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. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Shoaib Jalis Ahmed and others vs Civil Aviation Authority through Director-General and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 258 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Shoab vs The State1998 MLD 1669 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
- Shiv Narayan Shivhare vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 1668 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two cross-petitions filed under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the refusal of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer certain questions of law to the High Court regarding penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in law by refusing to refer questions concerning the genuineness of a sub-partnership, the admissibility of deductions, and the application of penalty provisions for alleged concealment of income. The High Court held that the findings of the Tribunal regarding the genuineness of the sub-partnership and the quantum of deductible interest were findings of fact based on evidence. The Court affirmed that where the Tribunal has recorded findings of fact without perversity, and where no substantial question of law arises, a reference to the High Court is not warranted. The Court reiterated that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be initiated merely on the basis of disallowance of claims if the assessee has disclosed all material facts, as the matter then becomes a question of fact rather than law.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a case where the dispute involves only findings of fact?
- Does the disallowance of a business deduction automatically trigger penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961?
- Is the genuineness of a sub-partnership a question of fact or a question of law for the purpose of a reference to the High Court?
- Shiv Narain Shivhare vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 3076 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
- Shina Ahmed vs Police Station Gulberg, Lahore and others1998 MLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
- Sher Zaman vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1855 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
- Sher Zaman and another vs Zar Kamal and others1998 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
- Sher Qadir vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Province of Punjab through District Collector, Vehari1998 SCMR 2636 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's civil suit regarding proprietary rights over state land. The petitioner, claiming as a sub-tenant, initially obtained a favorable order from the Assistant Commissioner, but the Collector subsequently allotted the land under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. The petitioner's writ petition challenging the adverse findings of the Board of Revenue was earlier dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner then instituted a civil suit, which was decreed by the trial court but reversed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, whose judgment was affirmed in revision by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-agitate his eligibility and claim for proprietary rights through a civil suit after the matter had been finally adjudicated against him by the Board of Revenue and affirmed by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent civil suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the petitioner's lack of entitlement and eligibility had already been conclusively determined up to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, and the petitioner had also suppressed the prior High Court order in his civil suit. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit challenging revenue authorities' orders is barred by the principle of res judicata when the plaintiff's entitlement has already been adjudicated and dismissed in writ jurisdiction?
- Does a sub-tenant under a short-term lease scheme possess the right to acquire proprietary rights in state land under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme?
- Can a party maintain a subsequent civil suit after suppressing a material prior judgment of the High Court rendered against them on the same subject matter?
- Sher Muhammad vs Mst. Khurshid Jehan Begum and others1998 SCMR 1291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an ejectment order against the petitioner, Sher Muhammad, from premises known as Aziz Hotel. The respondent, Mst. Khurshid Jehan Begum, had sought ejectment on grounds of default in rent payment and unauthorized structural changes. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge had previously affirmed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and ordered ejectment. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's challenge while allowing the respondent's cross-petition for recovery of rent arrears. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had misread the evidence regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and the entitlement to rent arrears. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had fairly examined the evidence and that no misreading had occurred. The Court affirmed that once a landlord-tenant relationship is established, the landlord is entitled to recover rent arrears. Finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the establishment of a landlord-tenant relationship automatically entitle the landlord to recover rent arrears?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts absent a clear case of misreading of evidence?
- Sher Muhammad through Legal Heir and others vs Allah Rakha and others1998 SCMR 2648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents claiming a superior right of pre-emption as a collateral against a registered sale-deed of agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit, and the lower appellate court as well as the Lahore High Court in regular second appeal maintained the concurrent findings. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the lower forums and the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the contradictory claims of parentage and relationship of the parties. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff-respondents failed to establish a consistent case regarding their pedigree and relationship to the vendors, and that material contradictions in the pleadings and evidence regarding parentage vitiated the findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and dismissed the pre-emption suit.
Questions settled- Whether without tangible proof regarding relationship of vendor and others with the predecessor of the respondents, his superior right to claim pre-emption over suit land could be lawfully accepted?
- Whether appellate forums without making any comments or giving reasons could lawfully reject appeals and disregard evidence available on record?
- Whether documentary evidence showing glaring differences about parentage of the vendor or plaintiff-respondents could be consciously ignored or omitted without assigning reasons?
- Whether or not appellate forums were bound to thoroughly re-evaluate evidence brought on record and rectify defects of the trial court?
- Sher Muhammad And Another vs The State1998 PSC (Crl.) 110 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
- Sher Field Officers Association, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Rawalpindi through President vs State Life Insurance Corporation through Zonal Head and another1998 PLC 39 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1997-05-24Read full judgment →
- Sher Bahadur vs The State1998 SCMR 2610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for murder. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in maintaining the conviction of the appellants based on the uncorroborated testimony of eye-witnesses after rejecting other pieces of prosecution evidence such as the dying declaration and weapon recoveries. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the eye-witnesses were natural, independent, and reliable witnesses whose testimony inspired confidence and was sufficient in itself to sustain a conviction. The key principle laid down is that a criminal conviction can lawfully rest on the sole testimony of reliable and natural eye-witnesses, even in the absence of corroborative evidence, provided such witnesses are found to be untainted and free from mala fides or improper motives.
Questions settled- Whether a criminal conviction can be maintained on the sole uncorroborated testimony of eye-witnesses?
- Can the evidence of an eye-witness be discarded solely on the ground that he is a domestic servant of the complainant?
- Whether the High Court was justified in maintaining the conviction of the appellants while disbelieving the dying declaration and recovery evidence?
- Sher Ali alias Sheri vs The State1998 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was charged with murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) due to the statutory delay in his trial. The Supreme Court held that while the third proviso creates a statutory right to bail upon the expiry of the specified period (two years for offences punishable with death), this right is forfeited if the delay is attributable to the accused's own acts or omissions. The Court determined that the petitioner's initial abscondence for several years directly caused the trial to be delayed, as it prevented him from being tried alongside his co-accused and necessitated the subsequent retrieval of case records from the High Court. Consequently, the Court ruled that the statutory period had not effectively expired in a manner entitling the petitioner to bail, as the delay was self-occasioned. The principle established is that an accused cannot benefit from their own wrong, and abscondence that contributes to trial delay disentitles an accused from claiming bail on the ground of statutory delay.
Questions settled- Does the statutory right to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. apply if the delay in trial is attributable to the accused?
- Can an accused person claim bail on the ground of statutory delay if their own abscondence caused the trial to be delayed?
- Is the 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' exception in the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. limited only to previously convicted offenders?
- Does the word 'shall' in the third proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. mandate the grant of bail regardless of the court's discretion?
- Sheikh Sajjad Hussain vs Managing Director (T & G), WAPDA, Lahore1998 PLC (C.S.) 1055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal against the imposition of a major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the existing time scale. The core legal question concerns whether the penalty could be sustained when the inquiry committee did not record a clear-cut finding of guilt, granting the benefit of doubt, and when a co-accused's appeal arising from the same inquiry proceedings was previously allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that the inquiries were mala fide and invalid. The Supreme Court held that the imposition of the major penalty was unwarranted given the lack of a definite finding of guilt and the Tribunal's inconsistent treatment of co-accused subjected to the same vitiated inquiries. The Court laid down the principle that a penalty cannot be sustained where the inquiry report exonerates the employee or extends the benefit of doubt, and where identical inquiry proceedings have already been judicially declared mala fide in respect of a co-accused.
Questions settled- Can a major penalty be sustained when the inquiry committee's findings give the accused the benefit of doubt rather than recording a clear-cut finding of guilt?
- Does a finding by the Service Tribunal regarding the invalidity and mala fide nature of an inquiry in the case of one co-employee enure to the benefit of another co-employee tried under the same inquiry?
- Syed Asif Ahmed vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1968 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Sajjad Hussain vs Managing Director (T & G) WAPDA, Lahore1998 SCMR 1565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal against the imposition of a major penalty. The core legal questions involved whether the departmental inquiries were mala fide and whether the findings of the Inquiry Committee warranted the imposition of a major penalty. The Supreme Court held that the imposition of the major penalty was unwarranted as the Inquiry Committee had exonerated the appellant or given him the benefit of doubt on all charges, and noting that the Tribunal had already found in a co-employee's parallel appeal that the same inquiries were not bona fide. The Court laid down the principle that a major penalty cannot be sustained where the inquiry report fails to record a clear-cut finding of guilt and grants the benefit of doubt, especially when foundational inquiries are vitiated by a lack of bona fides.
Questions settled- Whether a major penalty can be sustained when the inquiry committee gives the accused the benefit of doubt on the charges?
- Does a finding by the Service Tribunal regarding the mala fide nature of an inquiry in a co-employee's case enure to the benefit of another employee tried under the same inquiry?
- Sheikh Muhammad Rafiq And Others vs United Bank Limited And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed an application to recall an ex-parte order. The petitioners had filed appeals against Banking Tribunal decrees without depositing the decretal amount as mandated by the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question was whether such appeals were maintainable and whether the High Court correctly treated the initial admission of these appeals as a nullity due to non-compliance with statutory deposit requirements. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, are mandatory, requiring the deposit of the decretal amount as a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal. Consequently, the Court affirmed that an order admitting an appeal in violation of this statutory requirement is a nullity. The principle laid down is that where a statute explicitly bars the entertainment of an appeal absent a mandatory deposit, any judicial order admitting such an appeal without compliance is void ab initio and may be recalled.
Questions settled- Is an appeal against a decree of a Banking Tribunal maintainable without the deposit of the decretal amount as required by the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984?
- Can an order admitting an appeal that fails to comply with mandatory statutory deposit requirements be considered a nullity?
- Does a court have the authority to recall an ex-parte order that was passed to correct an initial order which was void in law?
- Sheikh Muhammad Ayub vs Administrator, Municipal Committee, Gujar1998 SCMR 2739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition filed by a municipal employee challenging his dismissal from service was accepted and he was reinstated. The core legal question concerned whether the employee was guilty of embezzling funds collected from the Food Department, and whether the contractor, who was allegedly implicated, was entitled to a pre-decision hearing in the constitutional petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court rightly concluded, based on official records and the statement of the Chief Officer of the Municipal Committee, that the employee had paid the amount to the contractor and was not guilty of embezzlement. The Court further held that since no relief was sought against the contractor in the writ petition, he was not a necessary party entitled to a personal hearing, though his rights to dispute liability in subsequent recovery proceedings remained protected. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an employee dismissed for alleged embezzlement is entitled to reinstatement when official records and chief officer statements refute the charge?
- Is a third-party contractor a necessary party entitled to a pre-decision hearing in a service writ petition filed against a municipal committee?
- Can a person potentially burdened by findings in a service dispute challenge liability in subsequent recovery proceedings?
- Sheikh Iftikhar Ali alias Sheikh Iftikhar Adil vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1212 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Hassan Shaharyar vs Federation of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 570 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Ahmad Ali vs President of Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi and others1998 PLD Lahore 530 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-23Read full judgment →
- Shehbaz Aslam vs Zaman Khan, Efc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 343 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
- Shazad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 264 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Khan vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 29) · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Hussain vs Full Bench N.I.R.C., Islamabad and 6 others1998 PLC 12 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Hussain vs Full Bench N.I.R.C. Islamabad And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
- Shaukat and Raza (Pvt.), Ltd. And Others vs Habib Credit and Exchange1998 P.C.T.L.R. 629 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
- Shaukat and Raza (Private) Ltd. and others vs Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Ltd. and others1998 PLD Karachi 36 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The State1998 MLD 1170 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-07-24Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another1998 PLC 536 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-28Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Sikandar Hayat and others1998 SCMR 1201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's regular first appeal in limine against a trial court judgment decreeing a suit for specific performance. The core legal question involves whether a suit for specific performance concerning an agreement to sell land executed by a co-sharer out of an undivided joint khata should be decreed in respect of specific khasra numbers or out of the joint khata as a whole. The Supreme Court held that two co-sharers being in possession of specific khasra numbers does not amount to a legal partition of joint land, and therefore the trial court committed no error in decreeing the sale out of the joint khata to the extent of the share coupled with possessory rights. The court established the principle that possession of specific portions of joint land by co-sharers does not constitute partition, and specific performance of an agreement by a co-sharer must respect the undivided nature of the joint khata.
Questions settled- Does possession of specific khasra numbers by co-sharers in an undivided joint khata amount to a legal partition of the land?
- Can a suit for specific performance of land from an undivided joint khata be decreed in respect of specific khasra numbers rather than out of the joint khata?
- Shaukat Ali vs S.H.O. SadiqabadK.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 62 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Muhammad Ramzan And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 643 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Ghulam Abbas and others1998 SCMR 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondents in a case registered under sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the respondents were entitled to the statutory concession of bail on the ground of delay in the conclusion of their trial under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, notwithstanding certain adjournments and delays attributed to the defense or co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the respondents had remained incarcerated for a period exceeding two years without conclusion of the trial, and the minor delays sought on behalf of the accused did not suffice to exclude them from the benefit of the statutory proviso, nor could delays caused by co-accused in column No. 2 be attributed to them. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, laying down the principle that statutory delay entitlement under the third proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C. applies unless the delay is directly occasioned by an act or omission of the specific accused seeking bail or persons acting on their behalf.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does minor delay caused by adjournments sought on behalf of the accused disentitle them from statutory bail under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can delay caused by the non-appearance or summoning of co-accused placed in column No. 2 of the challan be attributed to the respondents for the purpose of denying statutory bail?
- Shaukat Ali vs Director, Land Record and others1998 MLD 608 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-13Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 598 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-29Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali Qadri vs The Karachi Building Control Authority and another1998 CLC 1387 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the owner of a building in Karachi aggrieved by the illegal and unapproved construction of a ground plus six storeys structure on an adjoining plot by respondent No. 2, which allegedly caused damage to the petitioner's property, blocked light and air, and posed serious hazards to life and property, while the Karachi Building Control Authority (KBCA) failed to take effective action despite notices. The core legal question was whether an unauthorized and illegal structure raised without an approved building plan, causing nuisance and hazard to neighbours, could be allowed to stand and whether the regulatory authority was bound to take corrective action. The Sindh High Court allowed the petition, holding that the structure was unauthorized and directing the KBCA to issue notices to all concerned parties, examine the legality of the structure through a speaking order, secure the rights of the petitioner and neighbours, remove dangers, and deal with the illegal structure in accordance with law, emphasizing that occupancies created in an illegal building must stand or fall with the building itself.
Questions settled- Whether an unauthorized building raised without an approved plan can be permitted to stand when it causes hazards and impairs the rights of neighbouring property owners?
- What is the legal status of occupancies and rights created by a party in an illegal and unauthorized building?
- Whether the Karachi Building Control Authority is bound to take action against illegal structures through a speaking order after issuing notices to all concerned parties?
- Shaukat Ali and 18 others vs Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi and 13 others1998 SCMR 395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the determination of compensation for land acquired for the extension of Ayub National Park under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal questions involve whether small-piece sale mutations should be excluded when determining market value, whether landowners are entitled to compensation enhancement for the extensive intervening period between the section 4 notification and the award, and whether post-notification sale deeds can serve as the basis for assessing market value. The Supreme Court held that these questions of public importance regarding land valuation principles require authoritative examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legal rules governing market value assessment in compulsory acquisition cases.
Questions settled- Whether the price of a small piece of acquired land can be legally fixed at a lower rate than similar land acquired in a large quantity?
- Are landowners entitled to enhancement in compensation for the intervening period between the date of notification under section 4 and the award?
- Can registered sale deeds executed after the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act form the basis for determining market price?
- Sharifan and 6 others vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Interior Division, Islamabad1998 PLD Lahore 59 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a Pakistani woman and her Indian husband along with their children, seeking the grant of Pakistani citizenship to the husband on the basis of his marriage. The core legal question was whether section 10 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which grants citizenship to foreign wives of Pakistani citizens but not to foreign husbands of Pakistani women, violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Lahore High Court held that section 10 of the Act is constitutionally valid and does not amount to invidious discrimination, as Article 25 guarantees equality to citizens rather than aliens, and the legislature is competent to provide special concessions for women in accordance with private international law and public policy. The court laid down the principle that the legislature may enact special provisions for women, and that individual rights must yield to the broader security and regulatory interests of the nation regarding citizenship. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether section 10 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can a foreign husband of a Pakistani citizen claim citizenship as a matter of fundamental right based on marriage?
- Does Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, apply to non-citizens and aliens?
- Whether the legislature is competent to make special provisions in citizenship laws in favor of women?
- Sharif, Etc. vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 55) · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
- Sharafud Din Sheikh vs The State1998 SCMR 2444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a revision petition regarding the jurisdiction of the Special Judge (Central) to try the petitioner. The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was accused of offering a bribe to a Deputy Director of the Anti-Narcotics Task Force to assist accused persons in a narcotics case. While the petitioner was initially involved in the narcotics investigation, he was subsequently charged with bribery under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to try these bribery charges alongside the narcotics case, arguing they were separate transactions. The High Court held that the offences were committed in the course of the same transaction and that the petitioner was liable to be tried with the co-accused under the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance, 1995. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the bribery offence and the narcotics recovery constituted the same transaction and whether joint trial was legally permissible.
Questions settled- Can an offence of offering a bribe be tried jointly with a narcotics offence if the bribery is alleged to have occurred on a different date?
- Does the act of offering a bribe to an official investigating a narcotics case constitute the same transaction as the original narcotics recovery?
- Under what circumstances can a public servant be tried jointly with co-accused persons for separate offences under the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance 1995?
- Sharafat Khan and otherss vs Hussain Shah and others1998 CLC 1869 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
- Sharafat and others vs The State1998 MLD 892 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
- Shamshad Ali vs Senior Postmaster (Dely) and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a government servant, challenged an order of compulsory retirement imposed upon him following allegations of temporary misappropriation of funds. The petitioner argued that he had provided an explanation for the delay in depositing the funds, citing an excessive workload, but his explanation was rejected. Crucially, the petitioner contended that the authorities imposed a major penalty without conducting a regular departmental enquiry. The petitioner asserted that the procedure mandated by the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, was violated because the competent authority failed to record reasons for dispensing with a regular enquiry and opting for a summary procedure instead. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the compulsory retirement order, passed without a regular enquiry and without assigning reasons for adopting a summary procedure, was legally sustainable in light of established jurisprudence requiring strict adherence to disciplinary procedures. The core legal question concerns the procedural necessity of holding a regular enquiry versus a summary enquiry in disciplinary proceedings against government servants.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for the competent authority to record reasons for dispensing with a regular enquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Can a major penalty of compulsory retirement be imposed on a government servant without holding a regular enquiry?
- Shamshad Ali vs Senior Postmaster (Delivery) and others1998 SCMR 2322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a government servant, challenged his compulsory retirement from service, which was imposed following an allegation of temporary misappropriation of funds. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the authority dispensed with a regular departmental enquiry without recording any reasons or passing a formal order to justify the adoption of a summary procedure, despite the petitioner having provided an explanation for the delay in depositing the funds. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the disciplinary authority acted in accordance with the law by bypassing a regular enquiry without assigning reasons, particularly in light of established precedents regarding the necessity of following prescribed disciplinary procedures. The core legal question concerns the procedural validity of dispensing with a regular enquiry in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant without explicit justification.
Questions settled- Can a disciplinary authority dispense with a regular enquiry against a government servant without recording reasons for adopting a summary procedure?
- Is it mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 before imposing a major penalty?
- Shams Mohiuddin Ansari vs Messrs International Builders1998 CLC 956 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
- Shamroze Khan and another vs The State1998 MLD 409 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-24Read full judgment →
- Shamila Parveen vs University of Punjab, And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 378 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
- Shamas Rizwan vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education1998 CLC 195 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-17Read full judgment →
- Shaman and 5 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-19Read full judgment →
- Shakir Ullah Khan and 2 others vs Madad Khan Orakzai and others1998 SCMR 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court arising from a pre-emption suit. During the pendency of the suit, a portion of the disputed land was acquired by the Peshawar Development Authority (P.D.A.). The core legal question concerned whether the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land received by the petitioners should be deposited in the pending pre-emption suit pursuant to previous directions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the clear and unambiguous directions in its earlier order mandated that the compensation amount received by the petitioners must be deposited in the pending pre-emption suit to be disbursed to the rightful party upon final adjudication. The key principle laid down is that parties who receive compensation for land subject to a pending pre-emption suit are bound to deposit such amounts in court in accordance with judicial directions for ultimate determination of entitlement.
Questions settled- Whether compensation received for land acquired during the pendency of a pre-emption suit must be deposited in court?
- Are parties bound by clear and unambiguous directions given in prior appellate orders regarding deposited funds?
- Shakir Ali vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 217 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-29Read full judgment →
- Shakil Ahmed and anothers vs Sardar Ali and anothers1998 SCMR 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partly accepted an appeal by a convict, Sardar Ali, by reducing his death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the fine. The complainant, Shakil Ahmad, sought enhancement of the sentence, while the convict challenged the conviction itself. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had properly appraised the evidence on record, specifically regarding contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. The convict argued that the presence of blackening around the injuries, as noted by the medical witness, contradicted the complainant's claim that shots were fired from a distance of 40-45 feet. Furthermore, the defense challenged the credibility of the recovery of the weapon. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that these features required a thorough reappraisal of the evidence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to examine the merits of the conviction and sentencing.
Questions settled- Does the presence of blackening around gunshot wounds contradict ocular testimony claiming shots were fired from a distance?
- Is a reappraisal of evidence required when the High Court fails to address material contradictions between medical and testimonial evidence?
- Can leave to appeal be granted to examine the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal conviction?
- Shakeel Farooqi and 3 others vs Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation1998 PLC (C.S.) 285 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmed vs Commandant 502 Central Workshop E.M.E., Rawalpindi and anothers1998 SCMR 1970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of an appeal against the removal of a civil servant for misconduct. The petitioner contended that the removal was illegal due to the non-supply of a statement of allegations, the conduct of a 'sham' inquiry, and the appellate authority's failure to provide reasons. The Supreme Court held that while a civil servant must be provided with a charge-sheet and statement of allegations, the non-supply of the latter is not fatal if the charge-sheet is self-explanatory and causes no prejudice. The Court found the inquiry proceedings were procedurally compliant, as the petitioner was afforded opportunities to cross-examine witnesses. Although departmental appellate authorities are required to assign reasons for their decisions, the Court held that the Tribunal’s independent scrutiny of the record cured any such procedural defect. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that dismissal in limine of a first appeal is permissible in simple cases where no complex questions of law or fact arise. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as no question of law of public importance was involved.
Questions settled- Does the non-supply of a statement of allegations along with a charge-sheet automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Is a departmental appellate authority required to assign reasons for its decision when rejecting an appeal?
- Under what circumstances can a first appeal be dismissed in limine?
- Does the failure of a departmental appellate authority to provide reasons render the Tribunal's subsequent order illegal?
- Shakeel Ahmed vs Commandant 502 Central Workshop E.M.E., Rawalpindi and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 1338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the service appeal of the petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk removed from service on charges of corruption and misconduct, was dismissed in limine. The core legal questions involved whether the removal proceedings violated the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 due to the non-supply of a statement of allegations, whether the inquiry procedure was defective, and whether the appellate authority was bound to assign reasons. The Supreme Court held that since the charge-sheet was self-explanatory and caused no prejudice, and the inquiry afforded due opportunity of hearing and cross-examination, the removal was valid. While reiterating that departmental appellate authorities should assign reasons for their decisions, the Court held that the Tribunal's proper scrutiny of the record cured any such defect. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused as no substantial question of law of public importance under the Constitution was involved.
Questions settled- Does the non-supply of a statement of allegations vitiate disciplinary proceedings where the charge-sheet is self-explanatory and causes no prejudice to the civil servant?
- Whether inquiry proceedings conducted by a Court of Inquiry are invalid merely because some questions are put in the form of a questionnaire alongside the examination and cross-examination of witnesses?
- Is a departmental appellate authority legally required to assign reasons when rejecting a departmental appeal?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal dismiss a first service appeal in limine under circumstances analogous to Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Shakeel Ahmed Qureshi vs Fiabib Khan1998 CLC 677 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1998 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 31 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Khalil vs Haji Chand Muhammad1998 SCMR 2374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the High Court ordering the petitioner's eviction on the ground of default. The respondent, father-in-law of the petitioner, was the admitted titleholder of the property and sought eviction, alleging a tenancy at Rs. 1,500 per month. The petitioner denied the landlord-tenant relationship, claiming he facilitated the property's transfer to the respondent, occupied it, and funded construction. The core legal questions pertained to the determination of the landlord-tenant relationship in the absence of written tenancy documentation between close relatives, and the applicability of estoppel against questioning the owner's title. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings, ruling that the lack of written documentation was understandable given the familial relationship and that the petitioner entered possession prior to the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. The Court held that under Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, a person inducted into possession is estopped from denying the landlord's title. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner three months to vacate.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of a written tenancy agreement under Section 5(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance invalidates an eviction proceeding when possession was inducted prior to the Ordinance's promulgation?
- Whether an occupant inducted into possession by an admitted property owner is estopped under Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 from challenging the owner's title or entitlement to repossess?
- Can a landlord-tenant relationship be established on a preponderance of evidence without rent receipts or a written agreement where the parties share a close familial relationship?
- Shahzada Saeed-Ur-Rashid Mahmood Abbasi vs Nawab Salah-Ud-Din1998 CLC 2047 · Election Tribunal · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Naveed Gauhar vs Syed Jamil Safdar and 2 others1998 SCMR 2743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from an interim status quo order passed by the Lahore High Court in a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant challenging his transfer and posting orders. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court in view of the jurisdictional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution regarding matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants. The Supreme Court declined to examine the merits or the constitutional jurisdictional bar at the interim stage, choosing instead to dispose of the appeal by directing the High Court to decide the pending writ petition expeditiously within three months, while leaving all parties at liberty to raise the jurisdictional question before the High Court and preserving the status quo prevailing on a specific date in the interim.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition filed by a civil servant challenging transfer and posting orders is maintainable in view of the Constitutional bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Can the High Court entertain a constitutional petition directed against matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
- Shahzad Ahmed vs The State1998 MLD 1663 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
- Shahtaj Sugar Mills Ltd. and 3 others vs Province of Punjab and others1998 SCMR 2492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, sugar manufacturing companies, challenged the levy and enhancement of the Sugarcane Development Cess imposed by the Province of Punjab. They contended that the levy was unauthorized following the removal of sugarcane supply zones, that the amending Ordinances (XI of 1978 and XX of 1983) had lapsed due to constitutional time limits, that the cess created an imbalance in inter-provincial trade, and that the Provincial Legislature lacked the competence to impose such a tax, which allegedly fell under the Federal Legislative List. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Sugarcane Development Cess is a valid provincial levy aimed at specific development purposes, such as road maintenance and plant protection, which are within the provincial legislative domain under Article 142(c). The Court further held that Article 270-A of the Constitution validated the challenged Ordinances, curing any defects regarding their duration or promulgation during the Martial Law period. The Court also rejected the argument that the cess violated inter-provincial trade principles, noting a lack of evidence, and expressly disapproved of the reasoning in the cited Peshawar High Court judgment.
Questions settled- Does the removal of sugarcane supply zones render the levy of Sugarcane Development Cess unlawful?
- Are Ordinances promulgated during the Martial Law period validated by Article 270-A of the Constitution despite the expiry of their statutory duration?
- Does the imposition of a Sugarcane Development Cess by a provincial legislature fall within the scope of Item 49 of the Federal Legislative List?
- Can a provincial legislature impose a cess for the development of roads and plant protection services under its legislative authority?
- Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Food, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 3 others1998 CLC 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of writ petitions challenging the vires of the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1964, and subsequent amendments made by the Punjab Finance (Amendment) Ordinances of 1978 and 1983, which levied a Sugarcane (Development) Cess. The petitioners argued that the Ordinances were invalid as they were not placed before the Provincial Assembly, that the cess constituted an unconstitutional central excise duty, and that it violated fundamental rights regarding trade and economic equality under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the Governor possessed the power to promulgate the impugned Ordinances during the Martial Law period, and that Article 270-A of the Constitution validated these laws, rendering subsequent legislative approval unnecessary. The Court further determined that the cess was a valid provincial levy, not a central excise duty, and that it did not violate Articles 18, 23, 25, or 151 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that compensatory levies for specific development purposes are constitutionally permissible and that the mere variance in cess rates between provinces does not constitute discrimination.
Questions settled- Does Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 validate Ordinances promulgated during the Martial Law period without requiring subsequent approval by the Provincial Assembly?
- Is the Sugarcane (Development) Cess levied under the West Pakistan Finance Act 1964 a valid provincial levy or an unconstitutional central excise duty?
- Does a variation in the rate of a provincial cess between different provinces violate the principle of economic equality or freedom of trade under Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a taxing statute be struck down on the ground of discrimination merely because it differs from legislation enacted by another province?
- Shahsawar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1758 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court Anti-Terrorism convicting the appellants under various provisions including section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the Special Court had retrospective jurisdiction to try an offence committed before the enforcement of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and whether the appellants were denied a fair opportunity of defence and legal representation, violating statutory safeguards and fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court held that while the Special Court possessed jurisdiction under the schedule to try certain offences committed prior to the enactment, the trial was severely vitiated due to a denial of adequate legal assistance, failure to provide separate counsel for each accused, and undue haste in recording evidence without allowing sufficient preparation time. The court set aside the convictions and remanded the matter for a fresh trial. The key principle laid down is that the right of an accused to be defended by a pleader in a capital case is a paramount statutory and constitutional right, and courts must not sacrifice fairness and due process at the altar of speedy trials.
Questions settled- Does a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 have jurisdiction to try scheduled offences committed prior to the commencement of the Act?
- Does the failure to provide adequate time and separate legal representation to multiple co-accused vitiate a criminal trial in a capital case?
- Is the right of an accused to be defended by a pleader protected under constitutional guarantees of due process and security of person?
- Can a court sacrifice the fundamental interests of justice and fair play in the name of conducting a speedy trial?
- Shahro and others vs Mst. Fatima and others1998 PLD Supreme Court 1512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a property dispute between female legal heirs and male co-sharers regarding inheritance governed by custom versus Shariah law, alongside questions of limitation and adverse possession. The core legal questions pertained to whether male co-sharers could establish adverse possession against female co-heirs through exclusive possession and revenue record entries, and whether a respondent in appeal can challenge adverse trial court findings without filing cross-objections under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellate and High Court decrees in favor of the female heirs. The Court held that under Order XLI, Rule 22 CPC, a respondent supporting a decree may rely on grounds decided against them without lodging cross-objections, and under Order XLI, Rule 33 CPC, appellate courts possess wide powers to do complete justice. The Court further laid down that possession of one co-sharer is for the benefit of all; entries in revenue records do not create title or constitute ouster; and male heirs cannot claim adverse possession against female heirs absent express, hostile repudiation.
Questions settled- Can a respondent support a decree on grounds decided against them by the trial court without filing cross-objections under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Does an appellate court have the power under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the CPC to grant appropriate relief to a party in the absence of a cross-objection or appeal?
- Can a male co-sharer establish adverse possession or ouster against female co-heirs solely through exclusive possession and fraudulent mutation entries in revenue records?
- Shahid Naseem vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 304 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
- Shahid Mehmood vs The State1998 MLD 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
- Shahid Masood Nadeem vs Deputy C.A., A.F., Lahore Cantt and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1009 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-06-10Read full judgment →
- Shahid Mahmood vs (Mst.) Bashiran BibiK.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
- Shahid Javed vs Govt. Of Punjab, And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 170 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-22Read full judgment →
- Shahid Javed vs Government of the Punjab and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 122 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-22Read full judgment →
- Shahid Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, State and Frontier Region (Safran), Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby the petitioner's service appeal against the termination of his services was dismissed. The petitioner, a temporary employee of the Afghan Refugee Organization appointed in BPS-11 and later promoted to BPS-15, had his services terminated following the alleged winding up of the organization. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the ground that he was a temporary employee with no vested right to retention upon the retrenchment of the organization. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider contentions that the Tribunal failed to address legal and factual aspects raised in the appeal, that the organization was still functioning, that rules regarding the retrenchment of the junior-most employees were not followed, and to examine the terms of removal applicable to a Federal Government employee who had completed ten years of service.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary employee's services can be terminated without following rules pertaining to retrenchment?
- Does a Service Tribunal fail to exercise its jurisdiction when it dismisses an appeal without deciding the legal and factual aspects raised by the appellant?
- Whether an employee who has completed ten years of service has a right to be retained or governed by specific terms upon the winding up of an organization?
- Shahid Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, State &1998 SCMR 2370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the termination of his services from the Afghan Refugee Organization. The petitioner, initially appointed on a temporary basis, challenged his termination, arguing that the organization remained operational and that established retrenchment rules, specifically the principle of 'last in, first out,' were ignored. The Service Tribunal had dismissed the appeal in limine, citing the winding up of the organization and the petitioner's temporary status, despite a prior Supreme Court remand order directing a decision on merits. The core legal questions concern whether the Tribunal failed to adjudicate the factual and legal aspects of the case, whether the organization was actually wound up, and whether the petitioner, as a Federal Government employee with ten years of service, was entitled to procedural protections regarding retrenchment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the Tribunal's failure to address these substantive contentions and the necessity of determining the petitioner's rights regarding termination and retrenchment procedures.
Questions settled- Does a Service Tribunal err in law by dismissing an appeal in limine without addressing the specific factual and legal contentions raised by the appellant?
- Is a temporary employee of a government organization entitled to the protection of retrenchment rules, such as the principle of seniority, upon the winding up of the organization?
- Does the failure of a Service Tribunal to decide a case on merits after a remand order constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction?
- Shahid Baloch vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1628 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant Shahid Baloch sought post-arrest bail in respect of Crime No. 35 of 1996 registered at Railway Police Station under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance (replaced by the Control of Narcotics Substances Act), relating to the alleged recovery of one kilogram of heroin powder. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of competency of the police officer to conduct the search, non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and failure to associate independent witnesses from the railway platform. The Sindh High Court held that under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, an exception is provided regarding the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that police officials are considered respectable witnesses at the bail stage unless their veracity is tested during trial. The court dismissed the bail application, ruling that the case did not fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while directing the trial court to examine the complainant within one month.
Questions settled- Whether a police officer is competent to conduct a search and arrest under narcotics laws?
- Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act provide an exception to the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can police officials be regarded as respectable mashirs for recovery at the bail stage without cross-examination?
- Whether the recovery of one kilogram of heroin warrants the refusal of post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shahid and others vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1998 PLC (C.S.) 773 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-04Read full judgment →
- Shahid Ali vs Karachi University through the Vice-Chancellor, University1998 CLC 1449 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was brought by two medical students challenging the vires of Note (ii) of Regulation 4(1) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations, framed under section 33(2) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962, which provides that a student failing to clear the First Professional M.B., B.S. Examination in four chances shall cease to be eligible for further medical education. The core legal questions involved were whether the impugned regulation violates Fundamental Rights regarding equality, reasonableness, and discrimination, and whether the restriction exceeds the statutory authority of the Council. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the regulation is intra vires, does not violate constitutional provisions or Fundamental Rights, and serves the vital public purpose of arresting falling educational standards by filtering out candidates lacking the aptitude for medical studies. The Court laid down the principle that the four-chance limitation for the first professional medical examination is a reasonable classification, and relaxation from its rigours requires a genuine, prompt case showing factors entirely beyond the student's control.
Questions settled- Does Note (ii) of Regulation 4(1) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations violate any Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether the restriction disqualifying a student from further medical education after failing the First Professional M.B., B.S. Examination in four chances is discriminatory or unreasonable?
- Does the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council possess the statutory competence under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962 to prescribe a maximum number of chances for passing professional medical examinations?
- Under what circumstances can a student be granted relief or relaxation from the rigours of the rule precluding further medical education upon exhausting permitted attempts?
- Shaheen Construction Company vs Karachi Development Authority1998 SCMR 1348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the Karachi Development Authority's (KDA) decision to carve out three commercial plots from an area previously reserved for a water conduit line, which allegedly violated the area's Master Plan and the petitioners' property rights. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the writ petitions, citing a lack of locus standi for one petitioner and the fact that the other petitioner had allegedly benefited from similar land allocations. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the petitioners had the standing to challenge the KDA's actions, particularly in light of the alleged violation of the Master Plan. The Court noted the contention that the High Court erred in relying on unrelated precedents and failing to apply the principles regarding locus standi established in Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the KDA's actions were ultra vires the Master Plan and if the petitioners possessed the requisite standing to maintain their challenge, while maintaining the existing interim orders pending final adjudication.
Questions settled- Does a property owner have locus standi to challenge the conversion of reserved open space into commercial plots if such action violates the Master Plan?
- Can a court dismiss a writ petition based on the factual findings of an unrelated case where the current parties were not involved?
- Is the carving out of commercial plots from land reserved for public utility infrastructure by a development authority subject to judicial review?
- Shaheen Akhtar vs Government of Punjab and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 70 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, appointed as Subject Specialists on an ad hoc basis by the Government of the Punjab, challenged a directive terminating their services after their tenure expired. They contended that their removal was unreasonable, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental rights, arguing that they were entitled to continue until a regular selectee was appointed. The Court addressed a preliminary objection regarding its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, specifically whether Article 212 of the Constitution barred the High Court from entertaining these petitions. The Court held that the petitioners, as ad hoc appointees, fell within the definition of 'civil servants' under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and that matters relating to their terms and conditions of service fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal established under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Consequently, the Court ruled that its jurisdiction under Article 199 was excluded by Article 212 of the Constitution. The petitions were dismissed, affirming that service disputes must be adjudicated by the specialized tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain petitions regarding the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
- Are ad hoc government employees considered 'civil servants' for the purposes of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
- Can the High Court exercise judicial review in service matters where the Punjab Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Does the existence of a contractual appointment letter exclude an employee from the definition of a civil servant under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Shaheen Airport Services, Karachi Airport, Terminal No.1 Karachi vs Sindhh Employees Social Security Institution through Its Commissioner, Aiwan-E-Mehnatkash, Rashid Minhas Road, Gulshane-Iqbal, Karachi And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 69 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shahbaz Aslam vs Zaman Khan and another1998 CLC 393 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-16Read full judgment →
- Shah Zareen Khan vs Sada Gul1998 MLD 903 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller allowing an ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant was a wilful defaulter when adequate advance rent and credit balances were held by the landlord, and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for his son. The Sindh High Court held that the tenant was not a defaulter since the landlord held a credit balance exceeding the alleged arrears, and further held that the landlord's personal requirement lacked bona fides due to contradictory assertions, omission of material facts regarding alternative premises, and an unrebutted claim that ejectment was sought merely due to the tenant's refusal to accept a rent increase. The court established that a tenant cannot be deemed a defaulter when the landlord holds funds exceeding the arrears, and failure to challenge material assertions in cross-examination constitutes an admission of those facts.
Questions settled- Can a tenant be held to be a defaulter in payment of rent when the landlord is holding an amount or advance credit in excess of the alleged arrears?
- Does the failure to challenge a specific material assertion of a witness in cross-examination amount to an admission of that fact?
- What is the effect of a landlord's failure to disclose the ownership and availability of alternative premises in the same locality when claiming personal bona fide requirement?
- Whether an ejectment application is maintainable when it is proved to be motivated by the tenant's refusal to agree to an arbitrary enhancement of rent?
- Shah Zaman vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 449 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 664 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-10-29Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Vice-Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur1998 PLC (C.S.) 332 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur and 51998 P Cr. L J 1987 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad and others vs Malik Abdul Rauf and others1998 SCMR 1363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition challenging concurrent orders of the revenue hierarchy regarding their ejectment from disputed government land. The core legal question was whether Revenue Courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain an ejectment application when a question of title was raised by the petitioners claiming tenancy rights. The Supreme Court held that the Revenue Courts possessed the initial jurisdiction to determine jurisdictional facts, specifically the relationship of landlord and tenant, and that a mere assertion by the petitioners denying tenancy or raising a question of title did not oust the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts. The ratio laid down is that a plea of title by a defendant does not alter the forum or divest a Revenue Court of its competence to determine the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship unless the finding on that jurisdictional fact suffers from a legal infirmity. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Revenue Courts are deprived of jurisdiction in an ejectment matter simply because a party raises a question of title?
- Is the determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant a jurisdictional fact to be decided by the Revenue Court?
- Whether the High Court's exercise of constitutional jurisdiction is warranted where Revenue Courts commit no legal infirmity in deciding jurisdictional facts?
- Shah Muhammad and others vs Central Government and others1998 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision petition in limine and upheld the concurrent rejection of their plaint by the lower courts. The petitioners had filed a suit in 1990 for declaration and permanent injunction challenging an evacuee property auction held in September 1974, asserting that the disputed land was not evacuee property. The core legal questions concerned whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to grant such a declaration without approaching the Custodian under the relevant legal framework. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts committed no illegality in rejecting the plaint as barred by limitation and barred by law, noting that the petitioners failed to plead knowledge of the auction date and omitted to seek the necessary declaration from the Custodian. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, reinforcing the principles governing the rejection of plaints under limitation laws and the bar on civil court jurisdiction in evacuee property matters.
Questions settled- Whether a suit challenging an evacuee property auction filed sixteen years after the auction is barred by limitation?
- Does the civil court have jurisdiction to grant a declaration that a property is not evacuee property without approaching the Custodian?
- Whether a plaint can be rejected under law when the facts disclosed therein show it is barred by limitation?
- Shah Jehan vs Nawabzada Khalid Khan and others1998 CLC 1397 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-18Read full judgment →
- Shagufta Man---Appeilant vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur and another1998 CLC 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
- Shafiur Rehman vs Jan Bahadur Khan, S.H.O., Zaida and 6 others1998 MLD 1161 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
- Shafaqat Ali vs State1998 MLD 2055 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
- Shabbir vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 704 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-27Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain vs Muhammad Younus and another1998 MLD 705 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain vs Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 2056 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad vs The Director, Agriculture (Research), Regional1998 PLC (C.S.) 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
- Sh. Zaheer Ahmad vs Qaimat Zamin and anothers1998 SCMR 535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court granting bail to the respondent, who is facing trial for murder and assault within the premises of the Sessions Court, Swat. The core legal question is whether the period for which the criminal case against the respondent remained pending in forums under the PATA Regulation—subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court—can be counted towards the statutory period prescribed under the third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of granting post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question, holding that arguable points of law regarding the computation of the statutory detention period under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases originating from PATA Regulation jurisdictions require detailed consideration.
Questions settled- Can the period of detention under an unconstitutional PATA Regulation be counted towards the statutory period for bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether bail can be granted on the ground of delay when the statutory period under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has not been fulfilled in the trial court?
- Sh. Nazir Ahmad vs The Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appellant, a teacher whose services were terminated following prolonged absence from duty after being transferred, had filed an appeal before the Tribunal prematurely before exhausting the remedy of a departmental appeal. Although the Supreme Court had previously remanded the matter for re-examination, the Tribunal by a majority view dismissed the appeal as incompetent due to the lack of a prior departmental appeal at the time of its institution. The core legal question was whether a service tribunal can entertain an appeal filed before the filing of a departmental appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the majority view of the Tribunal, holding that the appeal before the Tribunal was indeed incompetent when filed, while directing the departmental authority to decide the pending departmental appeal within two months.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is competent when filed prior to the filing of a departmental appeal?
- Does the remand of a case by the Supreme Court automatically cure the initial incompetence of a prematurely filed service appeal?
- Is a civil servant required to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Service Tribunal?