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.
- Abbas Ali vs Kamran Alias Ranoo And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 474 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
- Abaidurrehman and others vs Mahmand and others1999 SCMR 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses whether a pre-emptor's statement in court—that he lacked funds at the time of sale to purchase the property and subsequently arranged funds—amounts to a waiver or surrender of his right of pre-emption. The appellants argued that such an admission, along with certain precedents, constituted waiver and estoppel. The Supreme Court held that the right of pre-emption arises upon the sale, and while it can be waived before the sale by express refusal or clear conduct showing disinterest, a mere retrospective statement regarding a lack of funds at the time of the transaction does not constitute waiver. The Court distinguished the cited authorities on facts, concluding that the pre-emptor's statement proved an intention to exercise the right once funds were available. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a statement by a pre-emptor that he lacked funds at the time of sale amount to a waiver of his right of pre-emption?
- Can a right of pre-emption be waived before the actual sale of the property?
- What constitutes clear conduct or express refusal sufficient to waive a right of pre-emption?
- Abaid Ullah vs The State1999 MLD 529 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
- Aaqil and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1754 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
- Aamir Mehmood vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 614 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
- Aamir Kamal vs Vice-President (Finance), Empire Resources (Pvt.) Ltd1999 PLC 246 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-09-18Read full judgment →
- A.H. Dalmia and others vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1999 PTD 988 · Delhi High Court · 1998-02-20Read full judgment →
- A.B.C. India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 1569 · Gauhati High Court · 1996-09-26Read full judgment →
- A. Textile Mills Limited through Company Secretary vs Central Board of Revenue through Chairman, Islamabad and 12 others1999 PTD 4138 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the legality of the Central Board of Revenue's directive requiring bankers to deduct income tax at a rate of 1% on export proceeds of cotton yarn. The core legal question was whether cotton yarn falls under Part II of the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which covers goods manufactured in Pakistan, or under the residuary Part III, which attracts a higher tax rate. The Court held that cotton yarn constitutes goods manufactured in Pakistan and therefore falls under Part II, rendering the 1% deduction illegal. The Court emphasized that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly in accordance with the letter of the law. Furthermore, it established that where an item can be placed under two heads of income or tariff, the interpretation favourable to the taxpayer must be adopted. Additionally, the Court affirmed that specific provisions take precedence over residuary clauses, and in cases of ambiguity in fiscal legislation, the construction beneficial to the subject should prevail over the revenue-favouring interpretation.
Questions settled- Whether cotton yarn constitutes 'goods manufactured in Pakistan' under the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a specific provision in a fiscal statute take precedence over a residuary clause when classifying goods for tax purposes?
- Should ambiguities in fiscal statutes be resolved in favour of the taxpayer or the revenue authority?
- Can the Central Board of Revenue impose a tax rate through circulars that contradicts the statutory classification in the Eighth Schedule?
- A. S. Ibrahim vs Union of India and others1999 PTD 210 · karnataka High Court · 1996-02-13Read full judgment →
- A. Merdith Janes Co. Ltd. vs Crescent Board Ltd.1999 CLC 437 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937. The dispute arose from a contract for the sale of cotton between the parties, which was subject to the bye-laws of the Liverpool Cotton Association (L.C.A.). Following the defendants' failure to open a Letter of Credit, the plaintiffs initiated arbitration proceedings. Despite the defendants' participation, they challenged the resulting award, arguing that the arbitrators lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a signed contract form and contesting the determination of the breach date. The Court held that the parties' membership in the L.C.A. established a valid arbitration agreement, rendering a signed contract unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the determination of the breach date was a question of fact, which could not be re-examined during enforcement proceedings, especially since the defendants failed to pursue the available appellate remedy under L.C.A. rules. The Court emphasized that judicial processes should not be used to delay the implementation of transnational commercial agreements, and consequently, the award was enforced.
Questions settled- Is a signed contract form a mandatory prerequisite for the validity of an arbitration agreement between members of the Liverpool Cotton Association?
- Can a court re-examine a finding of fact, such as the date of a contract breach, during proceedings for the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award?
- Does the failure to pursue an available appellate remedy under arbitration rules preclude a party from challenging factual findings in enforcement proceedings?
- A. Habib Ahmed vs The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Company and 51999 CLC 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application raising a legal objection regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a civil suit in light of the promulgation of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether a civil suit filed by a borrower against a banking company concerning pledged shares, related declarations, injunctions, and damages falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Banking Court under the 1997 Act, requiring its transfer from the High Court. The Sindh High Court held that the dispute fundamentally arises out of default and obligations concerning loan and finance facilities and thus falls within the domain of the Banking Court. The Court laid down that all proceedings pending in any court relating to matters covered under the 1997 Act stand transferred to the Banking Court, and plaintiffs cannot split claims to bypass specialized jurisdiction. Furthermore, transferred cases continue from their existing stage without necessitating summary trial procedures like leave to defend.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit concerning pledged shares and credit facilities is transferable to a Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
- Do proceedings pending in ordinary civil courts stand transferred to the Banking Court under section 7(6) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
- Are defendants in a suit transferred to a Banking Court required to seek leave to defend under section 9(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
- Does the inclusion of third-party defendants for damages alter the character of a banking suit so as to bar its transfer to a Banking Court?
- 13. A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3266 · Supreme Court of India · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
- (Syed) Sarwat Hussain vs Abdul HameedK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 174 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
- (Syed) Naseem-Ur-Rehman Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 209 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- (Syed) Naimat Al1 And Other vs Secretary Government of Baloch1stanK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 142 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Syed) Mumtaz Hussain Shah vs SH. Amanat Ullah And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 498 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
- (Syed) Altaf Hussain Bukhari (Retd.) Deputy Director Food vs Accountant General Azad Jammu and Kashmir And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Services Cases 96 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-01-13Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Taufiq Textile Mills (Pvt) Ltd. And 4 Others vs (M/s.) Industrial1999 P.C.T.L.R. 733 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Syed) Aasim Hassan, Etc. vs Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore, EtcK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 630 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) Sultan Flour and General Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Fazalabad through ItsK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 231 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Platinum Insurance Company Limited, Karachi through Iftikhar1999 P.C.T.L.R. 793 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal challenged the judgment of the High Court of Sindh's Company Judge ordering the winding up of the appellant insurance company for its inability to pay a guaranteed debt under an unconditional Mobilisation Advance Guarantee. The core legal questions involved whether an unconditional guarantee could be read in conjunction with the main contract to create a bona fide dispute, the interplay between clauses (a) and (c) of section 306 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 regarding a company's deemed inability to pay debts, and the burden of proof once a statutory demand notice is served. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Mobilisation Advance Guarantee was absolute and unconditional, that no bona fide dispute existed regarding the liability, and that proof of a statutory demand notice under section 306(1)(a) shifts the burden to the debtor company to rebut the presumption of insolvency by proving commercial solvency. The appeal was dismissed, with a conditional observation allowing the winding-up order to be set aside if the principal sum is deposited within six months.
Questions settled- Whether an unconditional mobilisation advance guarantee can be read as contingent upon the terms of a separate sub-contract agreement?
- Does the failure to pay a debt after a statutory notice under section 306(1)(a) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 raise a rebuttable presumption of a company's inability to pay its debts?
- Where a creditor proves service of a statutory demand notice, upon whom does the burden lie to prove commercial solvency?
- Is the liability of a surety co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under section 128 of the Contract Act 1872?
- (M/s.) Pioneer Hocsing Society (Pvt.) Limited through Its, ManagingK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 557 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) Noon Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation1999 P.C.T.L.R. 695 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) Mohsin Tea Store vs Federation of Pakistan And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 692 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Lever Brothers Pakistan, Ltd. vs The Federation of Pakistan And1999 P.C.T.L.R. 676 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Inpaktech Industries Private Ltd. Rawalpindi vs Government ofK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 266 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) Data Textiles Ltd. vs Karachi Stock Exchange Limited &1999 P.C.T.L.R. 701 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- (M/s). Ados Pakistan Ltd. vs Oil and Gas Development CorporationK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 43 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-02Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Zubeda Naz vs Asif Rashid Minhas And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 594 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Zahooran Bibi vs SHO P.S. City VehariK.L.K. 1999 Criminal Cases 103 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-20Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Waziran Alias Faiz Elahi vs Abdul SattarK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 204 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Umtul Jamil vs District Magistrate_Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad And Other,K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 494 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sultan Bibi And Other vs Gul Baran Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 514 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-10-23Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Shazia Parveen vs Muhammad AkramK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 484 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Saleem Akhtar vs Muhammad ShafiK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 68 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-04-06Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sabia Naz Etc. vs Mir Rustam And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 29 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-06-23Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Ruqqia Bibi vs Munir Ahmad And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 109 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Rachel Joseph vs Aftabuddin Qureshi And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criming} Cases 94 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Pathani vs Ramzan (Deceased) Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 468 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-24Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Mussarat Ara Khanum vs Umaid All And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 519 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Munawar Bibi vs Muhammad LatifK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Kishwar Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 543 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Khalida Haq vs Muhammad Sharif Etc.K.L. R. 1999 Civil Cases 52 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Kaneez Fatima vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Kalsoom Begum vs Ahmad Raza BukhariK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 389 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Kali Begum And Another vs Mukhtar Hussain-Shah And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 241 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-01-16Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Jamian vs Muhammad Bashir And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 129 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Jaina vs Zohra Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 327 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Irshad Bibi vs Muhammad AfzalK.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 39 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Imtiaz Bibi And Another vs Abdul Qadir Shad, Additional DistrictK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 208 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Hussain Bibi vs Muhammad Khalil And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 184 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Hamida Bibi vs Wali MuhammadK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 270 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-23Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Hamid a Nezam vs Municipal Committee And Other1999 K.L.R. Civil Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Chiragh Bibi vs (Mst.) Aisha Bibi Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 201 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
- (Mst). Fatima Bibi And Other vs (Mst) Rahim Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 102 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
- (Mian) Ahmad Zahoor And Other vs D.S.P, And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 542 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
- (Malik) Khalil Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 471 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
- (Haji) Noor Hassan vs SHO, P.S. B-Division Rahimyar KhanK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 111 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-16Read full judgment →
- (Haji) Noor Hassan vs S.H.O. P.S. B-Division, Rahim Yar KhanK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 322 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-16Read full judgment →
- (Haji) Muhammad Nawaz Khokhar, Ex-Mna vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Haji) Muhammad And Other vs Soorat Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 167 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
- (Haji) Abdul Aziz And Other vs (Haji) Dost Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 164 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
- (Dr.) Riaz Ahmad And Other vs Government of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 44 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
- (Dr.) M. Afzal Beg vs University of the Punjab through Its Registrar, Lahore And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 186 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Dr.) Haji Muhammad Somro vs Principal Balochsitan ResidentialK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 83 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Dr.) Ghulam Murtaza And Other vs Government of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 51 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-14Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1700 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Muhammad Zikria Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 194 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Muhammad Zikria and others1998 CLC 900 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-11Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ahmad and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
- Zubaida Khanum vs Deputy District Education Officer and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 318 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
- Zonal Chief, Habib Bank Limited, Bahawalpur vs National Industrial1998 PLC 65 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
- Ziaullah Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1477 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
- Zia Ullah Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
- Zia Shahid, Cheif Editor, Daily Khabrain vs Khalid Anwar and others1998 CLC 588 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
- Zia Malik vs The State1998 MLD 690 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
- Zeal Pak Cement Factory Ltd., Tando Muhammad Khan Road vs Zeal1998 PLC 27 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-12-10Read full judgment →
- Zatoon Bibi and another.s vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1680 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-04-03Read full judgment →
- Zarid Mansoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 456 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
- Zarghun Shah vs Surgeon-General and anothers1998 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Civil Labour Class-IV employee, was charged with murder and attempted murder, leading to his status as a fugitive from law and subsequent arrest and acquittal upon a compromise. Meanwhile, he was suspended and ultimately discharged from service due to prolonged unauthorized absence from duty spanning nearly three years. His departmental appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed, upholding the discharge without an inquiry on the ground that the absence was apparent on the face of the record and required no proof. Upon a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he was denied the right of hearing, rendering the discharge order coram non judice. The Supreme Court held that where a charge of prolonged unauthorized absence stands proved on the face of the record and no explanation is offered, the holding of an inquiry is unnecessary, and the principle of audi alteram partem is not attracted to a discharge from service simpliciter without any stigma. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an inquiry is necessary where a charge of prolonged absence from duty stands proved on the face of the record?
- Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to a simple discharge from service without any stigma attached?
- Can an employee claim reinstatement after remaining a fugitive from law and absent from duty for nearly three years?
- Zareen Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 31 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
- Zardullah Khan vs The State1998 MLD 855 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
- Zardad Khan vs Mst. Safia Begum1998 CLC 2006 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding concurrent decisions of the courts below which decreed the respondent's suit for a declaration and possession regarding a disputed land mutation. The core legal questions involved whether a mutation attested without proper statutory compliance and free consent of a pardanashin owner is valid, whether a suit challenging a fraudulent mutation is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 or Article 14, and whether technical omissions under Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 vitiate an appellate judgment. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving the lawful execution and attestation of the mutation, particularly given the absence of mandatory identifiers under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 and the destruction of original tehsil records. It further ruled that suits challenging fraudulent mutations regarding proprietary rights fall under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 rather than Article 14, and that procedural provisions governing appellate judgments are directory rather than mandatory where concurrent findings of fact are well-reasoned and cause no prejudice. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a suit seeking a declaration against a fraudulent land mutation is governed by Article 14 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does the failure of an appellate court to strictly frame points for determination under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render its judgment a nullity?
- Where a party voluntarily produces a witness who deposes against them, can that party subsequently demand that the witness's testimony be excluded without declaring the witness hostile?
- What is the extent of the burden of proof required of a person claiming proprietary title on the basis of a disputed land mutation?
- Zar-Faroosh vs Slkandar Aziz And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 626 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-27Read full judgment →
- Zamir Hussain vs Badshah and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 883 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-20Read full judgment →
- Zameer Hussain vs Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which allowed an appeal filed by respondent No. 1 claiming seniority over the petitioner in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.). The core legal questions concern whether a seniority list placing the petitioner senior to respondent No. 1 upon representation acquired finality, and whether being placed senior in the lower cadre of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) entitled the petitioner to seniority in the higher cadre by virtue of the proviso to subsection (4) of section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions. The key principle laid down relates to the determination of civil servant seniority in promotional cadres based on lower cadre positions and the finality of seniority lists.
Questions settled- Whether the seniority list placing the petitioner senior to respondent No. 1 upon his representation acquired finality?
- Whether the factum of being placed senior in the lower cadre of L.D.C. entitled the petitioner to be shown as senior to respondent No. 1 by virtue of proviso to subsection (4) of section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Zameer Ahmad vs Baseer Ahmad and 9 others1998 CLC 371 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-30Read full judgment →
- Zakaullah Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Buildings1998 PLD Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a long-standing contractual dispute concerning road and footpath construction rates, which had been referred to arbitration pursuant to an agreement between the contractor and the government. The arbitrator rendered an award in favour of the contractor, concluding that an undertaking signed by the contractor accepting lower rates was given under forced circumstances and coercion. After protracted litigation through the civil courts, the Single Judge of the High Court set aside the award, leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal on remand from the Supreme Court. The Lahore High Court examined the scope of interference with arbitration awards under the Arbitration Act 1940. The court held that an arbitrator is the sole and final judge of both law and fact, and courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot act as appellate courts to re-examine findings of fact unless an error of law is apparent on the face of the award. The court concluded that the arbitrator's finding regarding coercion was a pure question of fact within his domain. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside, and the civil court's order making the award a rule of the court was restored.
Questions settled- What is the scope of an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940 regarding the grounds embodied in Section 30 of the Act?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an arbitrator's finding of fact that an undertaking was given under forced circumstances?
- What is the extent of a court's supervisory power when examining an arbitration award for errors of law or fact?
- Whether an arbitrator's conclusion regarding coercion or undue influence under the Contract Act 1872 constitutes a question of fact beyond routine judicial interference?
- Zainul Abidin vs Col. (Retd.) Feroze Hussain, Senior Manager (Admn.), Army Welfare Trust Cement Plant, Nizampur1998 PLC 32 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1997-08-08Read full judgment →
- Zain Yar Khan vs The Chief Engineer, C.R.B.C., WAPDA. D.I. Khan and another1998 SCMR 2419 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil service appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from departmental proceedings against a Junior Engineer of WAPDA involved in assessing compensation for damaged trees in the Chashma Right Bank Canal Project. The competent authority imposed a major penalty without holding a proper inquiry. Upon departmental appeal, the appellate authority set aside the penalty on technical grounds and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry, but without recording detailed reasons. The Service Tribunal subsequently dismissed the appellant's service appeal as infructuous. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether an appellate authority possesses inherent power to remand a case for fresh inquiry in the absence of an explicit statutory provision, and whether the absence of recorded reasons invalidates an appellate order. The Supreme Court held that the general power to pass orders as deemed proper inherently includes the jurisdiction to remand, and that under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, reasons should be recorded. However, the appellate court or tribunal retains discretion to sustain a remand order if supported by the record. The appeal was dismissed with directions.
Questions settled- Does an appellate authority under service discipline rules possess the power to remand a case for fresh inquiry when the rules do not expressly provide for remand?
- Whether an unreasoned or summary departmental appellate order setting aside a penalty and remanding a case must automatically be struck down for lack of reasons under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
- Can a court or tribunal look into the record to supply or discover reasons to uphold a departmental remand order if the order itself lacks detailed reasons?
- Zain Yar Khan vs Chief Engineer, C.R.B.C., WAPDA, D.I. Khan and anothers1998 SCMR 2364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal concerning a disciplinary matter. The core legal question raised was whether the appellate authority, under the relevant service rules, could remand a case for a fresh inquiry without specifying reasons or grounds for such remand. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether an order of remand passed by the appellate authority without specifying reasons falls within the proper scope of powers under the applicable rules. The Court held that an appellate authority must provide proper grounds and reasons when remanding a case for retrial, laying down the principle that discretionary powers of remand exercised by departmental authorities must be supported by articulated reasons rather than vague or unspecified technical grounds.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate authority has the power to remand a case for a fresh inquiry under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- Is an order of remand passed by an appellate authority valid when it fails to specify the technical grounds and reasons for the remand?
- Zain Yar Khan vs Chief Engineer, C.R.B.C., WAPDA, D.I. Khan and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 1038 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The core legal question concerns the scope of the appellate authority's powers under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, specifically whether such an authority possesses the power to remand a disciplinary case for a fresh inquiry and, if so, whether such an order is valid if it fails to specify the reasons or grounds for the remand. The petitioner contended that while the appellate authority may enhance, reduce, or modify penalties, it lacks the authority to order a fresh inquiry, and further argued that the remand order in this instance was deficient for lacking stated reasons. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the appellate authority’s order of remand, issued without specifying reasons, fell within the scope of its powers under the relevant rules. The Court noted that the impugned order failed to articulate the technical grounds justifying the remand, necessitating judicial review of the appellate authority's procedural compliance.
Questions settled- Does the appellate authority under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 have the power to remand a disciplinary case for a fresh inquiry?
- Is an order of remand passed by an appellate authority valid if it fails to specify the reasons or grounds for such remand?
- Zaibtun Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others1998 CLC 1278 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
- Zahoor-Ud-Din vs Khushi Muhammad and 6 others1998 SCMR 1840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents in a criminal case involving charges of cheating and forgery under the Pakistan Penal Code. The respondents had sold land reserved as open space under a Town Planning Scheme, leading to allegations of criminal misconduct. The trial court acquitted the respondents, holding that the sale did not constitute cheating and that the Corporation had alternative civil remedies for unauthorized construction. The High Court upheld this acquittal, relying on the principle that interference with an acquittal is only warranted if the finding is wholly artificial or shocking. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether a trial court can acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) after a charge has been framed but before recording evidence. The Supreme Court held that Section 249-A empowers a trial court to acquit an accused at any stage, whether before or after the framing of a charge, provided the court considers the charge groundless or finds no probability of conviction, after hearing the relevant parties and recording reasons.
Questions settled- Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. after a charge has been framed but before recording evidence?
- What are the pre-conditions for a trial court to exercise its power of acquittal under Section 249-A Cr.P.C.?
- Does the mere sale of land reserved for public use under a Town Planning Scheme constitute the offence of cheating?
- Under what circumstances is it appropriate for an appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal?
- Zahoor Khan vs Rehmat Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 382 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Elahi alias Jhoora vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmed Azhar vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur through ViceChancellor and 4 others1998 PLD Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, having secured 535 marks in his M.Ed. examination, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Islamia University, Bahawalpur, to grant him 5 grace marks to achieve a 60% aggregate, thereby upgrading his result to a first division. The petitioner relied on a government notification regarding degree equivalence and cited regulations from other faculties and universities allowing for grace marks to improve divisions. The University opposed this, citing its specific M.Ed. regulations which only permit grace marks for failing candidates in specific circumstances. The Court held that the University's M.Ed. regulations are special and exclusive, precluding reliance on regulations from other faculties or universities. Furthermore, the Court established that an illegal favour previously extended to others by public functionaries does not create a binding precedent or a right to equal treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that courts cannot perpetuate past administrative irregularities as a basis for granting relief.
Questions settled- Can a student claim grace marks for division improvement based on regulations applicable to different faculties or universities?
- Does the grant of an illegal favour to one candidate create a precedent that entitles others to similar treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Are specific university regulations regarding examination results subject to modification by external notifications or general equivalence policies?
- Zahir Khan and 2 others vs The State1998 MLD 421 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-10Read full judgment →