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.
- Sh. Muhammad Siddiq vs Khurram Gulraiz and 2 others1998 MLD 624 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenge orders passed by a Rent Controller directing tenants to deposit rent under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The tenants, who initially admitted the tenancy, later amended their written statements to claim they had purchased the shops, thereby becoming co-sharers and causing the tenancy to cease. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could validly order rent deposits under Section 13(6) without first adjudicating the tenants' plea regarding the cessation of the landlord-tenant relationship and the resulting lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the plea of cessation of tenancy was a foundational and jurisdictional objection. Consequently, the Rent Controller lacked the authority to pass an order under Section 13(6) until the relationship of landlord and tenant was established. The Court ruled that the impugned orders were without lawful authority and directed the Rent Controller to first frame and decide the issue of the cessation of tenancy and the related question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the ejectment applications.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller pass an order for rent deposit under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 when the tenant disputes the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship?
- Is a plea regarding the cessation of tenancy due to the tenant becoming a co-sharer a jurisdictional issue that must be decided before ordering rent deposits?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an interim order passed by a Rent Controller if that order is alleged to be without jurisdiction?
- Sh. Muhammad Jamil vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others1998 MLD 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
- Sh. Barkat Ali Cycle Works, Gulbergii, Lahore vs Haji Waheeduddin, Gulbergii, Lahore1998 PLD Lahore 196 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-12Read full judgment →
- Sh. Abdur Rashid vs Secretary to Government of Punjab and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 8 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
- Sh. Abdul Shakoor and others vs Settlement & Rehabilitation1998 SCMR 1177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding land allotment disputes under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The core legal question was whether the respondent, a claimant displaced person and sitting allottee, held a preferential right to land over subsequent allottees, and whether the alleged transfer of her units to another district was valid. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authorities and the High Court correctly determined that the respondent possessed a preferential right to the land. The Court affirmed that the evidence regarding the transfer of the respondent's units was fraudulent, unsigned, and undated, and thus invalid. Furthermore, the Court ruled that factual findings by Settlement Authorities, based on a proper appraisal of the record, are not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that a sitting temporary allottee holds a superior right to land allotment against later claimants, and that fraudulent, unsubstantiated administrative records cannot divest a rightful claimant of their entitlement, nor can such findings of fact be disturbed by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a sitting temporary allottee possess a preferential right to land allotment over subsequent claimants under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Can the High Court interfere with factual findings of Settlement Authorities in its constitutional jurisdiction when those findings are based on a proper appraisal of the record?
- Is an unsigned and undated administrative note sufficient to prove the transfer of land units from one district to another?
- Sezai Turkes Feyzi Akkaya Construction Company, Lahore through Project Manager Usman Akgul And Other vs (M_S.) Crescent Services, Lahore through Muhammad Saeed And Another(K.L.R. 1998 SC 40) · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking reference of a dispute to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in a sub-contract for Lahore By-Pass Project works. The petitioner resisted the application, contending that the sub-contract had been novated and superseded by a subsequent termination agreement which lacked an arbitration clause. The trial court and the High Court both repelled this contention and directed the parties to nominate their arbitrators, holding that the termination agreement had a clear nexus with the original sub-contract and both had to be read together. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, holding that a subsequent agreement that relies upon the mechanism and obligations of the original contract does not wipe out or novate the original contract so as to abrogate its arbitration clause, which survives to govern disputes arising from the interrelated arrangements. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent termination agreement that relies on the mechanism of an original sub-contract extinguish the arbitration clause contained in the original agreement?
- Whether an arbitration clause survives the termination or novation of a contract when the disputes are connected to the original agreement?
- Are two related agreements between the same parties required to be read together to determine the applicability of an arbitration clause?
- Sepoy Farmanullah Hashmi vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 4 others1998 MLD 1883 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-23Read full judgment →
- Senior Postmaster, G.P.O., Mardan and another vs Noor Din, Postmaster, Gujar Garhi. Mardan1998 SCMR 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment dated 17-7-1995 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which accepted the service appeal filed by the respondent. The respondent, working as a Postmaster, had been charge-sheeted for renewing Motor Vehicle Tax Registration Books without charging admissible penalty, thereby allegedly causing a loss of revenue to the Government. The departmental authority imposed a penalty of recovery of the loss amount upon the respondent, whose defence was that the renewals were made within the grace period of one calendar month as provided under Rule 14 of the Provincial Tax Rules read with Fundamental Rule 9(18). The Service Tribunal set aside the penalty, observing that the grace period included the last day of the month and that numerous routine inspections of the post office revealed no irregularities. Aggrieved, the department filed a petition before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the grace period of one calendar month included the last date of the month. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's interpretation was sound and free from infirmity, and consequently dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, laying down that concurrent findings regarding departmental rules and grace periods without any question of public importance do not warrant interference.
Questions settled- Does the grace period of one calendar month under the relevant tax rules include the last day of the month for the renewal of Motor Vehicle Tax Registration Books?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the factual findings of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding departmental disciplinary matters involving no question of law of public importance?
- Senior Post Master, G.P.O., Mardan and another vs Noor Din, Post1998 PLC (C.S.) 712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses several matters concerning service law and disciplinary proceedings against employees of the Pakistan Rangers and the Post Office Department. The core legal questions involve the jurisdictional competence of the Federal Service Tribunal over members of the Pakistan Rangers, their status as civil servants, and whether the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 prevail over the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Court held that members of the Pakistan Rangers are deemed to be civil servants performing duties in connection with the affairs of the Federation, making appeals regarding their terms and conditions of service competent before the Federal Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Furthermore, the Court established that the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 are all-embracing and prevail over the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 in case of any conflict, pursuant to the overriding provisions of the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959.
Questions settled- Are members of the Pakistan Rangers considered civil servants for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Do the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 prevail over the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain service appeals filed by members of the Pakistan Rangers?
- Whether the grace period of one calendar month under tax rules for renewing motor vehicle registration books includes the last day of the month?
- Senator Gulzar Ahmad vs Punjab Cooperative Board1998 CLC 50 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-26Read full judgment →
- Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology and others vs Nasrullah Khan and anothers1998 SCMR 2742 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, challenging a decision of the Service Tribunal regarding the employment status of the respondent, Nasrullah Khan. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an employee serving in an organization established merely by a government resolution, which lacks the status of a legal entity, is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the respondent's employer and determined that the organization in question did not constitute a legal entity. Relying on established precedents, including Mrs. M.N. Arshad and others v. Mrs. Naeema Khan and others, Saeed Rabbani v. Director-General, Leather Industry Development Organization and another, Chairman, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Islamabad v. Nasir Ahmad and others, and Dr. Rashid Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan, the Court held that the Service Tribunal had correctly adjudicated the matter. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
Questions settled- Whether an organization formed by a government resolution without being a legal entity can be sued in the Service Tribunal?
- Does an employee of a non-legal entity organization have the right to approach the Service Tribunal for service-related grievances?
- Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology and others vs Nasrullah Khan and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 1033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute concerning the employment status of the respondent, Nasrullah Khan, who served in an organization established via a government resolution. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an employee serving in an organization created by a government resolution, which lacks the status of a legal entity, falls within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the respondent's employer and determined that the organization in question did not constitute a legal entity capable of being sued or treated as a statutory body for the purposes of service law jurisdiction. Relying on established precedents, including Mrs. M.N. Arshad v. Mrs. Naeema Khan, Saeed Rabbani v. Director-General, Leather Industry Development Organization, Chairman Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation v. Nasir Ahmad, and Dr. Rashid Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan, the Court upheld the decision of the Service Tribunal. The Court concluded that the Service Tribunal had correctly adjudicated the matter, finding no grounds for interference, and consequently dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does an organization formed solely by a government resolution without independent legal status qualify as a legal entity for service law purposes?
- Is the decision of a Service Tribunal regarding the employment status of an individual in a non-legal entity organization subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Secretary, Government of Sindh vs Abdul Rahim and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 415 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-20Read full judgment →
- Secretary, Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 3 others vs Shazia Abbas1998 PLC (C.S.) 899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the termination of the respondent's service as a P.T.C. Teacher. The core legal question is whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the termination of a government employee, or if such a matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The petitioners argued that the High Court's jurisdiction was barred by Article 212, while the respondent contended that her case did not fall under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974. The Supreme Court, finding that the point raised regarding the competency of the writ petition versus the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal required detailed consideration, granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of judicial review in service matters involving government employees. The Court did not issue a final ruling on the merits but established that the jurisdictional conflict warrants a full hearing.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against the termination of a government employee's service?
- Is a dispute regarding the termination of a government employee's service exclusively triable by the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Secretary, Education Department, Lahore and others vs Mst. Nasim1998 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent to her position as District Education Officer. The respondent, a senior educator, challenged her transfer and the subsequent placement of her services at the disposal of the Director of Education, arguing it was arbitrary and contrary to government policy regarding female employees. The core legal question was whether the transfer order, issued without assigned reasons and violating the principle of normal tenure, was legally sustainable or arbitrary. The Supreme Court held that while a civil servant has no vested right to a particular post, the arbitrary removal of a civil servant from a post before the completion of their normal tenure, without valid reasons, constitutes an improper exercise of authority. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that administrative transfers must not be arbitrary and that the Service Tribunal is justified in intervening when departmental orders lack transparency or justification, particularly when they deviate from established norms of service tenure.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to hold a particular post?
- Can a transfer order be set aside if it is issued without assigning reasons and deviates from normal tenure?
- Is the Service Tribunal justified in interfering with departmental transfer orders that appear arbitrary?
- Shahid Mahmood vs Mst. Bashiran Bibi1998 CLC 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a rent appeal concerning the ejectment of tenants from a residential property on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide need of the landlord. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants, as legal heirs of the deceased original tenant, lacked notice of the proceedings before the Rent Controller and whether default in rent was established. The court held that the appellants had knowledge of the pending proceedings given their timely filing of the appeal and representation by counsel, and that default by the original tenant stood proven. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, the ejectment order was maintained, and a period of four months was granted to vacate the premises. The key principle laid down is that legal representatives of a deceased tenant cannot claim lack of notice or prejudice when record evidence demonstrates their active awareness of ongoing rent proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether legal representatives of a deceased tenant can claim lack of notice when they had knowledge of the pending rent proceedings?
- Are legal heirs bound by the defaults committed by their ancestor during his lifetime under tenancy laws?
- Whether an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller on grounds of default and personal need is maintainable when the landlord's evidence remains unchallenged?
- Secretary to Government of the Punjab vs Bashir Akhtar Sahi1998 PLC (C.S.) 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an interim order passed by the Service Tribunal, which had suspended the operation of an administrative order dated 22-8-1996. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the procedural status of the matter, noting that the Tribunal's interim order was subject to notice and that a subsequent hearing date had been fixed. Upon inquiry, the petitioner's counsel was unable to confirm the status of the proceedings on the subsequent date of hearing, while the respondent's counsel indicated that the Government had failed to appear before the Tribunal on that date. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances, where an interim order remains pending and the petitioner has failed to pursue the matter before the forum of first instance, the appropriate remedy is to approach the Service Tribunal directly to seek the recall or modification of the interim order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing the principle that a party must exhaust remedies before the original forum, particularly regarding the recall of interim orders, before invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Is it appropriate for a petitioner to approach the Supreme Court against an interim order of a Service Tribunal without first seeking its recall from the Tribunal itself?
- Does the failure of a party to appear before a Service Tribunal on a fixed date preclude the Supreme Court from entertaining a petition against an interim order?
- Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P., Education Department vs Sher1998 CLC 1839 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
- Secretary Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others vs 'Musarrat Afzal1998 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment by the Lahore High Court, which directed the Education Department to pay salary arrears to the respondent, Mst. Musarrat Afza, who claimed appointment as a primary school teacher. The appellants contended that the respondent's appointment order was withdrawn on the same day it was issued due to her ineligibility, and that the respondent was never a government employee. The core legal questions were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a service-related matter under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether the High Court could resolve disputed factual claims regarding employment status and salary entitlement in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising writ jurisdiction because the case involved highly disputed factual controversies—specifically the validity of the appointment withdrawal—which could not be resolved without evidence. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the High Court failed to address the legal consequences of the appointment's revocation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the matter was not suitable for adjudication under Article 199.
Questions settled- Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding employment status in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 preclude the High Court from entertaining service-related petitions?
- Is a claim for salary arrears maintainable in writ jurisdiction when the underlying appointment is disputed and alleged to have been withdrawn?
- Sayed Ripe Agencies vs Jahangir Chemicals1998 P.C.T.L.R. 920 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-03Read full judgment →
- Sawan and others vs Abdullah and 2 others1998 PLD Karachi 111 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicants, Khatedars of lands fed by a watercourse, filed a civil suit claiming that the respondent's land was illegally brought under the command of their watercourse, impairing their water supply. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the applicants, but the appellate court allowed the respondent's appeal and dismissed the suit. The applicants challenged the appellate judgment in revision before the Sindh High Court. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the civil suit in view of the Sindh Irrigation Act, the scope of the ouster of civil court jurisdiction regarding mala fide official actions, and the limits of revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court held that the mechanism under section 26 of the Sindh Irrigation Act does not provide an exclusive remedy ousting civil court jurisdiction, especially when actions are alleged to be mala fide and fraudulent, but upheld the appellate court's factual findings on merits, ruling that the revisional court cannot reappraise evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does section 26 of the Sindh Irrigation Act provide an exclusive remedy that impliedly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in water dispute matters?
- Can the ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts be claimed in respect of statutory actions alleged to be mala fide or fraudulent?
- To what extent can the High Court reappraise evidence while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether the findings of an Appellate Court based on a detailed analysis of contradictory official records are open to interference in revision?
- Saurav Diesel Sales and Services vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 3391 · Gauhati High Court · 1996-08-27Read full judgment →
- Sasool Bakhsh and others vs The State and others1998 P Cr. L J 438 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a reference to a Full Bench of the Federal Shariat Court to determine the appellate jurisdiction over convictions recorded under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the promulgation of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995, and the subsequent Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions were whether the later narcotic laws impliedly repealed the Hadd Order and which forum holds appellate jurisdiction over cases tried under the Hadd Order. The Court held that there is no express or implied repeal of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, as the statutes serve distinct purposes and are not repugnant. Furthermore, the Court established that where a trial court records a conviction under the Hadd Order, the appeal lies to the Federal Shariat Court, regardless of whether the offence was committed before or after the enactment of the narcotic laws. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of implied repeal is not to be lightly invoked; it requires clear repugnancy between statutes, and an appellate forum is determined by the law under which the conviction was recorded, even if the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 or the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 impliedly repeal the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Where a trial court records a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, which court has appellate jurisdiction?
- Does an appeal lie from a decision of a court that wrongly exercised jurisdiction in the same manner as a decision made with jurisdiction?
- Sarvanand vs Lachman Das1998 CLC 523 · Election Tribunal · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
- Sarnawaz vs State1998 MLD 1314 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Sarhad Development Authority through Chairman, Peshawar vs Land1998 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court order appointing a Local Commissioner to ascertain the actual location and potential value of land acquired for the Hattar Industrial Estate. The petitioner argued that the appointment was unnecessary as the location had already been fixed by Patwaris and that the order amounted to allowing additional evidence in violation of procedural rules. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, noting that the Patwaris' reports were deficient and lacked proper verification. The Court held that under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, courts possess the discretion to appoint a Commissioner for local investigation to elucidate points in dispute, particularly when the existing evidence is insufficient to determine fair compensation or potential land value. Furthermore, the Court clarified that such an appointment does not constitute the illegal admission of additional evidence but serves to clarify doubtful or deficient points on the record. The petition was dismissed, affirming the High Court's authority to order such investigations to ensure just adjudication.
Questions settled- Can a court appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect a site if the existing evidence on record is deficient or doubtful?
- Does the appointment of a Local Commissioner for spot inspection constitute the illegal admission of additional evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a court empowered to order a local investigation to determine the potential value of acquired land for compensation purposes?
- Sardarullah vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2001 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood Court) regarding the forfeiture of bail bonds. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against an order passed by a Hudood Court in a case registered under the Offences Against Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The Sindh High Court held that the revision application was not maintainable before it. The Court reasoned that under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Federal Shariat Court is exclusively vested with the revisional jurisdiction over cases decided by criminal courts under laws relating to the enforcement of Hudood. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 explicitly bars any other court, including the High Court, from exercising jurisdiction in matters falling within the purview of the Federal Shariat Court. Consequently, the petition was returned to the applicant for presentation before the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by a Hudood Court in cases arising under the Offences Against Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from entertaining revision petitions in matters within the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court?
- Which forum has the exclusive jurisdiction to revise orders passed by a criminal court under laws relating to the enforcement of Hudood?
- Sardarmal Shivdayal vs Commissioner of Income-Tax , .1998 PTD 1073 · Gauhati High Court · 1996-05-24Read full judgment →
- Sardara and 4 others vs Muhammad Khan1998 PLD Supreme Court 1509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute between co-sharers regarding land in Khasra No. 772. The respondent, claiming a one-third share, sought an injunction to restrain the appellants from cutting trees and raising construction on the joint land. The appellants contended they held exclusive possession and had improved the land, arguing the respondent lacked a cause of action. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed this, finding the respondent remained a co-sharer based on documentary evidence, a decision affirmed by the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether a co-owner in possession of a specific Khasra number within a joint holding could be restrained from using the land when partition was an available remedy. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the land remained joint and unpartitioned, the appellants could not unilaterally alter the character of the property, such as by cutting trees or constructing buildings, to the prejudice of other co-sharers. The Court emphasized that until formal partition, the rights of all co-sharers must be respected.
Questions settled- Can a co-sharer in possession of a specific portion of joint land unilaterally cut trees or raise construction thereon?
- Does a co-sharer have a cause of action to restrain other co-sharers from altering the nature of joint property before formal partition?
- Is a co-sharer entitled to injunctions against other co-sharers regarding joint property if the land has not been partitioned?
- Sardar Yunas Fareed Khan vs Returning Officer, PP-207, Muzaffargarh-2 and 2 others1998 MLD 1056 · Election Tribunal · 1996-01-06Read full judgment →
- Sardar San Aullah Zehri vs Returning Officer (Judicial Magistrate), Khuzdar and 2 others1998 MLD 25 · Election Tribunal · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 236 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, forfeiting the petitioner's surety bond and directing the deposit of a penalty sum. The petitioner had stood surety for an accused person granted pre-arrest interim bail, but the surety bond explicitly limited the petitioner's responsibility for the accused's appearance to a specific date. The core legal question was whether a surety can be held liable for the non-appearance of an accused on dates subsequent to the period for which the surety bond was expressly undertaken. The Court held that the surety's liability is strictly confined to the terms of the bond. Since the bond clearly specified that the petitioner's undertaking was limited to the accused's appearance until January 8, 1997, the petitioner could not be held responsible for the accused's absence on later dates. Consequently, the Court set aside the forfeiture order. The judgment establishes the principle that surety bonds must be interpreted according to their specific terms, and courts should ensure that such bonds clearly specify the duration of liability, including any extended dates.
Questions settled- Can a surety be held liable for the non-appearance of an accused on dates beyond the period explicitly stated in the surety bond?
- Is a court order forfeiting a surety bond sustainable if the bond's terms do not cover the date of the accused's default?
- What is the duty of courts when accepting printed surety bond forms regarding the specification of liability dates?
- Sardar Muhammad Nasim vs Sajjad Hussain1998 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Ayyub Khan vs Azad Government through Chief1998 PLC (C.S.) 1416 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Arshad Khan vs Azad Government through Chief1998 PLC (C.S.) 217 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under section 44 of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974, seeking a direction to the respondents to issue a notification in accordance with the final order passed by the Prime Minister in disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977. The core legal question was whether government functionaries can keep a finalized disciplinary matter pending indefinitely without issuing a formal notification. The High Court held that while the Rules of Business do not prescribe a specific time limit for issuing notifications, governmental authorities cannot keep a matter pending for an indefinite period, as such inaction constitutes an arbitrary and unguided exercise of power. The Court established that a civil servant, after waiting for a reasonable time, is entitled to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the court to compel departmental authorities to perform their public duty when a competent authority has finalized a matter.
Questions settled- Can government functionaries keep a finalized departmental case pending for an indefinite period without issuing a formal notification?
- Does an evasive reply in a written statement constitute a denial in law under the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Can a civil servant invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a direction for the issuance of a notification after departmental proceedings have concluded?
- Sardar Hira Singh and another vs The State and others1998 PLD Supreme Court 1500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the management of the Sree Guru Nanak Darbar in Karachi, which arose in 1993 between members of the Hindu community and two individuals claiming to be Sikh converts. The dispute led to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M., who ordered the premises to be sealed due to an inability to determine which party held initial possession. While an Additional Sessions Judge initially reversed this order, the High Court subsequently restored the S.D.M.'s order. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the High Court's order was based on evidence recorded by the S.D.M. and that there was no misreading of evidence or oversight of material facts. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings of fact, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, affirming the restoration of the S.D.M.'s order regarding the possession and sealing of the property.
Questions settled- Can a High Court restore an order of a Magistrate regarding the possession of property under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with findings of fact made by a High Court when there is no misreading of evidence?
- Sardar Fateh Ali Khan Umrani vs Chief Election Commissioner of PakistanK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 747 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 SCMR 1616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging the imposition and continuation of an emergency and the suspension of fundamental rights. The core legal questions relate to the maintainability of the petitions, the justification of the President's Proclamation of Emergency under the Constitution, the legality of suspending fundamental rights during such an emergency, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review the continuation of the emergency. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the petitions were maintainable, that the President was justified in issuing the Proclamation of Emergency under Article 232(1), but that the orders suspending the enforcement of Fundamental Rights were not justified and were therefore without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court further held that it retains the jurisdiction to review or re-examine the continuation of the emergency at any subsequent stage if circumstances so warrant. The key principle laid down is that while the executive proclamation of emergency may be justified under specific constitutional provisions, the blanket suspension of fundamental rights requires strict justification which, in this case, was found lacking, and the judiciary retains continuous oversight over the continuation of emergency circumstances.
Questions settled- Are constitutional petitions challenging a proclamation of emergency maintainable before the Supreme Court?
- Was the President justified in issuing the Proclamation of Emergency under clause (1) of Article 232 of the Constitution?
- Is an order suspending the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under clause (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution lawful?
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review and re-examine the continuation of an emergency at subsequent stages?
- Sardar Ahmad vs Government of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Labour & Services Cases 124 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-25Read full judgment →
- Sar Dar Khan and 3 others vs The State1998 SCMR 1823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for the murders of two individuals and misappropriation of property. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from interested witnesses, the necessity of corroboration following the acquittal of co-accused, and the evidentiary value of abscondence. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions for murder under Section 302/34 PPC, finding that the ocular testimony was consistent and credible. The Court held that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus does not apply universally in Pakistan; courts may sift the grain from the chaff, accepting evidence against some accused while rejecting it against others. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that abscondence can corroborate prosecution evidence depending on the specific facts and circumstances. However, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 404 PPC, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt due to discrepancies in the recovered weapon's identification. The judgment reinforces that interested witness testimony is admissible and sufficient if confidence-inspiring, with corroboration requirements varying based on the case's specific context.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of some co-accused automatically render the testimony of eye-witnesses unreliable regarding the remaining accused?
- Can the evidence of an interested witness be accepted without corroboration in a criminal case?
- Does the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus apply to criminal proceedings in Pakistan?
- Can the abscondence of an accused person serve as corroboration for other prosecution evidence?
- Sant Lal vs Union of India and others1998 PTD 2813 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1996-05-27Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah vs ' Mst. Bibi Shahnaz Akhtar1998 CLC 1971 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-14Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah Qureshi. Advocate vs Pakistan Bar Council through Secretary and another1998 PLD Karachi 245 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-19Read full judgment →
- Sana Ullah Khan and 3 others vs The State1998 MLD 1039 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-09Read full judgment →
- Samir Oosman And 2 Others vs Rex Talkies (Pvt.) Ltd.1998 P.C.T.L.R. 912 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-20Read full judgment →
- Samir Ahsan Ullah and another vs J.V. Gardner, Advocate1998 MLD 1389 · Pakistan Bar Council · 1998-04-24Read full judgment →
- Sambali Khan vs The State1998 PLD Peshawar 101 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
- Samaritan Society vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, .1998 PTD 104 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
- Salman Ahmed Khan vs Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Civil1998 MLD 986 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
- Salim Raza vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 284 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
- Salim Khan and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 990 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellants under section 302/307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder and murderous assault, sentencing them to death, while acquitting their co-accused. The Peshawar High Court examined whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and circumstantial evidence. The core legal questions involved the effect of non-production of the first information report lodger, unproven motive, glaring contradictions in eye-witness testimony, and discrepancies regarding the time of occurrence based on medical evidence. The Court held that material contradictions, failure to prove the motive, inconsistency between the ocular account and the medical/site plan evidence, and the unexplained absence of the complainant rendered the prosecution case highly doubtful. The High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentences, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that unproven motive and major discrepancies in witness testimony undermine the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Whether the non-production of the maker of the First Information Report vitiates the trial or adversely affects the prosecution case when other circumstances fail to support the charge?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the motive set forth in the First Information Report adversely affect the credibility of eye-witnesses?
- Whether material contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical or physical evidence at the scene are sufficient to create reasonable doubt leading to the acquittal of the accused?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution's narrative of the manner of occurrence is contradicted by the site plan and medical evidence regarding the contents of the deceased's stomach?
- Saleem Raza Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 623 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-22Read full judgment →
- Saleem Nisar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax/Wealth Tax, Bah1998 PLC (C.S.) 423 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
- Saleem Dad vs Chief Engineer/Project Director (Power), Small Hydel1998 PLC (C.S.) 734 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
- Saleem alias Lodhi vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 854 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-14Read full judgment →
- Salam Din vs The State1998 MLD 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
- Sakhi Zaman and 2 others vs The State and another1998 MLD 1957 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
- Sakhawat Hussain vs District Judge, Multan and others1998 MLD 710 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-18Read full judgment →
- Sakhawat Ali vs The Deputy Commissioner/Chairman RecruitmentK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 19 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sakhawat Ali vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, Recruitment1998 PLC (C.S.) 19 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
- Sakhar Din vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 670 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
- Sajjan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1399 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court No. II, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Hyderabad, dated 20th May 1996, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of the weapon and ammunition beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of sealing on the spot, ballistic expert certification, and proper identification in court evidence. The Sindh High Court held that failure to seal the recovered property on the spot, lack of ballistic certification regarding the functionality of the weapon, and ambiguous identification during trial rendered the prosecution case doubtful, especially where the Station House Officer acted as investigator and witness. The court laid down the principle that corroborative evidence and strict proof of recovery, including proper sealing and expert certification of weapons, are essential to sustain a conviction under the Arms Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does the failure to seal recovered weapons and ammunition on the spot make the prosecution case doubtful?
- Is a ballistic expert's report necessary to prove that a recovered weapon is functional?
- Can a conviction under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance be sustained when the weapon is not properly described or identified during trial?
- What is the effect on a criminal trial when the Station House Officer acts as the investigator, witness, and complainant?
- Sajjad Hussain vs S.H.O., Police Station Pindigheb and 4 others1998 P Cr. L J 1804 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain Kazmi vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal arose from a challenge to a Federal Service Tribunal judgment concerning the cancellation of a notification that had previously upgraded the appellant's status. The appellant, an Electronic Assistant, had been placed in BPS-16 and subsequently notified as a Gazetted Officer. The respondent department later issued a corrigendum cancelling this notification, asserting that the post remained in BPS-13 and did not qualify for gazetted status. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of the gazetted status notification adversely affected the appellant's service rights, specifically his pay, pension, and status. The Supreme Court observed that the classification between gazetted and non-gazetted officers had been abolished in 1973, with BPS-16 employees being equated to former Class-II officers. Finding that the respondents conceded the appellant retained his status as a Class-II officer and that his pay, allowances, seniority, and pension remained unaffected by the corrigendum, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the cancellation of the gazetted notification did not prejudice the appellant's substantive service entitlements.
Questions settled- Does the cancellation of a gazetted notification for a government servant in BPS-16 necessarily affect their substantive service rights such as pay, pension, and seniority?
- Are government servants in BPS-16 equated to the status of former Class-II officers following the abolition of the gazetted/non-gazetted classification?
- Can a department issue a corrigendum to cancel a notification if the underlying service benefits and status of the employee remain protected?
- Sajjad Hussain and 2 others vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 597 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-14Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Amjad vs Abdul Hameed and 3 others1998 PLD Lahore 474 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking to declare a pending civil suit for specific performance as an abuse of the process of the court and to have the plaint quashed by the High Court. The core legal question is whether the High Court possesses inherent powers under section 151, C.P.C. to entertain an application straightaway and quash a plaint pending before a subordinate civil court. The Lahore High Court held that section 151, C.P.C. pertains to the inherent jurisdiction of each civil court before which a lis is pending, and once a court decides a matter or if the proceeding is before a subordinate court, the High Court cannot invoke section 151 to quash a plaint or interfere outside the scope of specific statutory provisions such as revision or appeal. The key principle laid down is that inherent powers under section 151, C.P.C. are not co-extensive with the powers of subordinate courts, cannot be exercised when no matter is pending before the High Court itself, and cannot be used to circumvent express provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to entertain an application and quash a plaint pending before a subordinate civil court?
- Can the inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be exercised when no matter is pending before the court?
- Whether section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked where there is an express provision in the Code dealing with the particular matter?
- Are the inherent powers of the High Court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 co-extensive with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Sajid Saeed and others vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan1998 PLC (C.S.) 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises six civil petitions filed against the judgments of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petitions against their dismissal from service for misconduct, as well as subsequent review petitions. The petitioners sought review based on the newly discovered Circular dated 20-8-1990 issued under the A.D.B.P. Officers Service (E & D) Regulations, 1975, arguing that their dismissal orders were not passed by the competent authority, a ground upon which a similarly situated employee's writ petition was previously allowed. The core legal questions involved whether the learned Judge in Chambers was justified in refusing the review petition upon the discovery of the circular and whether the dismissal of the writ petitions in limine was in accordance with law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions, while noting that the first three petitions were barred by time due to prosecution of review proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the learned Judge in Chambers was justified in refusing to review the order passed in the writ petitions upon the discovery of a new circular?
- Whether the order of the learned Judge in Chambers dismissing the petitioners' writ petitions in limine is in accordance with law?
- Sajid Iqbal vs Mukhtar Ahmad and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 299 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
- Sajid Iqbal and others vs Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, Senior Civil1998 P Cr. L J 200 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
- Umar Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 673 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
- Sajid and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged murder of a young man after unnatural carnal intercourse. The core legal questions relate to whether the petitioners, claiming to be under sixteen years of age, are entitled to the concession of bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the last-seen evidence, medical indicators, and recovered semen-stained clothing constitute sufficient grounds for withholding bail. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution has collected sufficient and natural last-seen evidence, and that the plea of minority is doubtful due to conflicting birth certificates. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that it was not a fit case for bail at the pre-trial stage. The key principle laid down is that where prima facie evidence links the accused to a heinous crime and the plea of minority remains disputed, bail ought to be refused.
Questions settled- Are juvenile offenders under the age of sixteen automatically entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when their actual date of birth is disputed through conflicting documents?
- Does reliable last-seen evidence coupled with incriminating circumstantial evidence like semen-stained clothing constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Can a plea of minority raised for the purpose of bail be conclusively accepted at the pre-trial stage when contradictory birth certificates are placed on record?
- Saifurrehman Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1484 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-27Read full judgment →
- Saifur Rehman vs Muhammad Ayub and 2 others1998 CLC 1872 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
- Saifal Khan and 9 others vs Allah Dino and 3 others1998 MLD 1711 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
- Saif-Ur-Rehman Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 117 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-27Read full judgment →
- Saif-Ur-Rehman And Other vs Superintendent Jail, Faisalabad And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 84 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
- Saif-Ul-Haq Ziay vs Majid Nizammi. Etc.K.L.R. 199& Criminal Cases 269 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-28Read full judgment →
- Saif Ullah and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-08Read full judgment →
- Said Nadeem Electro Limited through Chairman vs Collector of Customs and Central Excise_ Commissioner Sales Tax, Peshawar and 3 others1998 PTD 2410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding a sales tax exemption claim for television sets. The High Court held that the writ petition was incompetent due to the availability of an alternate adequate remedy before the Central Board of Revenue and the presence of factual controversies. Additionally, the High Court proceeded to record findings on the merits, concluding that the petitioner's case was not covered by the relevant notification. Following this, the petitioner unsuccessfully appealed to the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction to review a High Court judgment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether, upon finding a writ petition incompetent due to the failure to exhaust alternate remedies, a High Court should refrain from expressing views on the merits of the controversy. The Court noted that the High Court's findings on merits potentially prejudiced the petitioner's ability to seek relief before the appropriate statutory forum.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court, after determining that a writ petition is incompetent due to the existence of an alternate adequate remedy, should refrain from expressing views on the merits of the case?
- Does a High Court's finding on the merits of a case, while simultaneously dismissing a writ petition for lack of jurisdiction, prejudice the petitioner's right to seek relief before the appropriate statutory appellate forum?
- Said Nadeem Electro Limited through Chairman vs Collector of Customs and Central Excise Commissioner, Sales Tax, Peshawar and 3 others1998 SCMR 2339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition seeking a declaration of exemption from sales tax on television sets under a notification. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternate adequate remedy and the presence of factual controversies, while also recording findings on the merits against the petitioner. Following this, the petitioner pursued an appeal before the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the Tribunal could not review the High Court's judgment. The core legal question is whether the High Court, after concluding that a constitutional petition was incompetent due to failure to exhaust alternate remedies, should have refrained from deciding the matter on merits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this issue, holding that expressing views on merits after dismissing a petition as incompetent was legally questionable. The key principle laid down is that when a court finds a constitutional petition incompetent due to alternate remedies, it ought to refrain from determining the controversy on merits.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court ought to have refrained from expressing views on the merits of the case after having found that the writ petition was not competent for failure to exhaust alternate remedies?
- Does an appellate tribunal have the jurisdiction to sit in review over a judgment of a High Court passed in a constitutional petition?
- Said Mullah Shah vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1142 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
- Sahney Steel Press Works Ltd. and others vs Commissioner of Income-1998 PTD 1718 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- Sahir Inam vs N.-W.F.P. University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar and 4 others1998 CLC 1924 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada K.A.K. Afridi vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1998 SCMR 2607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of a service appeal regarding the termination of the appellant's employment with the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation. The core legal question was whether the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act 1973, via Act XVII of 1997, conferred jurisdiction upon the Federal Service Tribunal to adjudicate the service grievance of a corporate employee whose services were terminated prior to the amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in non-suiting the appellant. By virtue of Section 2-A, which declared service under corporations controlled by the Federal Government to be service of Pakistan, the Tribunal possessed the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Court established the principle that such procedural amendments, which define the forum for adjudication, apply to matters brought before the Tribunal after the effective date of the legislation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on the merits in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973 confer jurisdiction on the Federal Service Tribunal to hear appeals from employees of corporations controlled by the Federal Government?
- Is an employee of a corporation established by Federal Law deemed a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 following the enactment of Act XVII of 1997?
- Sahib Khan vs Mir Adam Khan and 9 others1998 SCMR 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had affirmed the rejection of the petitioner’s plaint in a pre-emption suit. The petitioner sought possession of property, but the trial court, affirmed by the appellate and revisional courts, rejected the plaint on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the plaint without allowing the petitioner to lead evidence on the issue of limitation. The Supreme Court held that while the rejection of a plaint should generally occur at the initial stage based on the averments, the petitioner had failed to disclose the date of knowledge regarding the alienation or delivery of possession of the suit property. The Court established the principle that where a plaintiff relies on the date of knowledge to overcome a limitation bar, the plaint must specifically assert that date. Because the petitioner omitted these essential details, the Court found no illegality in the lower courts' dismissal of the suit and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it fails to disclose the date of knowledge required to overcome a limitation bar?
- Is it mandatory for a plaintiff to specifically plead the date of knowledge in a pre-emption suit when claiming limitation based on such knowledge?
- Does the rejection of a plaint require the court to allow the production of evidence regarding limitation?
- Sahib Khan vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition and Intra-Court Appeal, which challenged execution proceedings before the Banking Tribunal arising from an ex-parte money decree. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in declining the writ petition and whether execution of a decree by the Banking Tribunal should be stayed merely because the validity of certain provisions of the governing law was referred to a larger bench. The Supreme Court held that the Banking Tribunal was fully justified in recalling the stay order upon the petitioner's failure to furnish the required bank guarantee, and the pendency of a reference regarding the statute's validity before a larger bench does not warrant staying the execution of a validly passed decree. The court laid down the principle that failure to comply with lawful conditions for a stay of execution disentitles a party to relief, and mere pendency of constitutional challenges in other matters does not automatically operate to stay execution proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to furnish a bank guarantee justifies the recall of a stay order of execution granted by a Banking Tribunal?
- Does the mere referral of the validity of provisions of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance to a larger bench operate to stay the execution of a decree?
- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing in limine a writ petition challenging execution proceedings before the Banking Tribunal?
- Sagheer Ahmad vs Director Land Records, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 88 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-13Read full judgment →
- Safarish Ali and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 79 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
- Safarish Ali And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 50 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
- Saeedur Rehman Khan vs Islam Bari Siddiqui1998 MLD 982 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
- Saeedullah Khan vs Central Board of Revenue And Others1988 P.C.T.L.R. 588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil contractor engaged in road, bridge, and dam construction, filed a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order dismissing his writ petition. The writ petition challenged the levy of withholding tax at the rate of 3% under section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and its increase to 5% under the Finance Act, 1995. The High Court had relied on earlier judgments upholding the validity of section 80-C and determining that the deduction rate is governed by the time of receipt of payment. The Supreme Court considered that leave to appeal had already been granted in similar matters to examine whether imposing income tax based solely on turnover without adjustment for actual income is a permissible exercise of legislative taxing power under Item 47 of the Federal Legislative List, Part I, of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court consequently granted leave to appeal and issued interim orders for the pending appeals.
Questions settled- Whether the imposition of income-tax on the basis of turnover alone, without providing an opportunity to adjust with reference to actual income, is a permissible exercise of the legislative power of taxation?
- Whether the deduction of income tax under section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, shall be at the rate prevalent at the time of receipt of payment or at the date of the contract?
- Is section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, a valid piece of legislation?
- Saeed Mehtab Butt, Member, Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore1998 PLC (C.S.) 535 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two separate matters: the tenure and salary scale of Members of the Punjab Public Service Commission, and the inclusion of Trained Graduate Teachers in a four-tier service structure. In the first matter, the Court held that the repeal of the Punjab Public Service Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, under Article 128 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, did not divest the petitioners of rights and privileges already accrued under the repealed law, specifically regarding their tenure. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to Basic Pay Scale (BS)-21, as the amendments to the Punjab Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978, remained intact. In the second matter, the Supreme Court remanded the case of Trained Graduate Teachers to the authorities, directing a re-examination of their exclusion from a four-tier service structure. The Court emphasized that if the original scheme approved by the Prime Minister was modified by the Establishment Division without a back-reference, the matter required reconsideration, particularly in light of potential discrimination compared to other teaching cadres.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of an amending ordinance under Article 128 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect rights and privileges already accrued under that ordinance?
- Can a government department unilaterally reduce the tenure of a statutory appointee without prior notice and hearing?
- Does the reduction of posts in a government service scheme, previously approved by the Prime Minister, require a back-reference to the Prime Minister for re-approval?
- Does the grant of a higher pay scale through amended service rules remain valid despite the subsequent repeal of the ordinance that initially introduced the amendment?
- Saeed Ahmed vs The State and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 1508 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmed vs Federal Public Service Commission, Chughtai Plaza, Blue Area, Islamabad through Chairman1998 PLD Lahore 77 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 598 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad and others vs Mst. Khatoon Begum and others1998 MLD 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a declaratory suit claiming ownership of a courtyard, which served as the roof of the respondents' hall, following the division of evacuee property. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing res judicata, and the appellate court upheld this dismissal while modifying the order regarding special costs. The petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenging the findings on res judicata, while the respondents filed a cross-revision regarding the special costs. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding res judicata were based on evidence and did not suffer from jurisdictional defects or misreading of facts. The Court affirmed that the roof of a structure is an integral part of the construction underneath it and passes with the allotment of that structure. Furthermore, the Court clarified that special costs cannot be awarded under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when specific provisions like Section 35-A exist. Consequently, both revision petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a suit is barred by res judicata if the matter in issue was substantially in issue in a previous litigation between the same parties?
- Can the court award special costs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a specific provision for such costs exists under Section 35-A?
- Does the allotment of a building structure naturally include the roof as an integral part of that construction?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Saeed Ahmad and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1837 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
- Sadiq and another vs The State1998 PLD Lahore 485 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
- Sadaqat Ali and another vs The State1998 MLD 1121(2) · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
- Sadain and another vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 263 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-01Read full judgment →