the appellants and directed the promotion of respondent No. 1 as Assistant Conservator of Forests. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent’s departmental review petition was time-barred and whether the Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to entertain an appeal regarding promotion, given the statutory bar on challenging "fitness for promotion." The Supreme Court held that the review petition was not time-barred, as the appellants had admitted the filing date in their pleadings, rendering further proof unnecessary. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court ruled that while the Service Tribunal cannot substitute its opinion on a candidate's "fitness" for promotion, it retains jurisdiction to intervene when promotion is denied based on incorrect facts, such as erroneous Annual Confidential Reports or misstated academic qualifications. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's direct order of promotion, directing the Selection Board to reconsider the respondent’s fitness for promotion based on accurate records. The principle established is that the statutory bar on challenging fitness for promotion does not preclude judicial review when the denial of promotion stems from factual errors or procedural violations.
Questions settled- Does the statutory bar on challenging 'fitness for promotion' preclude a Service Tribunal from reviewing a promotion decision based on incorrect factual data?
- Can a party be permitted to resile from a factual admission made in their pleadings?
- Is a Service Tribunal empowered to directly order the promotion of a civil servant, or must it remand the matter to the Selection Board for reconsideration?
- Cesc Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 1212 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-07-16Read full judgment →
- Central Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1999 CL.635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions were directed against a common judgment dated 7.12.1995 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed constitutional petitions filed against notices issued under Sections 65 and 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 to reopen finalized assessments regarding insurance companies' dividend income under Section 26-A read with the First Schedule. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the High Court correctly interpreted Section 26-A read with the tax rate structure of the First Schedule applicable to dividend income, and whether the notice issued under Section 65(2) was based on 'definite information' as contemplated by law. Noting that leave to appeal had already been granted in connected matters involving identical issues arising from the same High Court judgment, the Supreme Court followed the rule of consistency and granted leave to appeal to consider the same questions, directing the appeals to be fixed together without granting any interim stay order.
Questions settled- Whether the rule of consistency requires the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal when leave has already been granted in connected petitions against the same High Court judgment?
- Whether notices issued under Section 65(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 for reopening assessments were based on definite information as required by law?
- Whether dividend income of insurance companies was correctly interpreted under Section 26-A read with the tax rate structure of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
- Central Cotton Mills Limited And Another vs Atlas Bot Lease Co. Limited1999 P.C.T.L.R. 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitution Petition by the High Court of Sindh, which had upheld a Banking Tribunal's order dismissing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Atlas BOT Company filed a suit under Section 8 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1981 for recovery of money and possession of leased assets, which was subsequently decreed in terms of a compromise between the parties. The petitioners sought to set aside the compromise decree alleging fraud and lack of corporate authorization for the compromise. The Banking Tribunal dismissed the application, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition in limine on the grounds of availability of an adequate alternate remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1981, statutory bar under Section 10, and the nature of a compromise decree. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that no legal infirmity existed in the impugned order, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a compromise decree can be set aside by means of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of fraud and lack of authorization?
- Does Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1981 provide an adequate remedy of appeal against the dismissal of an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked under Article 199 when an alternate remedy is available under a special law like the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1981?
- Central Board of Revenue through Secretary. Finance Islamabad And Another vs Pioneer Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd1999 P.C.T.L.R. 559 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the liability of Pioneer Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. to pay sales tax on locally manufactured steel strips used in producing steel pipes for the petroleum sector. The Central Board of Revenue challenged a Lahore High Court decision that had declared the respondent exempt from such tax. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of two notifications: SRO 366(1)/94, which exempted imported raw materials used for petroleum sector projects, and SRO 511(1)/95, which addressed locally manufactured goods. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s interpretation was fallacious. The Court ruled that SRO 511(1)/95 was specifically issued to place locally manufactured raw materials on par with imported ones, effectively deeming them exempt from sales tax in the same manner as those covered under SRO 366(1)/94. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondent was entitled to the sales tax exemption on its locally manufactured steel strips, as the 'at import stage' terminology in the notification did not negate the intended exemption for local goods.
Questions settled- Does SRO 511(1)/95 extend sales tax exemptions to locally manufactured raw materials used for petroleum sector projects?
- How should SRO 366(1)/94 and SRO 511(1)/95 be read together to determine sales tax liability?
- Does the phrase 'at import stage' in a tax notification preclude exemption for locally manufactured goods?
- Central Board of Revenue through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and another vs Pioneer Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd1999 PTD 1668 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Central Board of Revenue assails the Lahore High Court's judgment declaring that the respondent, a manufacturer of steel pipes using locally manufactured steel strips, is exempt from sales tax under relevant government notifications. The core legal question involves the interpretation of SRO No. 366(1)/1994 and SRO No. 511(1)/1995 concerning the exemption of sales tax on locally manufactured raw materials supplied to petroleum sector companies. The Supreme Court held that the intent behind SRO No. 511(1)/1995 was to bring locally manufactured raw material at par with imported raw material regarding sales tax exemption, thereby treating it as if it were imported for the purposes of the exemption scheme. Consequently, the High Court's decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed, laying down the principle that notifications granting tax exemptions on raw materials supplied to priority sectors must be construed harmoniously to achieve parity between local and imported goods.
Questions settled- Whether locally manufactured raw material supplied to petroleum sector companies is exempt from sales tax under SRO No. 511(1)/1995?
- How are SRO No. 366(1)/1994 and SRO No. 511(1)/1995 to be construed harmoniously regarding sales tax exemptions?
- Does the expression 'at import stage' in SRO No. 511(1)/1995 alter the substantive exemption granted to locally manufactured raw materials?
- Central Board Of Revenue Through Secretary Finance Islamabad &PTCL 1999 CL. 724 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the Central Board of Revenue challenges the Lahore High Court's judgment holding that the respondent, a manufacturer of steel pipes using locally manufactured steel strips, is exempt from sales tax under relevant government notifications. The core legal question concerns the true scope and harmonious interpretation of SRO 366(I)/94 dated 9-5-1994 and SRO 511(I)/95 dated 14-6-1995 regarding sales tax exemption on locally manufactured raw materials supplied to petroleum and gas sector projects. The Supreme Court held that SRO 511(I)/95 was specifically issued to bring locally manufactured raw materials at par with imported raw materials exempted under SRO 366(I)/94, thereby extending the sales tax exemption to the locally produced steel strips despite the expression 'at import stage'. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that subsequent exemption notifications for local supplies must be interpreted to fulfill the legislative intent of equating local raw materials with imported counterparts for tax relief.
Questions settled- Whether locally manufactured raw material used in supplies to petroleum sector companies is exempt from sales tax under SRO 511(I)/95 read with SRO 366(I)/94?
- What is the true scope and legal effect of the expression 'exempt at import stage' used in SRO 511(I)/95?
- Whether the Central Board of Revenue can withdraw sales tax exemption on locally manufactured steel strips used for manufacturing steel pipes supplied to gas transmission companies?
- Central Board of Revenue through Chairman, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others vs Messrs Saleem Impex through Proprietor Muhammad Saleem Qureshi, Hyderabad1999 YLR 190 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber which overruled preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of a civil suit and directed the office to fix the suit for further proceedings. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the Central Board of Revenue and other authorities seeking declarations and injunctions regarding imported goods declared as aluminium waste and scrap versus old and used auto parts. The defendants raised objections under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, section 217 of the Customs Act, 1969, and section 87 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in light of the statutory bars and whether the question of good faith or mala fides required evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the controversies, particularly those regarding good faith and jurisdiction, required evidence for their solution. The appeal was consequently dismissed with directions to the trial court to record evidence on jurisdiction first.
Questions settled- Whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit against customs authorities when statutory protection is claimed under the Customs Act?
- Does the protection provided under section 217 of the Customs Act, 1969 apply to mala fide acts or actions not taken in good faith?
- Whether the question of jurisdiction depending on the good faith of public functionaries requires evidence to be recorded by the trial court?
- Whether a suit is maintainable against the Karachi Port Trust without serving a mandatory notice under section 87 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886?
- Central Board of Revenue and another vs Kohinoor Weaving Mills1999 MLD 2056 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
- Central Board of Direct Taxes vs Chloride India Ltd.F.1999 PTD 197 · Calcutta High Court · 1997-01-17Read full judgment →
- Central Bank of India vs Syed Muhammad Abdul Jalil Shah And Other1999 CLC 671 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two Regular First Appeals (RFA No. 44 of 1969 and RFA No. 4 of 1970) arising from a civil court judgment dismissing a recovery suit filed by the Central Bank of India against a borrower and guarantor for recovery of a loan secured by hypothecation, pledge, and mortgages of immovable and movable properties. The core legal questions involved the competency of the suit's institution, the applicable period of limitation, the maintainability of a suit for debt recovery by a pawnee without returning the pledged goods, and the proof of the bank's accounts. The Lahore High Court held that the suit was competently instituted through a duly authorized attorney, was governed by Articles 116 and 132 of the Limitation Act 1908 making it well within time, and that a pawnee has concurrent rights to sue for the debt while retaining pledged goods as collateral, though the borrower is entitled to a set-off for the value of unreturned pledged stock. The court set aside the trial court's dismissal, granted a preliminary decree under Order XXXIV Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and remanded the matter for taking accounts.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for recovery of a loan secured by a registered mortgage and personal covenant is governed by Article 116 and Article 132 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does a pawnee lose the right to sue for the recovery of a debt under Section 176 of the Contract Act 1872 merely because the pledged goods are not returned or are lost?
- Are the rights of a pawnee to retain a pledge, sell the pledge, and bring a suit for the debt concurrent or alternative under Section 176 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Whether certified copies of entries in bankers' books under Section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1891 are by themselves sufficient to charge a borrower with liability without corroborative evidence?
- Capt. Syed Muhammad Ali vs The Returning Officer, P.S. 89, District1999 CLC 2039 · Election Tribunal · 1995-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This election petition challenged the results of the 1997 election for constituency P.S. 89 Karachi (South), alleging widespread corrupt and illegal practices, including manipulation of polling stations, voter list irregularities, and biased conduct by election officials. The petitioner, a defeated candidate, sought to declare the election of the returned candidate void. The Election Tribunal examined whether the petitioner had sufficiently pleaded and proven the alleged corrupt practices under the Representation of the People's Act, 1976. The Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof required to substantiate allegations of corrupt or illegal practices, which must be proven to the standard of a criminal trial. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any alleged irregularities were committed with the consent or connivance of the returned candidate or his election agent, as required by law. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner's evidence was insufficient, vague, and lacked corroboration. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the election of a returned candidate cannot be set aside based on unsubstantiated allegations.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required to establish corrupt or illegal practices in an election petition?
- Is an election petition maintainable if it fails to allege that corrupt practices were committed with the consent or connivance of the returned candidate?
- Can an election be declared void based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the petitioner?
- Does the District Returning Officer have the authority to alter the list of polling stations after the initial submission?
- Capt. Syed Muhammad Ali vs Salim Zia1999 CLC 1026 · Election Tribunal · 1998-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the election of respondent No. 4 as a Member of the Provincial Assembly of Sindh for Constituency PS-89, Karachi (South), held on 3rd February 1997, through an election petition filed under section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The core legal questions involved whether the election petition complied with mandatory disclosures regarding corrupt and illegal practices, whether such practices were committed with the consent or connivance of the returned candidate, and whether alleged irregularities in polling station changes and voters' lists vitiated the election. The Election Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof required for allegations of corrupt and illegal practices—which must be proved to the standard of a criminal trial—and failed to establish that any alleged irregularities were committed with the consent or connivance of the returned candidate or his election agent. The Tribunal affirmed that mere unsupported oral assertions by the petitioner are insufficient to unseat a returned candidate and disenfranchise a constituency. Consequently, the election petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an election petition can succeed on the basis of uncorroborated oral testimony of the petitioner regarding corrupt and illegal practices?
- Does the burden of proof for allegations of corrupt and illegal practices in an election dispute equate to the standard required in a criminal trial?
- Can the election of a returned candidate be declared void without proving that alleged corrupt practices were committed with the consent or connivance of the candidate or his election agent?
- Whether the alteration of polling stations by the District Returning Officer within the statutory timeframe constitutes an illegal irregularity capable of voiding an election?
- Capital Development Authority through Chairman and others vs Dr.1999 SCMR 2636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby writ petitions filed by landowners against the Capital Development Authority (CDA) were allowed. The respondents had constructed buildings on their land in Islamabad after obtaining approval from the local Union Council, which the CDA sought to demolish and acquire without following proper statutory procedure. The core legal question was whether the CDA could restrict land use, demolish structures, or initiate acquisition without framing a formal scheme and complying with the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960. The Supreme Court held that although a master plan may earmark land for specific purposes, the CDA cannot implement decisions or take coercive actions affecting property rights without first framing a scheme under sections 12 and 13 and executing land acquisition under Chapter IV of the Ordinance. The Court laid down the principle that arbitrary actions and inconsistent stands taken by statutory authorities without adhering to mandatory statutory procedures violate constitutional property rights and are legally unsustainable.
Questions settled- Can the Capital Development Authority implement decisions or acquire land without framing a scheme pursuant to a master plan under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960?
- Whether the Capital Development Authority can take coercive actions or demolish constructions on private land without adhering to the procedure laid down in Chapter IV of the C.D.A. Ordinance?
- Does earmarking an area for a particular purpose in a master plan empower the Capital Development Authority to restrict property usage without formal acquisition proceedings?
- Capital Development Authority and 3 others vs Muhammad Yousuf and another1999 SCMR 1579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that permitted the respondents to construct a fifth storey on a leased plot despite the absence of an approved building plan from the Capital Development Authority. The core legal questions concern whether a lessee may unilaterally proceed with construction without prior sanction from the relevant municipal authority, and whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to authorize such construction or determine disputed conversion charges in the absence of evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the matter involves significant questions of law affecting numerous cases. The Court held that the High Court erred by effectively bypassing regulatory approval processes and adjudicating on disputed factual controversies regarding conversion charges without a proper evidentiary basis. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered the parties to maintain the status quo, while encouraging mutual negotiation to resolve the underlying dispute regarding the building plans and conversion charges.
Questions settled- Can a lessee raise construction of a building storey without an approved building plan or prior sanction from the concerned Municipal Authority?
- Is the High Court justified in deciding disputed conversion charges without resorting to evidence?
- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to authorize construction in the absence of a sanctioned building plan?
- Are conversion charges payable at the rate prevalent when the application is submitted or when sanction is actually accorded?
- Cantonment. Board, Rawalpindi Through Executive Officer vs Abdul Aziz1999 CLC 822 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-23Read full judgment →
- Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi through Its Executive Officer vs Abdul Aziz QureshiK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 438 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Cantonment Board, Peshawar vs Haji Akhtar Khan1999 MLD 2499 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-21Read full judgment →
- Bushra Siddique vs Mirza Muhammad Aslam1999 CLC 1913 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Buner Gul vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 728 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused charged with the possession of 43 kilograms of heroin, an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner sought bail, arguing that the recovery was clandestine, occurred at the police station rather than the spot, and lacked independent witnesses. The State opposed the application, citing the statutory bar on bail for offences punishable by death under the Act and the exclusion of the requirement for independent witnesses under special narcotics legislation. The Court held that the bail plea could not succeed, as the accused was prima facie connected to the crime based on recovery witness statements and a positive Chemical Examiner report. The Court affirmed that the explanation for conducting the search at the police station was plausible given the exigencies of the situation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the requirement for independent witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is excluded by the specific provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which overrides general procedural laws in such matters.
Questions settled- Does the requirement for independent witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to searches conducted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Is bail maintainable for an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the offence is punishable by death?
- Can a recovery of narcotics conducted at a police station instead of the place of interception be considered valid if the circumstances justify the deviation?
- Budha Suria vs Mst. Rukhsana Kiran1999 YLR 2139 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-05Read full judgment →
- Brig. Talat Saeed Khan and another vs Privatization Commission, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 5 others1999 YLR 1084 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-10Read full judgment →
- Bordubi Rice Flour and Oil Mills and another vs Income-Tax Officer1999 PTD 1919 · Gauhati High Court · 1997-02-24Read full judgment →
- Boota And Other vs Ghulam Haider (Deceased) And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 117 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-16Read full judgment →
- Boota and 2 others vs Shah Muhammad and 14 others1999 SCMR 1830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the recall of a consent order passed by the High Court in a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting that a previous identical petition had been unconditionally withdrawn, thereby barring the current action under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court further observed that the binding nature of the impugned consent order upon the petitioners, who were not parties to the original writ proceedings, was a matter to be determined by the Trial Court during the appraisal of evidence in pending civil litigation. An Intra-Court Appeal against this dismissal was subsequently not pressed. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the petitioners again sought to withdraw the petition for leave to appeal to pursue remedies before the civil court. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition, affirming that the civil court remains obligated to entertain and decide the petitioners' pleas in accordance with the law, leaving the substantive issues of the binding nature of the consent order to be adjudicated by that forum.
Questions settled- Does the unconditional withdrawal of a petition under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent petition for the same relief?
- Is a consent order passed in a writ petition binding on persons who were not parties to the original proceedings?
- Can a civil court determine the binding effect of a High Court consent order on non-parties during pending civil litigation?
- Boota and 2 others vs Ghulam Haider through his Legal Heirs1999 YLR 1638 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-16Read full judgment →
- Bolan Bank Limited vs Capricorn Enterprise (Pvt.) Ltd.1999 P.C.T.L.R. 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit filed by the respondents against the petitioners for the recovery of Rs. 32,787,075 along with mark-up, pending before a Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh acting as a Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The Single Judge granted the petitioners leave to appear and defend subject to depositing Rs. 7,491,919. Aggrieved by the conditional grant, the petitioners sought leave to appeal. The Supreme Court addressed whether a direct petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution lies against an order of a Judge of the High Court acting as a Banking Court, and whether an interlocutory order of a Banking Court can be challenged. The Supreme Court held that a High Court Judge acting as a Banking Court exercises jurisdiction as a Banking Court rather than as the High Court, and under Section 21 of the Act, interlocutory orders not disposing of the whole case cannot be appealed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as incompetent.
Questions settled- Does a direct petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution lie to the Supreme Court against an order passed by a High Court Judge acting as a Banking Court?
- Is an interlocutory order granting conditional leave to defend passed by a Banking Court appealable under Section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997?
- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore Through Secretary vs Mst. Sobia Chand1999 CLC 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which had decreed the respondent's suit for a declaration and mandatory injunction for the correction of her date of birth in educational records. The core legal questions were whether the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under the relevant statutes and whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the correct date of birth were sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that the civil court's jurisdiction was expressly ousted under Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976, as the board's committee had acted in good faith within its statutory authority, and that the lower courts had misread the evidence regarding the date of birth. The court set aside the findings on jurisdiction and issue of date of birth, accepting the revision petition and dismissing the respondent's suit. The key legal principle laid down is that where a statutory board acts in good faith pursuant to its powers under the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976, the jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted, and concurrent findings vitiated by misreading of evidence are amenable to revisional interference.
Questions settled- Does Section 29 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts to question acts done by the Board in pursuance of the Act?
- Whether a civil suit for the correction of a date of birth in educational records is maintainable in the absence of any allegation of mala fides against the Board?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when there is a misreading and non-reading of evidence?
- What are the conditions necessary to oust the jurisdiction of a court when a statute provides that an order made by an authority shall not be called in question?
- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore Through Chairman And Another vs Sh. Farooq Ahmad, Advocate1999 CLC 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-04Read full judgment →
- Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Faisalabad through Chairman and another vs Riaz Hussain1999 PLC (C.S.) 680 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
- Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education and 2 others vs Umar1999 SCMR 1583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the disqualification of a student by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The student was disqualified for possessing objectionable material during an examination. Upon remand, the Disciplinary Committee reaffirmed the disqualification. The High Court, however, intervened by summoning a professor to test the student's mathematical knowledge and subsequently declared the Board's order without legal effect. The Supreme Court observed that the period of disqualification had already expired and the student had since passed his B.A. examination, rendering the petition academic. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal. Crucially, the Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court's action in summoning an external expert to test the student's academic proficiency. The Court held that assessing a candidate's knowledge is the exclusive function of the relevant educational Board or authority, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere in such academic assessments or substitute its own evaluation for that of the competent examining body.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to summon an external expert to test a student's academic knowledge in a challenge against an examination board's decision?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to decline leave to appeal when the period of disqualification has expired and the matter has become academic?
- Bismillah Jan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 817 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
- Bilqees Bibi vs The Civil Judge, Ist Class Tehsil Burewala and 3 others1999 YLR 373 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
- Bilal Ahmad vs The State1999 SCMR 869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentence awarded to the appellant for murder. The core legal question revolves around the re-appraisal of prosecution evidence, particularly the credibility of ocular testimony and the probability of the alleged motive for the crime. The Supreme Court held that while the ocular testimony of the natural witnesses inspiring confidence and corroborated by medical evidence establishes the guilt of the appellant, the motive set up by the prosecution—attempting to commit rape in broad daylight in the presence of close relatives—is improbable and shrouded in mystery. Consequently, the Court partly accepted the appeal, maintained the conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that an improbable or unproven motive in a capital case can operate as a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether an improbable motive can serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
- Does the presence of natural eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence suffice to maintain a murder conviction?
- Can the Supreme Court re-appraise prosecution evidence in a criminal appeal arising from concurrent findings of lower courts?
- Bhupindra Food and Malt Industries vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2768 · Himachal Pradesh High Court · 1997-05-01Read full judgment →
- Bhriguraj Charity Trust vs Commissioner of Income Tax1999 PTD 2839 · Delhi High Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
- Bhoran. Khatoon vs The State and 5 others1999 P Cr. L J 1532 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-13Read full judgment →
- Bhola Nath Keshari vs State of Bihar and another1999 PTD 2374 · Patna High Court · 1996-12-19Read full judgment →
- Bhoja Reddy vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and another1999 PTD 3979 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
- Bhatti Brother & Co. And Other vs National Bank.of Pakistan, through Vice President_Attorney National Bank of PakistanK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 479 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-09Read full judgment →
- Bhatti & Company Ltd. vs Shahnawaz Ltd.1999 MLD 2949 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-16Read full judgment →
- Bharoo and 2 others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and 2 others1999 SCMR 786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit for declaration and injunction regarding land ownership, wherein the appellants challenged the allotment of land to the respondent as evacuee property. The trial court dismissed the suit on preliminary issues of jurisdiction and maintainability without recording evidence, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a Civil Court is justified in dismissing a suit on preliminary issues without allowing parties to lead evidence when the maintainability of the suit depends on factual inquiries. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by deciding the matter solely on pleadings. The Court ruled that issues concerning the nature of the transaction, the status of the property, and the appellants' possession were factual matters requiring a full trial. The principle laid down is that a Civil Court cannot summarily dismiss a suit on preliminary issues involving mixed questions of law and fact without providing the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence. Accordingly, the case was remanded for trial.
Questions settled- Can a Civil Court dismiss a suit on preliminary issues without recording evidence when the maintainability of the suit depends on factual inquiry?
- Is a Civil Court competent to adjudicate upon the nature of property if it is claimed to be evacuee property?
- Does a registered agreement of sale create a vested right in immovable property?
- Bhambhar and others vs Mst. Nooria and others1999 YLR 2078 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-21Read full judgment →
- Bhagwant Kishore Sud vs Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal and others1999 PTD 3159 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
- Belal Ahmad vs Syed Asmat Hussain Shah and 4 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 996 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
- Bela Automotive Limited vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 21999 PLD Karachi 410 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a limited company challenging the action of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (K.M.C.) in withholding a refund of octroi and denying enlistment for transit pass facilities regarding goods imported for a manufacturing plant in Balochistan but brought through Karachi. The core legal question was whether goods not meant for consumption, use, or sale within the octroi limits of K.M.C., but imported for immediate transit and exported elsewhere, could be subjected to the levy of octroi, and whether the Appellate Tribunal Local Councils had jurisdiction to hear appeals against the orders of the Mayor or Administrator K.M.C. The Sindh High Court held that octroi is strictly a tax on the import of goods for consumption, use, or sale within octroi limits, and goods in transit or meant for immediate export cannot be subjected to such levy. The Court further held that the Appellate Tribunal Local Councils possessed valid jurisdiction under the Sindh Councils (Appeal) Rules, 1982 to hear appeals from orders of the Mayor or Administrator. The petition was allowed with costs, and K.M.C. was directed to refund the illegally collected octroi amount with ten percent interest.
Questions settled- Can goods imported for immediate transportation and not meant for consumption, use, or sale within municipal limits be subjected to the levy of octroi?
- Does the Appellate Tribunal Local Councils have jurisdiction to hear appeals arising from orders passed by the Mayor or Administrator of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation?
- Whether an authority is empowered to withhold a transit pass facility and levy octroi simply because of delays in finalizing an enlistment request?
- Is a municipal corporation justified in retaining octroi paid under protest by an importer seeking to avoid demurrage charges at the port?
- Bela Auto Ltd. Plots Nos. 1 and 3, Mouza Pathra Hub Chowki, District1999 PLC 147 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-09-11Read full judgment →
- Bcsouthern Hydro Limited through Executive Director and another vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and 6 others1999 YLR 2447 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-30Read full judgment →
- Bcci through Habib Bank Limited vs Hamaliya Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.1999 MLD 3195 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
- Bassat Raazaq vs The State1999 YLR 2321 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-22Read full judgment →
- Basma Tabassam vs Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura and 6 others1999 MLD 778 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-15Read full judgment →
- Bashir Masih vs Muhammad ArshadK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 302 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
- Bashir Khan vs Faqir Muhammad and others1999 YLR 1939 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-28Read full judgment →
- Bashir Etc. vs Maqsood AliK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 74 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs Muhammad Luqman1999 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a real estate sale agreement. The trial court and appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the buyer (appellant), finding that the seller (respondent) failed to prove the return of earnest money and termination of the agreement. However, the High Court allowed the seller's revision petition and set aside the concurrent findings, drawing an adverse inference against the buyer because he refused to accept the seller's offer/challenge to take a special oath. The Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the decrees of the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that an oath under Sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act 1873 relies on voluntary agreement between parties, whereas Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 stems from the plaintiff's initiative, with no penal consequences attached to a defendant's refusal. Consequently, no adverse inference could be drawn against the buyer for declining an offer to take an oath, and concurrent factual findings could not be interfered with in revision on that ground.
Questions settled- Can an adverse inference be drawn against a party for refusing an offer to take a special oath under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 or the Oaths Act 1873?
- What is the distinction between an oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and a special oath under the Oaths Act 1873?
- Can the High Court in revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of fact solely due to a party's refusal to take a special oath?
- Bashir Ahmed and another vs The State and another1999 YLR 2386 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-13Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs The State1999 SCMR 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained his conviction and sentence for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case was built on eye-witness testimony, abscondence, motive, and forensic matching of a rifle with crime empties. The core legal question raised was whether the conviction of the petitioner was justified when the same eye-witnesses had been disbelieved by the High Court in the co-accused's earlier acquittal, and whether tainted forensic evidence and abscondence could serve as sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the justification of the petitioner's conviction based on the circumstances and evidence presented.
Questions settled- Whether the conviction of an accused can be sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses who were disbelieved with regard to co-accused in the same incident?
- Does the delayed sending of crime empties and a recovered weapon to the forensic laboratory raise a presumption of tampering?
- Can abscondence serve as a corroborative piece of evidence when the ocular testimony is intrinsically unreliable?
- Whether a circumstance itself requiring corroboration can corroborate another circumstance?
- Bashir Ahmad and 3 others vs The State1999 YLR 827 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
- Basharat Aziz vs Mst. Dil Jan and 10 others1999 CLC 1418 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-08-12Read full judgment →
- Barrister Baachaa, Advocate vs M. Sardar Khan1999 PLD Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
- Barkat vs Muhammad Safdar and others1999 MLD 2878 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
- Barkat Masih vs Barkat Bibi and 3 others1999 YLR 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenged an appellate court order that set aside a trial court's dismissal of a suit and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The core legal question was whether a report submitted by a Local Commissioner, appointed pursuant to a joint statement by the parties agreeing to be bound by the findings, constitutes a report of a referee, thereby precluding the necessity for objections or further adjudication. The High Court held that where parties voluntarily agree to abide by the findings of a person appointed to verify facts, that person acts as a referee rather than a standard Local Commissioner under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the report is binding and not subject to the procedural requirements of filing objections. The Court further noted that the appeal before the lower appellate court was time-barred. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the appellate order, and restored the trial court's judgment, establishing that a referee's report based on a binding agreement between parties is conclusive and final.
Questions settled- Does a report by a Local Commissioner appointed by a joint statement of parties constitute a report of a referee?
- Is a report of a referee subject to the filing of objections under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an appellate court remand a suit where the parties have previously agreed to be bound by the findings of a referee?
- Barkat Ali vs The State1999 YLR 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-16Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali vs Nazir Ahmad1999 CLC 373 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
- Baqri Bibi through Legal Heirs and others vs Income-Tax Officer and others1999 PTD 249 · Allahabad High Court · 1996-08-22Read full judgment →
- Baqa Muhammad Khan vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Azad1999 MLD 1347 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-03-20Read full judgment →
- Bankers Equity Ltd. through Attorney and 5 others vs Sunflo Cit-Russ1999 PLD Lahore 450 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery against the defendant. The defendant filed an application for leave to defend under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credit and Finances) Act, 1997, signed by its Purchase Manager. The plaintiff challenged the maintainability of this application, arguing that the Purchase Manager lacked authorization under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and the defendant's Memorandum and Articles of Association. The core legal question was whether an application for leave to defend signed by an unauthorized officer of a company constitutes a curable irregularity or a fatal illegality. The Court held that the application was incompetent and not maintainable because the signatory lacked valid authorization, and the defect was not a mere technicality but a patent illegality. The Court emphasized that a company cannot orally authorize an individual to act on its behalf and that subsequent authorization, especially after the limitation period, cannot validate an initially defective filing. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
Questions settled- Can an application for leave to defend filed by an unauthorized officer of a company be treated as a curable irregularity?
- Is a company required to provide written authorization for an officer to sign legal pleadings on its behalf?
- Does an authorization granted after the expiry of the limitation period validate a previously defective legal application?
- Can an application for leave to defend be maintained if the signatory lacks authority under the company's Memorandum and Articles of Association?
- Banke Bihari Lal Agarwal vs Union of India and others1999 PTD 1580 · Rajasthan High Court · 1995-05-05Read full judgment →
- Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. through Mr.1999 MLD 3260 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a winding-up petition filed by a foreign bank under sections 305, 306, and 321 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 against a private limited company. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner's claim is an undisputed debt presently due and payable, and whether the respondent company is unable to pay its debts so as to warrant a winding-up order. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish an undisputed, bona fide claim, as crucial original documents and bank guarantees were missing, the liability was genuinely disputed, and the respondent company was financially solvent with substantial bank balances and assets. The court laid down the principle that winding-up proceedings cannot be used as a pressure tactic where a bona fide dispute exists regarding the debt or its quantum, and that a creditor must first prove an undisputed sum is presently due and payable before a company can be deemed unable to pay its debts.
Questions settled- Whether winding-up proceedings can be maintained when a bona fide dispute exists regarding the debt and its quantum?
- What constitutes an inability to pay debts under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 for the purposes of winding up?
- Can a creditor seek the winding up of a company based on unverified accounts and missing original guarantees?
- Is it just and equitable to wind up a solvent company that has substantial bank balances and profitable operations?
- Baluch Khan and 12 others vs Mst. Parveen Begum and 6 others1999 MLD 3338 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
- Baloch Khan alias Balocha vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 823 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
- Balchand Malaiya and others vs Union of India and others1999 PTD 4092 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-09-02Read full judgment →
- Balaji Enterprises vs Commissioner of Income-Tax I.T.R.1999 PTD 516 · karnataka High Court · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
- Bakhth Zali vs Atlas Khan and anothers1999 MLD 847 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-02Read full judgment →
- Bakhsha and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 740 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
- Bakhat Ali vs The State1999 SCMR 1769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Bakhat Ali, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Mst. Naseem Mai. The core legal question was whether the principles for the safe administration of criminal justice were correctly followed in appraising the evidence, particularly concerning related eye-witnesses, medical corroboration, and weapon recovery. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of related witnesses is credible in the absence of a motive to falsely implicate, and that corroboration through a blood-stained hatchet recovered at the appellant's instance, combined with the lack of substitution in a single-accused daylight crime, sustains the conviction. The Court laid down that close relatives are not classified as interested witnesses without proof of animosity, and minor omissions in police statements do not discredit trustworthy ocular testimony corroborated by forensic evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder trial?
- Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence warrant the rejection of otherwise credible eye-witness accounts?
- Whether the recovery of a blood-stained weapon at the instance of the accused provides sufficient corroboration to sustain a murder conviction?
- Bahram vs Hassan and 3 others1999 MLD 749 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-11Read full judgment →
- Bahadar vs Jamat Ali and 6 others1999 MLD 2429 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an order of the Additional District Judge, Kasur, which dismissed an application for the restoration of an appeal that had been previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in refusing to restore the appeal despite the appellant's explanation of inadvertent misnoting of the hearing date. The Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained because the lower court failed to consider the affidavit of the counsel and the party, and erroneously excluded evidence based on a technicality regarding a missing power of attorney that was not disputed by the respondents. The Court emphasized that in matters of restoration, courts should exercise generous consideration, favoring adjudication on merits over technical dismissals. The principle laid down is that the misnoting of a date by counsel constitutes a sufficient ground for restoration, and a court must not decide such applications based on assumptions or pleas not raised in the pleadings, nor should it dismiss them without framing issues or recording evidence where necessary.
Questions settled- Does the inadvertent misnoting of a hearing date by counsel constitute sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an application for restoration of an appeal based on grounds not raised in the respondent's pleadings?
- Is it mandatory for an appellate court to frame issues or record evidence when determining the sufficiency of cause for the restoration of an appeal?
- Bagh Hussain vs The State1999 YLR 1068 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-06-14Read full judgment →
- Bagh Ali vs The State1999 YLR 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-10Read full judgment →
- Bagga Khan and 11 others vs Mst. Khaki Begum and 2 others1999 MLD 1836 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-08-13Read full judgment →
- Bafna Charitable Trust vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3584 · Bombay High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
- Badshah Gul vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 691 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
- Badar-E-Alam Farooqui vs State Bank of Pakistan1999 CLC 1763 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
- Badar Shamshad Ali vs Mahmoodulhassan1999 MLD 2436 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
- Bacha Rawan vs The State1999 YLR 2444 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
- Baby Marine Exports vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 844 · Kerala High Court · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
- Babu vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 533 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-24Read full judgment →
- Babar Shehzad vs Said Akbar and another1999 SCMR 2518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves consolidated appeals arising from rival pre-emption suits concerning land in Attock. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit dismissed prior to the target date of 31-7-1986 could be saved under Section 34(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, and whether the term "judgments and decrees" in the statute encompasses dismissals. The Supreme Court held that the phrase "judgments and decrees" in the relevant statutes refers exclusively to those where the suit was decreed in favor of the pre-emptor. Consequently, because the appellant’s suit was not decreed before the target date, it was not saved by the statute. The Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in Rozi Khan v. Karim Shah (1992 SCMR 445), holding it prevails over the contrary view in Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif (1992 SCMR 1129). Additionally, the appeals of the rival pre-emptor were dismissed as time-barred due to unauthorized tampering with an extension application. The Court affirmed that pending proceedings are only governed by repealed laws if a decree in favor of the pre-emptor existed before the target date.
Questions settled- Does the term 'judgments and decrees' in Section 34(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, include decrees dismissing a pre-emption suit?
- Can a pre-emption suit pending before the target date of 31-7-1986 be saved if no decree in favor of the pre-emptor was passed before that date?
- Does the interpretation of 'finality' in Section 35(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, apply to Section 34(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
- Is an appeal deemed time-barred if the appellant unilaterally alters the time granted for filing paper books?
- Babar Khan Ghori and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 PLD Karachi 402 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions challenging the vires of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, and the placement of the petitioners' names on the Exit Control List (ECL). The core legal questions involved whether the Ordinance is ultra vires the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the inclusion of the petitioners' names on the ECL was justified despite their history of traveling abroad and returning while criminal cases were pending. The Sindh High Court held that the Ordinance itself is a valid piece of legislation enacted in the public interest and is not violative of Articles 2A, 4, 9, 15, or 25 of the Constitution. However, on the merits of the case, the court found that the respondents failed to provide sufficient justification or reply as to why the petitioners were previously permitted to travel abroad after the registration of criminal cases against them. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions to the extent of directing the removal of the petitioners' names from the ECL, enabling them to proceed abroad. The key principles laid down are that statutes controlling the exit of individuals in the public interest are constitutional, but administrative placement on the ECL must be supported by consistent and justifiable grounds rather than arbitrary application.
Questions settled- Whether the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 is ultra vires the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
- Does Article 270-A of the Constitution bar the judicial review of laws enacted between July 5, 1977, and December 30, 1985, against fundamental rights?
- Can the placement of a citizen's name on the Exit Control List be challenged on the ground of inconsistent administrative application?
- Whether the restriction of the right to travel abroad under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 is justified in the public interest?
- Babar Khan and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1677 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-27Read full judgment →
- Babar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 704 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →