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.
- Managing Director, PASSCO, Lahore and 2 others vs Khalid Zulqarnain1998 PLC 87 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-05-19Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, House Building Finance Corporation, Karachi1998 PLC 345 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
- Managing Director Aklasc vs Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, and 31998 MLD 418 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
- Managing Committee, P.A.F. Model Inter-College, Sargodha through Chairman and 4 others vs Malik Muhammad Pervaiz Akhtar1998 PLC (C.S.) 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the termination of a teacher employed at the P.A.F. Model Inter-College, Sargodha. The primary legal question was whether the respondent, as a teacher in a P.A.F.-controlled educational institution, qualified as a "civil servant" under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, thereby vesting the Federal Service Tribunal with jurisdiction to adjudicate his service grievance. The Supreme Court, by majority, held that the respondent was a civil servant. The Court reasoned that the institution, while self-financing, operates under the administrative control of the Pakistan Air Force, an integral part of the Armed Forces of Pakistan. Consequently, the respondent’s post was deemed connected with the defence of the Federation. Furthermore, the Court found the termination proceedings procedurally flawed, as the respondent was condemned unheard, denied access to the inquiry report, and deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine or respond to a final show-cause notice. The principle established is that employees of institutions under the administrative control of the Armed Forces, whose terms of service mirror those of government employees, may be classified as civil servants holding posts connected with defence.
Questions settled- Whether a teacher employed at a P.A.F. Model Inter-College holds a civil post connected with the defence of the Federation?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals from employees of P.A.F. educational institutions?
- Is a termination order void ab initio if the employee was not provided with an inquiry report or an opportunity for cross-examination?
- Mamoon Rashid vs Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1998 MLD 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
- Malwa Banaspati and Chemical Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 128 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-10-01Read full judgment →
- Malik Umer Hayat vs The State1998 SCMR 586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed against the dismissal of an appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for demanding and accepting a bribe. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding the recovery of tainted money and the credibility of prosecution witnesses in a corruption case. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on solid evidence, including the recovery of tainted currency from the petitioner's possession in the presence of a magistrate, and that minor discrepancies did not impair the prosecution's case. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the raiding party to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the accused vitiates a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
- Can a conviction for accepting a bribe be sustained solely on the basis of the recovery of tainted money and the testimony of official witnesses?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding the absence of enmity warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Malik TM Din vs The S.H.O. and others1998 MLD 1533 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25Read full judgment →
- Malik Talib Hussain vs State1998 MLD 506 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-12Read full judgment →
- Malik Sakhi Muhammad and anothers vs Zila Council, Rahimyar Khan1998 CLC 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
- Malik Sabir Hussain vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 230 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
- Malik Nazir Ahmad vs Mazhar Hussain and others1998 CLC 1520 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-05Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Younus and another vs Umer Hayat and another1998 MLD 1195 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad vs Rahimoo and others1998 SCMR 618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal calls into question the judgment of the Balochistan High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of offences under sections 139, 148, 149, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, setting aside their conviction and sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment recorded by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question involves the propriety of the High Court's reappraisal of evidence and acquittal of the respondents on the grounds of interested witnesses and lack of independent corroboration, notwithstanding the absence of a post-mortem examination. The Supreme Court held that the entire evidence in the case required reappraisal and consequently granted leave to appeal against the acquittal, issuing bailable warrants against the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction based on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
- Can a conviction for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained in the absence of a post-mortem examination of the deceased?
- Whether the acquittal of co-accused persons necessitates the acquittal of remaining convicts on the same evidence?
- Malik Muhammad Shahzad vs The Superintendent, Darulaman, Bahawalpur and another1998 PLD Lahore 328 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the release of Mst. Rabia Bano from Dar-ul-Aman, alleging illegal detention. The petitioner claimed a valid marriage, while the detenue’s father had registered a criminal case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, leading a Magistrate to place the detenue in Dar-ul-Aman upon determining her to be a minor. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in a habeas corpus petition, should determine the disputed age of the detenue and the validity of the marriage to order her release. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that questions of age and the validity of marriage are disputed questions of fact that must be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction through evidence, rather than in summary proceedings. The Court affirmed that detention in Dar-ul-Aman pending such resolution is not illegal. It established that constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass ordinary legal channels or to facilitate potential abuses of process involving illicit relationships, emphasizing that legal interpretations must align with Islamic principles.
Questions settled- Can a High Court determine the age of a detenue and the validity of a marriage in a habeas corpus petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the detention of a minor in Dar-ul-Aman by order of a Magistrate considered illegal detention under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should a High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the validity of a marriage in constitutional or habeas corpus proceedings?
- Malik Muhammad Shafi vs The Province of the Punjab and 2 others1998 SCMR 1320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the approval of a mining lease assignment. The core legal question was whether the Licensing Authority, under the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 1986, could proceed with an assignment of a mining lease after the original lessee had withdrawn their consent for the transfer. The Supreme Court held that the Licensing Authority's powers under Rule 19 are limited to granting or withholding consent for a transfer and do not extend to acting as an arbiter to enforce private contracts or determine disputed rights between parties. The Court affirmed that once the original lessee withdrew their application for assignment, there was no valid request before the Licensing Authority upon which it could act. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Licensing Authority and the Appellate Authority erred in approving the assignment despite the withdrawal. The principle laid down is that administrative authorities exercising statutory powers to approve transfers cannot override the withdrawal of consent by the primary party to a lease, nor can they adjudicate private contractual disputes.
Questions settled- Can a Licensing Authority under the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 1986, enforce a private contract for the assignment of a mining lease after the original lessee has withdrawn their consent?
- Does the Licensing Authority have the power to act as an arbiter to determine disputed rights between parties regarding a mining lease assignment?
- Can a High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction address a question of fact, such as financial qualification, that was not raised before the relevant administrative department?
- Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Law Authority, Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan Deputy Chief (Legal) Corporate through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns two distinct petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In the first matter, the petitioner challenged an amendment to recruitment rules that facilitated the appointment of a respondent to a higher grade, arguing inconsistency with statutory provisions. In the second matter, petitioners whose services were terminated during probation challenged both their termination and the subsequent appointment of private respondents, alleging the latter were hired in violation of recruitment rules. The Court declined to grant leave regarding the petitioners' own reinstatement, as they were admittedly appointed in violation of recruitment rules and were on probation. However, the Court granted leave to appeal in the second matter to determine whether the Service Tribunal was legally obligated to examine the validity of the private respondents' appointments in light of established Supreme Court precedents regarding recruitment rule compliance. The Court established that while termination of probationers appointed in violation of rules is generally unassailable, the legality of replacing them with other similarly irregularly appointed individuals remains a justiciable issue.
Questions settled- Can a probationer whose appointment violated recruitment rules claim reinstatement after termination?
- Is a Service Tribunal obligated to examine the legality of appointments of private respondents when the petitioners' own appointments were also irregular?
- Does a direct appointment without advertisement violate recruitment rules?
- Malik Muhammad Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others1998 SCMR 2362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Deputy Chief (Legal) in B-19, challenged the appointment of the sixth respondent as Chief (Legal Affairs) in B-20, which was facilitated by an amendment to the relevant promotion rules. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the amendment, purportedly made under rule 3(2) of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, was inconsistent with section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The petitioner argued that in the event of a conflict, rule 8-B should prevail, thereby entitling him to the post on an acting charge basis. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, specifically focusing on the hierarchy of rules and the statutory limitations on amending promotion criteria. The matter concerns the legality of administrative rule-making when it conflicts with established statutory provisions governing civil service promotions and the rights of existing employees to be considered for higher posts.
Questions settled- Whether an amendment to promotion rules made under rule 3(2) of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, can override the requirements of section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Does rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1973, prevail over subsequent amendments made to promotion criteria?
- Is a civil servant entitled to be appointed on an acting charge basis if they meet the criteria under rule 8-B despite a rule amendment?
- Malik Muhammad Aslam vs Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad and 42 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher, challenged before the Service Tribunal a seniority list issued in 1995, alleging that his colleagues' ad hoc appointments were illegally regularized to his detriment. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner's own appointment was regularized from a later date, that respondents who graduated earlier were rightly ranked senior, and that the appeal suffered from multifariousness due to the joinder of multiple causes of action. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the Tribunal failed to consider that a previous round of litigation concerning respondents Nos. 38 to 43 had been remanded by this Court for a fresh decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal limited to respondents Nos. 38 to 43 to examine this unaddressed aspect.
Questions settled- Whether an employee whose own appointment was regularized on an ad hoc basis can challenge the regularization of similarly situated colleagues?
- Does combining different causes of action arising from time to time render a service appeal liable to dismissal for multifariousness?
- Whether the Service Tribunal is bound to consider previous remand orders of the Supreme Court regarding specific respondents in seniority disputes?
- Malik Asad Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Pakistan, .Islamabad and 2 others1998 SCMR 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an administrative order passed by the Chief Justice (under restraint) declaring the convening of a Full Court illegal, in disregard of an earlier judicial restraining order passed by a three-member Bench of the Supreme Court at Quetta. The core legal question concerns the validity of administrative and judicial acts performed by the Chief Justice while under a judicial order of restraint. The Court held that any administrative or judicial order passed by the Chief Justice (under restraint), or by any Bench presided over by him, is wholly illegal, without lawful authority, of no legal effect, and to be totally ignored by all and sundry. The key principle laid down is that judicial restraint orders passed against the head of the institution must be strictly obeyed, rendering subsequent conflicting administrative and judicial directives by the restrained official void and inoperative.
Questions settled- Whether administrative and judicial orders passed by the Chief Justice while under a judicial order of restraint are legal and effective?
- Can a Chief Justice under restraint convene Benches or issue administrative orders contrary to prior judicial restraint orders passed by the Court?
- Malik Asad Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice1998 SCMR 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 called into question the appointment and continuance of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah as the Chief Justice of Pakistan. A bench of the Supreme Court at Quetta took cognizance of the matter, entertained the petition at a registry outside the principal seat despite administrative instructions, and issued an interim order suspending the notification appointing the Chief Justice and restraining him from performing judicial and administrative functions. Subsequently, the Chief Justice issued an administrative order declaring the Quetta bench's order a nullity, which was supported by a majority note of four judges. The core legal question was whether a judicial order passed by a bench of the Supreme Court could be set aside, varied, or suspended through an administrative order of the Chief Justice or a note of judges on the administrative side. The Supreme Court held that administrative orders or rules cannot curtail the constitutional jurisdiction of a bench, and a judicial order can only be challenged, reviewed, or set aside through proper judicial proceedings by the same or a larger bench, not by an administrative fiat. The key principle laid down is that administrative actions cannot override judicial orders.
Questions settled- Can a judicial order passed by a bench of the Supreme Court be set aside or suspended through an administrative order of the Chief Justice?
- Do internal administrative rules or procedures regarding the filing of petitions at the principal seat curtail the constitutional jurisdiction of a Supreme Court bench sitting at any registry?
- How can a judicial order passed by a bench of the Supreme Court be legally varied, reviewed, or set aside?
- Whether an administrative note or order issued by a majority of judges can override a subsisting judicial order passed by a competent bench?
- Malik Asad Ali vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 SCMR 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an interim order passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the administrative and judicial functioning of the court amidst constitutional petitions challenging the appointment of the Chief Justice. The core legal question addressed relates to the enforcement of restraint orders against the Chief Justice from performing judicial or administrative functions and making alternative arrangements for the administration of the court. The Court held that pending the formal appointment of an Acting Chief Justice by the President of Pakistan under Article 180 of the Constitution, the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian, shall discharge all administrative and judicial functions of the Chief Justice, including the constitution of benches. The key principle laid down is that during the restraint of a Chief Justice, the senior-most Judge is empowered to step in to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of the apex court's judicial and administrative affairs.
Questions settled- Who should discharge the administrative and judicial functions of the Chief Justice when the incumbent Chief Justice is under restraint?
- Can the President of Pakistan be directed to make an immediate order appointing an Acting Chief Justice under Article 180 of the Constitution?
- Malik Asad Ali vs Federation of Pakistan And Other(K.L.R. 1998 SC 58) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging the validity of the appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Court addressed a conflict arising from the Chief Justice (under restraint) passing judicial orders despite a prior explicit order from the Quetta Bench prohibiting him from performing any judicial or administrative functions. The Court reaffirmed the previous restraint order, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining judicial discipline and the integrity of the Court's administrative processes. Consequently, the Court directed the Federal Government and the President of Pakistan to immediately appoint the senior-most judge, Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian, as the Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan under the relevant constitutional provision. Pending this formal appointment, the Court authorized Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian to discharge all administrative and judicial functions of the Chief Justice, including the constitution of benches, and explicitly prohibited the Court office from seeking further orders from the Chief Justice under restraint.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court restrain a Chief Justice from performing judicial or administrative functions during the pendency of a petition challenging his appointment?
- Does the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court have the authority to discharge the functions of the Chief Justice pending the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice?
- What is the procedure for the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan under the Constitution?
- Malik Asad Ali and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 PLD Supreme Court 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This short order disposes of several constitutional petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenging the direct appointment of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah as the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The core legal question concerned whether the appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan must follow the principle of seniority, similar to High Court Chief Justices as laid down in the Al-Jehad Trust case. The Supreme Court held that the right of access to impartial and independent courts under Articles 9 and 25 is linked to judicial independence, which requires that appointments be made strictly in accordance with the constitutional provisions and established conventions, specifically recognizing seniority as the primary criterion. Consequently, the court declared the appointment of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah as the Chief Justice of Pakistan to be unconstitutional, illegal, and of no legal consequence, while protecting his prior actions under the de facto doctrine and directing the notification of the most senior judge, Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian, as the new Chief Justice of Pakistan.
Questions settled- Whether the appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan is governed by the principle of seniority among the judges of the Supreme Court?
- Do citizens and practising advocates have locus standi under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to challenge the unconstitutional appointment of a judge of a superior court?
- Does the deviation from the prescribed constitutional method for appointing the Chief Justice of Pakistan violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 9 and 25 of the Constitution?
- What is the legal validity of judicial and administrative orders passed by a judge whose appointment has been declared unconstitutional, prior to and after an interim restraining order?
- Malik Amanullah vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 914 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-01-19Read full judgment →
- Maleek alias Malika vs The State1998 MLD 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-03Read full judgment →
- Malak vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
- Makhdoomzada Mureed Hussain Qureshi vs Returning Officer, PP-166, Multan-VII and 5 others1998 MLD 64 · Election Tribunal · 1997-05-23Read full judgment →
- Major Muhammad Arif through Abdur Rehman, Special Attorney vs Sardar Bahadur Khan and another1998 CLC 1875 · Bar Council Tribunal · 1998-04-25Read full judgment →
- Major Akbar Hamid Lodhi and 7 others vs Abdul Karim1998 CLC 546 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
- Major (Retd.) Muhammad Ramzan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1083 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal concerning the refusal of five advance increments upon his appointment as an Assistant Administrative Officer (B-17) at Heavy Industries, Taxila. The core legal questions involved whether the service appeal was barred by limitation and whether the appellant was entitled to premature advance increments despite the availability of other qualified candidates. The Supreme Court held that while the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable and within time, the appellant was not entitled to advance increments on merits. The ratio decidendi is that under the applicable rules, premature advance increments at initial appointment can only be granted if suitable persons possessing the requisite qualifications are not available at the minimum pay scale of the post. Since multiple qualified candidates were available and willing to accept the post at the initial pay scale, the competent authority rightly refused the advance increments, and such decision, being free from bias or mala fides, warrants no interference.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is maintainable when filed after departmental remedies are exhausted?
- Are premature advance increments at the time of initial appointment permissible under the rules when suitable candidates are available at the minimum pay scale?
- Does the competent authority have the independent discretion to refuse advance increments recommended by a departmental selection board?
- Major (Retd.) Abdul Rauf Khan vs Justice (Retd.) Salah-Ud-Din Mirza1998 CLC 1225 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
- Majid Iqbal vs Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 19) · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
- Maj.Gen. Zaheerulislam Abbasi and another vs Federation of Pakistan1998 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
- Maj. Kapil Mohan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 1089 · Delhi High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
- Maj. General Zahir-Ul-Islam Abbasi vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 177 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
- Mairajuddin vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Ministry of Local Self-Government, Karachi and 2 others1998 MLD 1726 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-06Read full judgment →
- Main Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs The State1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three Constitutional petitions filed directly under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking bail due to the inability of the Lahore High Court to adjudicate pending bail applications. The petitioner argued that due to a prior Supreme Court judgment regarding judicial appointments, the assigned judges were unable to participate, effectively stalling the proceedings. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should exercise its extraordinary original jurisdiction to grant bail when ordinary forums remain available but temporarily incapacitated. The Court held that direct Constitutional petitions are not maintainable when ordinary legal remedies and forums exist, emphasizing that such forums must be exhausted first. Consequently, the Court refused to entertain the petitions as direct Constitutional matters and instead treated them as petitions for leave to appeal. The Court affirmed the principle that the Supreme Court will not bypass ordinary judicial hierarchies for bail matters, directing the Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court to constitute a proper bench to resolve the pending bail applications within three days.
Questions settled- Is a direct Constitutional petition under Article 184(3) maintainable for bail when ordinary forums are available?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to direct the High Court to constitute a specific bench to hear bail applications?
- Must a petitioner exhaust ordinary legal remedies before invoking the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction?
- Mahram Hayat Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1814 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodurrehman vs Atta Ullah Atta and 3 others1998 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Majid, Director, Asia Flour Mills BWP (Pvt.) Ltd., Bahawalpur vs The State and 3 others1998 PLD Lahore 296 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a District Magistrate's order prohibiting the movement of wheat and wheat products outside the revenue limits of Rahimyar Khan District, arguing it violated Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the freedom of inter-provincial trade and commerce. The core legal question was whether such an executive order, issued under the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, constituted an unconstitutional restraint on trade. The Court held that the impugned order was a valid regulatory measure in the public interest, not an unconstitutional restriction on inter-provincial trade. The Court reasoned that the freedom of trade guaranteed by Article 151 is not absolute and must be read in harmony with other constitutional provisions, allowing for reasonable, non-discriminatory regulatory measures. The holding established that the power to regulate includes the power to prohibit in the public interest, and that temporary, reasonable restrictions on the movement of essential commodities to prevent hoarding and scarcity do not violate the constitutional guarantee of free trade.
Questions settled- Does the freedom of trade and commerce under Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 imply an absolute right free from all regulatory measures?
- Can a Provincial Government or its delegate prohibit the movement of essential foodstuffs in the public interest without violating the Constitution?
- Is the power to regulate trade inclusive of the power to prohibit the movement of goods?
- Does an executive order restricting the movement of wheat products within a district constitute an unconstitutional impediment to inter-provincial trade?
- Mahmood Khan and others vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others1998 CLC 790 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Akbar Alvi vs Mst. Ayesha Sultana1998 CLC 894 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first rent appeal was filed against the judgment of the Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the tenant on the grounds of default in payment of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The appellant challenged the maintainability of the ejectment application on the grounds that it was initially filed against a wrong name and that no statutory notice of change of ownership had been served upon him. The Sindh High Court affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller, holding that the misdescription of the tenant's name was promptly corrected by amendment and did not render the application non-maintainable as being against a fictitious person. Furthermore, the Court held that service of notice of the rent proceedings itself constitutes sufficient notice of transfer of ownership. As the evidence demonstrated that the tenant failed to pay or tender rent to either the new owner or the previous landlord for the period in dispute, statutory default was established. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with sixty days granted to vacate.
Questions settled- Whether the service of notice of an ejectment application can be treated as valid notice of transfer of ownership to a tenant?
- Does an initial misnomer or wrong name of a tenant in a rent application render the proceedings non-maintainable if corrected via amendment?
- Whether a tenant remains liable for default in rent payment even if no formal notice of change of ownership was served upon him prior to the ejectment proceedings?
- Mahesar and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 PLD Karachi 311 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-17Read full judgment →
- Mahboob Ali vs The State1998 MLD 1621 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-24Read full judgment →
- Mahammad Tarique vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 466 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-06Read full judgment →
- Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 158 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
- Madina Traders vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 CLC 2019 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
- Madhav Sharan Agrawal vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2199 · Allahabad High Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
- Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 1985 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
- M.N. Salar vs The State and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 1909 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-02Read full judgment →
- M. Sirjees Nagi vs Ziauddin Ahmed Malik and 2 others1998 SCMR 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the orders passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 931 of 1995. The core legal questions concern whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to entertain a service dispute, whether a subsequent status quo order was obtained through the suppression of material facts regarding a pending petition before the Supreme Court, and whether the High Court's order conflicted with an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions. As an interim measure, the Court suspended the status quo order granted by the High Court and directed that any meeting of the Selection Board convened for the promotion of officers to BPS-21 must consider all eligible candidates. The principle laid down is that interim injunctive relief may be suspended when it potentially conflicts with superior court orders or is allegedly obtained through the suppression of material facts.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Does the grant of a status quo order by the High Court while a petition for leave to appeal is pending before the Supreme Court amount to suppression of facts?
- Can a High Court pass an interim order that is in conflict with a prior order of the Supreme Court?
- M. Rangaswamy vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax,1998 PTD 421 · Madras High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
- M. Ramaswamy vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1998 PTD 347 · Madras High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
- M. Neelakantan and others vs Tax Recovery Officer and others1998 PTD 2321 · Madras High Court · 1996-01-25Read full judgment →
- M. B. ABBASIApplicant/accused vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 230 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Special Court (Offences in Banks) regarding alleged financial irregularities. The applicant challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Karachi court and argued that the delay in submitting the final charge-sheet constituted an abuse of process. The Court held that jurisdiction was established under Section 179, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the impugned approval for the transaction occurred in Karachi. Regarding the delay, the Court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are to be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked to interrupt the ordinary course of trial or to quash proceedings based on delay, particularly when public funds are involved. The Court emphasized that trial courts should proceed on interim charge-sheets rather than granting indefinite adjournments. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to commence proceedings without further delay.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have inherent power under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings solely on the ground of delay in filing a final charge-sheet?
- Can a court exercise territorial jurisdiction over an offence if the act was committed in one jurisdiction and the consequences ensued in another?
- Should a trial court grant adjournments pending the submission of a final charge-sheet if an interim charge-sheet has already been filed?
- Is the sufficiency or credibility of evidence a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- M. Asghar Ali vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry1998 PLC (C.S.) 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the denial of pensionary benefits to a retired government servant, a former Cypher Assistant in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, following an audit objection regarding the payment of a Daily Allowance. The appellant had been stationed at the Pakistan Mission in the Hague and was entitled to a Daily Allowance in lieu of Foreign Allowance and House Rent Allowance for 15 days upon arrival, as per established departmental instructions. Due to administrative delays, the full payment was not made promptly, and subsequent audit objections characterized the delayed payment as irregular and time-barred, leading to the withholding of the appellant's pension for several years. The Supreme Court held that the government's own administrative delay could not be used as a pretext to deny legitimate entitlements or withhold pension benefits. The Court set aside the Service Tribunal's order, affirmed the appellant's entitlement to the allowance, and directed the Ministry of Finance to finalize the pension case immediately, emphasizing that administrative lapses by the state cannot prejudice the rights of a retired employee.
Questions settled- Can the government withhold a retired employee's pension based on audit objections regarding the timing of payments that were delayed by the government's own administrative processes?
- Is a government servant entitled to a Daily Allowance in lieu of Foreign Allowance and House Rent Allowance upon arrival at a new foreign posting if residential accommodation is unavailable?
- Can an audit department characterize a payment as 'time-barred' when the delay in payment was caused by the government's own failure to process the claim promptly?
- M. A. Faiz Baluch vs The Chief Commissioner (the Appellate Court), Islamabad Capital Territory, Islamabad and 4 others1998 CLC 687 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
- Lutaf Ali vs Abdul Ghafur and others1998 SCMR 1121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a Regular Second Appeal in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's failure to deposit the pre-emption money within the time specified by the trial court, coupled with the failure to seek an extension of time for over thirty years, warranted the dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's decree, which stipulated that the suit would stand dismissed upon failure to deposit the pre-emption money, became effective automatically upon such failure. The Court emphasized that filing an appeal does not automatically stay or suspend the operation of a trial court's decree. Furthermore, the Court determined that it lacked the authority to extend the time for deposit as the courts had become functus officio. The key principle laid down is that where a pre-emption decree mandates the dismissal of a suit upon failure to deposit the specified amount within the time limit, such dismissal is automatic, and courts cannot extend the time once they are no longer seized of the matter.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an appeal automatically stay or suspend the operation of a trial court's decree requiring the deposit of pre-emption money?
- Can a court extend the time for the deposit of pre-emption money once the matter is no longer pending before it?
- What is the legal consequence of failing to deposit pre-emption money within the time specified in a trial court's decree?
- Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 1657 · Madras High Court · 1996-01-12Read full judgment →
- Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Abdul Latif vs Federation of Pakistan and 174 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a former Lt.-Colonel in the Pakistan Army, challenged the denial of seniority in the Foreign Service of Pakistan from the date of his initial deputation (1981) rather than the date of his formal induction (1992). The appellant had served on secondment in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for over a decade, during which time he sought permanent absorption. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal, leading to the present proceedings. The core legal question was whether an officer of the Armed Forces on secondment to a civil ministry is entitled to claim seniority in the civil service from the date of initial deputation, and whether the failure to grant such seniority constitutes discrimination compared to other officers whose service was regularized differently. The Court held that secondment does not constitute induction into civil service; the appellant remained a member of the Armed Forces until his retirement in 1992. The Court affirmed that seniority is not a vested right and that the appointing authority may determine the date of seniority upon induction, provided it is not discriminatory. The Court found no evidence of discrimination, distinguishing the appellant's case from others cited.
Questions settled- Does the secondment of an Armed Forces officer to a civil ministry constitute induction into the civil service for the purpose of determining seniority?
- Is seniority in the civil service a vested right for an officer inducted from the Armed Forces?
- Can an appointing authority grant seniority from a retrospective date upon the induction of an Armed Forces officer into the civil service?
- Does the failure to grant seniority from the date of initial deputation constitute discrimination if other officers were granted such seniority under different circumstances?
- Lt. Col. Noor Alam Lodhi vs Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Etc(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 28) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Liberty Power Limited through Authorised Director Syed Ahmad Masood1998 SCMR 2769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner-company challenged the imposition of a 2% service charge on imported machinery for a thermal power project, levied under Section 18-B of the Customs Act, 1969. The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition in limine, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, as the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the issue of territorial jurisdiction regarding the interpretation of clause 4(B) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—inserted by P.O. No. 14 of 1985—was already pending adjudication in several identical cases before the Court. Finding that leave to appeal had been granted in those similar matters, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the present case as well, ordering that all related appeals be heard together. The Court also withdrew the interim relief previously granted to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging a levy imposed by an authority located outside its territorial limits?
- Is leave to appeal appropriate when the core legal question regarding constitutional jurisdiction is already pending in identical matters before the Supreme Court?
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1954 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1444 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicants sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 6/9 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance for allegedly possessing 500 grams and 250 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involved whether non-compliance with procedural search requirements, the absence of private mashirs under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the lack of a chemical examiner's report warranted the grant of bail, and whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that since the maximum punishment for the alleged offence was seven years, the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, making bail the rule and its refusal an exception. The Court further noted that a joint mashirnama made the case doubtful and that the applicants had already spent nearly six months in custody. The Court laid down that bail should generally be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, and where statutory non-compliances and evidentiary gaps create further doubt.
Questions settled- Does an offence carrying a maximum punishment of seven years fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether bail should be granted as a rule when an accused is charged with an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Does section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act provide an exception to the compliance of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the evidentiary effect of a joint mashirnama in narcotics recovery cases at the bail stage?
- Liaqat Ali vs State1998 MLD 2059 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-20Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali Channa and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 727 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 216 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected revision arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, convicting Liaquat Ali and Muhammad Akram under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting their co-accused Niamat Ali. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony regarding a sudden dispute over lease money and tractor installments, the admissibility and effect of the accused's first version stated to the investigating officer, the availability of the right of private defense and grave and sudden provocation, and the requirement of corroboration for maintaining convictions when the prosecution's motive fails. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's set motive was shrouded in mystery and the acquittal of Niamat Ali was justified, but the participation of the remaining appellants was corroborated by forensic ballistics matching crime empties with recovered weapons and admissions made in defense suggestions. The Court laid down that an accused's first version given to police during investigation can be brought on record through cross-examination, and dismissed both the appeal and the revision, maintaining the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Can an accused's first version given to the investigating officer during the course of investigation be brought on record through cross-examination?
- Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove motive necessitates the outright rejection of the entire prosecution case or requires independent corroboration?
- Does a person who arrives at the scene of an incident after a beating has already taken place qualify for the benefit of grave and sudden provocation?
- Is a suggestion put to a prosecution witness by the defense and admitted by the witness considered sufficient proof of the facts suggested?
- Liaqat Ali and 2 others vs The State1998 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Shariat Court judgment that maintained convictions under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that the recovery of stolen property was fabricated, citing enmity, the lack of independent witnesses from the locality, and the alleged planting of evidence. The core legal question was whether the evidence regarding the recovery of stolen ornaments and cash was sufficient to sustain the conviction and whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the recovery evidence, supported by the testimony of the investigating officer and a public witness, was reliable and demonstrated the petitioners' special knowledge of the concealed items. The Court affirmed the convictions, noting that no misreading of evidence was established. However, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the period of detention served during the trial, and directed their release if their sentences were completed, subject to fine payment.
Questions settled- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for a convict who has undergone detention during the trial?
- Can a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the basis of recovery evidence where independent local witnesses were unavailable?
- Does the Supreme Court permit the reappraisal of evidence in a petition for leave to appeal where no misreading or non-reading of evidence is demonstrated?
- Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad and1998 SCMR 2142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of twenty-five civil appeals directed against judgments of the Peshawar High Court which had enhanced compensation amounts for acquired land based on a previous High Court precedent rather than assessing the evidence on record. The core legal question is whether the High Court could determine compensation without properly evaluating the evidence and prior binding judgments of the Supreme Court concerning the same land acquisition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by relying solely on a prior precedent without discussing the evidence produced by the parties or considering earlier apex court rulings. The matter was consequently remanded to the High Court for fresh decision after evaluating the evidence on record. The key principle laid down is that the determination of market value and compensation in land acquisition cases must be founded upon a proper appraisal of the evidence brought on record for each specific award rather than perfunctory reliance on past judgments, while duly taking note of relevant binding precedents.
Questions settled- Can the High Court determine compensation for acquired land without discussing the evidence brought on record by the parties?
- Is a previous judgment of the High Court a sufficient sole basis for assessing market value in land acquisition matters when binding apex court precedents exist?
- Whether civil appeals should be remanded to the High Court when the impugned judgment fails to consider relevant evidence and prior Supreme Court rulings?
- Lal Muhammad alias Laloo vs The State1998 MLD 1875 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
- Lakshman Swarup Om Prakash vs Union of India and others1998 PTD 1981 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-05-06Read full judgment →
- Lakhanpal National Limited and another vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Assessment)1998 PTD 2454 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-07-05Read full judgment →
- Lahore Race Club through Secretary vs Deputy Director, Employees'1998 SCMR 1571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, raising the question of whether an employer is liable to pay contributions under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, in respect of persons employed on a part-time or daily-wage basis for a few hours on race days. The Supreme Court evaluated the statutory definition of 'employee' under section 2(bb) of the Act, which covers any person employed for wages to do skilled, unskilled, supervisory, clerical, manual, or other work under a contract of service. The Court held that part-time workers are not excluded from the definition of 'employee' simply by virtue of working limited hours or days, as the number of working hours is not a determinative test under the statute, and the Act is a beneficial and remedial measure to be construed liberally. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the employer's liability to pay the required contributions.
Questions settled- Does the statutory definition of an employee under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 include part-time workers?
- Are the number of working hours or days a valid test to determine the status of an employee under section 2(bb) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
- Is an employer liable to pay contributions under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 for individuals engaged only on a daily or hourly basis for specific events?
- Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar vs Nazar Muhammad1998 SCMR 2376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three appeals filed by the Lahore High Court against an order of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which had reinstated judicial officers whose services were terminated during probation. The Tribunal's order was based on a concession made by the Advocate-General, Punjab. The High Court challenged this, arguing the Advocate-General lacked authority to concede on its behalf, especially following the enforcement of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994. The appeals were filed with a delay of 625 days. The Supreme Court addressed whether this delay should be condoned. The Court held that the Government cannot be treated differently from an ordinary litigant regarding the limitation period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Despite acknowledging that the High Court, as the appointing authority, should have been consulted before any concession was made, the Court ruled that this did not constitute sufficient cause to condone the significant delay. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred, though the Court noted that the High Court remained free to initiate disciplinary action against the respondents if warranted by their conduct.
Questions settled- Can the government claim to be treated differently from an ordinary litigant when seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Does the fact that a legal question involves the independence of the judiciary constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal?
- Is the filing of an appeal by the High Court time-barred if it is initiated nearly one and a half years after the knowledge of the impugned order and subsequent posting orders?
- Lahore Development Authority/Traffic Engineering and Transport1998 PLD Lahore 79 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
- Lahore Cantt. Cooperative Society Limited vs Muhammad Asif1998 MLD 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant civil revision petition arose from an interim order passed by the trial court rejecting the petitioner-society's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the rejection of a plaint filed by a non-member for specific performance and alternative reliefs. The core legal question was whether the mandatory notice requirement under Section 70 and the arbitration provisions under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 apply to a suit instituted by a non-member against a co-operative housing society. The Lahore High Court held that Sections 54 and 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 are complementary and designed to govern internal disputes involving members, past members, officers, or agents, and do not extend to contractual transactions with outsiders or non-members. Consequently, a non-member is not required to issue a statutory notice under Section 70 before filing a civil suit against a society, and the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, affirming the trial court's decision.
Questions settled- Does the requirement of notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 apply to a suit filed by a non-member against a co-operative society?
- Whether the arbitration provisions under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 cover contractual transactions entered into by a society with an outsider or non-member?
- Can a civil court exercise jurisdiction over a suit instituted by a non-member against a co-operative society without the prior service of a notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925?
- Laddha Traders vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2842 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
- L.D.A. (Tepa) And Other vs Metropolitan Corporation Lahore And Other(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 40) · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
- Kumar Engineers vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 654 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1996-09-10Read full judgment →
- Krishan Prasad Singhi and others vs Tax Recovery Officer-II (Income-1998 PTD 540 · Calcutta High Court · 1995-09-01Read full judgment →
- Kohinoor Enterprises vs Income-Tax Officer and others1998 PTD 3710 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
- Kishan Lal vs Union of India and another1998 PTD 2588 · Supreme Court of India · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
- Khyber Plastic & Polymer Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. - vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad1998 P.C.T.L.R. 594 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 265 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Mst. Zakiya Mushtaq Ahmed and 7 others1998 SCMR 253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed his Constitution Petition, thereby upholding the dismissal of his suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question was whether a tenant, against whom an ejectment order had been passed, retained the status of a "tenant" necessary to claim a superior right of pre-emption, even if the order had not been physically executed. The Supreme Court held that the passing of a final order of eviction effectively terminates the tenancy, denuding the individual of the status required to maintain a pre-emption claim. The Court affirmed that a pre-emptor must possess the superior right of pre-emption not only at the time of the sale but also at the time of filing the suit and continuously until the date of the decree. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner, having lost his status as a tenant upon the issuance of the ejectment order, could not succeed in his pre-emption suit. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as meritless.
Questions settled- Does the passing of a final order of eviction terminate the status of a tenant for the purpose of claiming a superior right of pre-emption?
- Must a pre-emptor maintain the qualification of a tenant continuously from the time of sale until the date of the decree?
- Does a tenant who has suffered an ejectment decree retain the status of a tenant if the order has not been physically executed?
- Khushi Muhammad vs (Mst.) Zakiya Mushtaq Ahmad And Other(K.L.R. 1998 SC 53) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition, thereby upholding a Board of Revenue order which had dismissed the petitioner's pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a person, against whom a final order of ejectment had been passed, retained the status of a tenant to claim a superior right of pre-emption. The petitioner argued that actual dispossession was required to terminate tenancy. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's view, holding that a final order of eviction terminates the tenancy, and the individual ceases to be a tenant, thus losing the superior right of pre-emption. The Court emphasized that a pre-emptor must possess the superior right of pre-emption at the time of sale, at the time of filing the suit, and continuously until the date of the decree. Actual physical dispossession, while relevant, was not the sole determinant of tenancy cessation once a final eviction order was in place. Leave to appeal was refused, and the petition dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a tenant against whom a final order of eviction has been passed retain the status of a tenant for claiming a superior right of pre-emption?
- Is actual physical dispossession a prerequisite for the termination of tenancy following a final ejectment order?
- What are the temporal requirements for a pre-emptor to possess a superior right of pre-emption?
- Can a pre-emption suit succeed if the pre-emptor loses their superior right at any stage during the pendency of the suit?
- Khurshid vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 761 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-18Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Alam And 3 Other vs Govt of Punjab through SecretaryK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 49 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khurshid Alam and 2 others vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 6 others1998 PLD Lahore 189 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Alam and 2 others vs Government of the Punjab and 6 others1998 SCMR 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' Intra-Court Appeal as barred by time. The core legal question is whether the time spent prosecuting a review application against a judgment can be excluded or serve as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act when filing an Intra-Court Appeal. The Supreme Court held that leave should be granted to consider whether the pendency of the review application and subsequent proceedings constituted sufficient grounds for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, even if strict statutory exclusion under section 14 might not apply. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court must duly consider and apply its mind to the question of condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act in the peculiar circumstances where a review application was admitted and remained pending before the court.
Questions settled- Whether the time spent in prosecuting a review application can be considered as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing an Intra-Court Appeal?
- Does the High Court fail to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law when it dismisses an appeal as time-barred without considering the question of condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act in peculiar circumstances?
- Khurshid Ahmed Baloch, Executive Engineer (Civil), General Civil1998 MLD 464 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-18Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 141998 PLC (C.S.) 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a service dispute where the petitioner, a former Key Punch Operator, sought retrospective promotion to the post of U.D.C. and Assistant, claiming he was entitled to such advancement based on a 1970 policy letter that benefited his juniors. The petitioner had previously declined an offer of promotion in 1974, preferring to remain in his existing cadre, and only requested promotion in 1979, which was granted. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim retrospective promotion despite having voluntarily deferred his promotion when it was originally offered in 1974. The Supreme Court held that promotion cannot be thrust upon an employee against their will. Since the petitioner failed to avail himself of the promotion offered in 1974 and only applied in 1979, he had no valid claim to back-dated promotion. The court established the principle that an employee who voluntarily declines a promotion offer cannot subsequently claim retrospective benefits for the period during which they chose not to accept the promotion.
Questions settled- Can an employee claim retrospective promotion after voluntarily declining a promotion offer?
- Is an employer required to thrust a promotion upon an employee who has requested its deferment?
- Does an employee have a right to back-dated promotion if they failed to apply for the position when it was originally offered?
- Khurshid Ahmad Baloch Executive Engineering (Civil) General CivilK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 220 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khudai Rahim vs Abdul Sattar and 6 others1998 SCMR 956 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court of Balochistan's order, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had satisfied the mandatory requirements of 'Talab-e-Mowasibat' (immediate demand) and 'Talab-e-Ishhad' (demand with invocation) as conditions precedent for exercising the right of pre-emption. The petitioner claimed to have made these demands, but the lower courts found significant discrepancies in the evidence, noting that the petitioner failed to specify the presence of witnesses for the first demand and failed to explicitly reference the first demand when making the second demand. The Supreme Court held that the findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court regarding the failure to perform these 'Talabs' in accordance with law were based on a proper appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the performance of 'Talab-e-Mowasibat' and 'Talab-e-Ishhad' are strict conditions precedent for a pre-emption suit, and failure to prove them in the prescribed manner renders the suit liable to dismissal.
Questions settled- Are Talab-e-Mowasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad conditions precedent to the exercise of the right of pre-emption?
- Does the failure to explicitly reference the first demand (Talab-e-Mowasibat) when making the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad) invalidate the pre-emption claim?
- Can a finding of fact regarding the performance of Talabs be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the evidence was properly appraised?
- Khuda Bakhsh, Etc. vs Mulazim Hussain, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 710 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh and others vs Cholistan Development Authority through Managing Director, Bahawalpur and others1998 SCMR 2231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the status of the Cholistan Development Authority and the validity of land allotments under the Shahi Muzara Scheme. The High Court had previously declared the Authority an autonomous body, independent of the Board of Revenue, and invalidated the Shahi Muzara Scheme under the Contract Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted the Advocate-General's concession that the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, applies to the area, thereby establishing the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue and the hierarchy under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The Supreme Court held that the core dispute regarding the legitimacy of occupants and allottees is a question of fact requiring adjudication based on title documents. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's findings regarding the Authority's total independence and remanded the cases to the Board of Revenue. The Board was directed to scrutinize allotment documents, hear the parties, and eject unauthorized occupants, while protecting genuine allottees who have complied with allotment conditions.
Questions settled- Does the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 apply to lands under the jurisdiction of the Cholistan Development Authority?
- Is the Cholistan Development Authority an autonomous body completely exempt from the administrative control of the Board of Revenue?
- Does the Board of Revenue have jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of land allotments and the status of occupants in the Cholistan area?
- Khizar Hayat vs The State1998 MLD 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
- Khawand Bakhsh and others vs The State1998 SCMR 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from criminal petitions seeking leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Balochistan High Court dated 24-6-1996, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioners under sections 302, 324, 120-B, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting a co-accused. The core legal question concerns whether the ocular testimony, having been disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused, could form a safe basis for upholding the petitioners' conviction without exceptionally strong independent corroboration, and whether delayed recovery of weapons vitiates such corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised merit serious consideration regarding the reliability of uncorroborated ocular testimony and the proportionality of the death penalty. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both connected petitions to examine these legal and factual questions thoroughly.
Questions settled- Can ocular testimony disbelieved as against one co-accused serve as a safe basis for conviction of other co-accused without exceptionally strong and independent corroboration?
- Does inordinate delay in sending crime empties and weapons to a firearm expert affect the reliability of incriminating recoveries as corroborative evidence?
- Whether the extreme penalty of death is warranted when fatal injuries are not specifically attributed to individual petitioners in a joint attack?
- Khawaja Waqar Ahmed vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →