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.
- Javaid Iqbal vs The Secretary, Establishment Division, Cabinet1998 PLC (C.S.) 42 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- Javaid Iqbal vs The Secretary Establishment Division CabinetK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- Javaid Iqbal and anothers vs The State1998 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a private complaint after the police initially discharged the accused. The core legal question concerns the reliability of closely related and interested eyewitnesses in the absence of independent corroboration, alongside a tainted police investigation and an unproven confessional statement by an alternative suspect. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt where eyewitnesses were interested, their statements were delayed, no incriminating recoveries were made from the appellants, and the initial investigating agency had found the accused innocent. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of closely related and inimical eyewitnesses requires independent corroboration, and motive alone cannot serve as corroboratory material in criminal trials.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of closely related and interested eyewitnesses requires independent corroboration in a criminal trial?
- Can motive alone serve as sufficient corroboratory material to sustain a conviction when ocular testimony lacks independent support?
- What is the effect on the prosecution case when the initial investigating agency finds the accused innocent and discharges them?
- Is it mandatory to record the statement of an accused person under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Javaid Iqbal and 3 others vs The State1998 SCMR 903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained convictions under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against the appellants for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerned whether the appellants could be held constructively liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 despite varying roles, and whether the defense of self-defense or sudden fight—though not explicitly pleaded—could be inferred from the record to mitigate liability. The Supreme Court held that the appellants’ defense version was inconsistent, illogical, and unsupported by evidence, particularly noting the absence of injuries on the defense side. The Court affirmed that when multiple offenders arm themselves with lethal weapons and execute a pre-planned attack, they act in furtherance of a common intention, rendering each liable for the natural consequences of their concerted actions. The principle laid down is that while an accused may benefit from a plea of self-defense inferable from the record even if not formally raised, such a plea must be supported by credible evidence and cannot be based on vacillating or unreasonable narratives. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an accused benefit from a plea of self-defense or sudden fight if it was not explicitly raised but is inferable from the record?
- Does the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require specific overt acts by each participant in a pre-planned attack?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of a self-defense plea if the version presented is inconsistent and lacks evidentiary support?
- Jaswant Rai and another vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Revenue and others1998 PTD 3528 · Supreme Court of India · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
- Jaro Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 800 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-09Read full judgment →
- Jano0 and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1587 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad vs P.O. Sindh and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 393 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad vs Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad1998 MLD 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad vs Haji Noor Jamal and anothers1998 SCMR 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that cancelled the petitioner's bail in a criminal case involving charges under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The petitioner and his son were accused of causing injuries to the complainant and his son following a dispute over property. While the High Court had cancelled the petitioner's bail, citing the severity of the injuries and the existence of reasonable grounds to believe the accused was guilty of an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner challenged this cancellation. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence and the nature of the injuries, which were classified under sections 337-A and 337-F of the PPC. The Court held that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the bail, emphasizing that the case did not warrant pre-trial incarceration under the relevant statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Does an offense under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, when involving injuries classified under sections 337-A and 337-F, necessarily fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Can bail be granted in a case involving injuries that do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Jamshed vs Agha Suhail and another1998 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged an order of the trial court which dismissed applications to summon birth records and refer the accused to a new medical board for age determination. The accused, facing trial for murder, sought a separate trial under the Sindh Children Act, 1955, claiming he was under 16 at the time of the offence. The trial court had previously referred the accused to a medical board, which certified his age as 21-22 years based on radiological and physical examination. The applicant argued the birth certificate should prevail and the medical board's findings were insufficient. The High Court held that the medical board's report, based on radiological examination, constitutes the best evidence for determining age, superseding school or birth certificates. The court affirmed that while a plea of minority can be raised at any stage, including the appellate stage, the medical evidence here was conclusive. Consequently, the court found no illegality in the trial court's order, dismissed the revision, and upheld the trial court's decision to rely on the medical board's findings.
Questions settled- Is a medical board's report based on radiological examination preferred over a birth certificate for determining the age of an accused?
- Can a plea of minority under the Sindh Children Act, 1955 be raised at the appellate stage if not raised during the trial?
- Is a trial court required to summon birth records if a medical board has already determined the age of the accused?
- Jamshaid Ali vs Sheikh Muhammad Azhar1998 CLC 1879 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
- Jamshaid Ali Khan vs Zahoor Ahmad alias Zahoori and 2 others1998 SCMR 1401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which acquitted respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of charges under section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, thereby setting aside their death sentence awarded by the trial court. The core legal question revolved around the proper appraisal of ocular testimony, identification evidence, and corroborative material by the appellate court. The Supreme Court held that the appraisal of evidence by the Federal Shariat Court was sound, uninfected by non-reading or misreading, and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable identification evidence and suspicious circumstances surrounding alleged recoveries. The key principle laid down is that where an appellate court's appraisal of evidence is reasonable and grounded in the record, the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt, particularly when identification parades and corroborative documents suffer from inherent flaws and delayed emergence.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment of the Federal Shariat Court based on the appraisal of evidence?
- Does the delayed emergence of documentary evidence and flawed identification parade justify granting the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
- Whether ocular testimony lacking proper prior description of culprits and credible identification is sufficient to sustain a conviction for dacoity with murder?
- Jamil Shah vs The State1998 MLD 1121 (1) · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Jameel Ahmed vs Abdul Sattar and others1998 PLD Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
- Jameel Ahmad vs Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 607 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
- Jamdad Khan vs The Province of Punjab and others1998 SCMR 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had accepted an appeal by a civil servant regarding his transfer order. The core legal question was whether the respondent's appeal before the Service Tribunal was maintainable, given that he had not exhausted the mandatory departmental remedies required by statute. The Supreme Court held that the appeal before the Service Tribunal was premature and not maintainable. The Court observed that under the relevant statutory framework, an aggrieved civil servant must first prefer an appeal, review, or representation to the departmental authority and wait for a period of ninety days before approaching the Service Tribunal. Because the respondent filed his appeal to the Tribunal only one day after submitting his departmental representation, he failed to comply with the statutory waiting period. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, establishing the principle that strict adherence to the exhaustion of departmental remedies and the mandatory ninety-day waiting period is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the maintainability of appeals before the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Is an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal maintainable if the aggrieved civil servant has not exhausted departmental remedies?
- Does the ninety-day waiting period prescribed in the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 apply to appeals filed before the Service Tribunal?
- Can a civil servant file an appeal with the Service Tribunal immediately after submitting a departmental representation?
- Jamal Khan Jaffar vs The Government of Balochistan1998 PLC (C.S.) 886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal was directed against a judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal regarding the correct date of birth of a government servant for retirement purposes. The appellant, who joined government service in 1957, contended that his correct date of birth was October 16, 1940, as recorded in his matriculation certificate and original Service Book. Conversely, the department asserted his date of birth was October 15, 1936, based on subsequent seniority lists, and issued a retirement notification accordingly. The Service Tribunal and the department had rejected the appellant's plea on the ground that the original Service Book was untraceable. During the Supreme Court proceedings, the appellant produced a verification certificate from the Accountant-General, Balochistan, confirming that the original Service Book was indeed available and recorded his date of birth as October 16, 1940. The Supreme Court held that the Service Book is the most authentic record for verifying a government servant's date of birth. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the case to the Service Tribunal to summon the original Service Book and re-examine the matter.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Book of a government servant constitutes the primary and most authentic record for verifying their date of birth?
- Can a retirement notification based on disputed seniority list entries be sustained when the original Service Book contradicts those entries?
- Is a remand to the Service Tribunal appropriate when crucial original service records, previously declared untraceable, are subsequently located?
- Jamal Khan Jaffar vs The Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Services and General Administration, Department, Quetta1998 SCMR 1302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which upheld the retirement of the appellant based on a disputed date of birth. The appellant, a government servant, challenged his retirement notification, asserting his correct date of birth was 16-10-1940, as recorded in his original Service Book and Matriculation Certificate, rather than 15-10-1936, as claimed by the department. The department relied on seniority lists to support the 1936 date, while the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim as an afterthought. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant produced a certificate from the Accountant-General, Balochistan, verifying the 1940 date from the original Service Book, which had previously been reported as untraceable. The Supreme Court held that the Service Book constitutes the most authentic record for determining a government servant's date of birth. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case, directing the Tribunal to summon and examine the original Service Book to verify the correct date of birth and dispose of the matter accordingly.
Questions settled- Is the original Service Book considered the most authentic record for determining a government servant's date of birth?
- Should a Service Tribunal re-examine a case when new, authentic evidence regarding a date of birth becomes available after the initial decision?
- Can a government department rely on seniority lists to determine a date of birth when the original Service Book is available for verification?
- Jama Masjid City Courts vs Safdar Ali through His L.RS And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 479 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
- Jam Dad Khan vs Province of Punjab and others1998 SCMR 245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order passed by the High Court, whereby the operation of a transfer order of a civil servant from one sub-division to another was suspended in a constitutional petition. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned the maintainability of a constitutional petition before the High Court regarding the transfer of a civil servant, given the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim order at this preliminary stage because the order was passed subject to notice, holding that the petitioner ought to approach the High Court by filing an application for the recall of the interim order and raising the jurisdictional objection there. The petition was accordingly dismissed with these observations.
Questions settled- Does the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain matters relating to the transfer of a civil servant stand barred under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere at an interlocutory stage with an interim suspension order passed by the High Court subject to notice?
- Jalil Ahmad vs Public Service Commission and another1998 CLC 435 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition sought a direction for the Public Service Commission to grant the petitioner one grace mark to meet the 50% aggregate requirement for selection as a Civil Judge, arguing that his 49.90% score should be rounded up or treated as a hardship case. The core legal question was whether the Commission retained the discretion to award grace marks under the prevailing rules. The Court held that the relevant statutory framework, specifically the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1962, as amended in 1986, had explicitly omitted the provision for grace marks. Consequently, the Court ruled that the requirement to obtain 50% aggregate marks is mandatory and absolute, leaving no room for the exercise of discretion or the rounding of fractional shortfalls. The key principle laid down is that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act to be performed, it must be done strictly in that manner; where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts must enforce it as written, regardless of the hardship caused to an individual candidate.
Questions settled- Does the Public Service Commission retain the discretion to award grace marks under the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 1962 following the 1986 amendment?
- Can a candidate claim a right to have fractional marks rounded up to meet the minimum aggregate requirement for a competitive examination?
- Is the requirement to obtain 50% aggregate marks in the written portion of the examination mandatory or directory?
- Does the principle of 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' apply when a statute prescribes a specific procedure for qualification?
- Jalan Timbers vs Commissioner.of Income-Tax1998 PTD 664 · Gauhati High Court · 1996-08-07Read full judgment →
- Jalal Khan vs (Mst.) Parveen Akhtar (Deceased) Rep. by L.Rs.(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 54) · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-01Read full judgment →
- Jaipur Electro (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 3291 · Rajasthan High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
- Jagjiwan Kumar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax_Wealth Tax and others1998 PTD 1461 · Punjab and Haryana High CourtRead full judgment →
- Jagg at Ram vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 SC 73) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's order declining his post-arrest bail under the statutory provisions relating to delay in conclusion of trial. The appellant was arrested for transporting a large quantity of heroin and had been in continuous detention for over a year without the trial concluding, with no delay attributable to him. The core legal question was whether the mere manner of committing the single charged offence sufficed to classify the accused as a hardened, desperate, and dangerous criminal to deny bail under the restrictive proviso. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the statutory right to bail on grounds of delay can only be defeated by clear material showing previous convictions, terrorism involvement, or established conduct demonstrating a hardened criminal nature, which was absent here. The Court laid down that the classification of an accused as a desperate or dangerous criminal cannot be inferred solely from the circumstances of the primary offense charged without supporting material of prior criminality or vicious conduct.
Questions settled- Whether the right to bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial can be denied solely based on the manner of committing the primary offense?
- What constitutes a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal for the purposes of refusing bail under the relevant statutory proviso?
- Does the pendency of a single criminal case without prior convictions justify categorizing an accused as a desperate criminal?
- Jagdish A. Sadarangani vs Government of India1998 PTD 2618 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-11-27Read full judgment →
- Jaffar, Etc. vs The StateKL R. 1998 Criminal Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
- Jaffar Shah and another vs Mian Yahya Shah and another1998 MLD 1920 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
- Jaffar Hussain and others vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1998 SCMR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal dispute arose when the employer, Milk Pak Limited, challenged the status of the petitioners as workmen under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking to invalidate their election as representatives of the Employees Union. The Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the petitioners were supervisors rather than workmen, thereby disqualifying them from union representation. The petitioners contended that the lower courts misapplied the definition of 'worker' and 'workman' provided in Section 2(28) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and failed to properly evaluate the evidence regarding their employment status. Furthermore, the petitioners challenged the maintainability of the employer's application filed under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court found these contentions substantial and granted leave to appeal to determine whether the lower courts erred in their findings on the petitioners' status and the maintainability of the employer's application.
Questions settled- Whether an application filed by an employer under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, challenging the status of elected union representatives is maintainable?
- Does the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(28) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, exclude employees designated as supervisors from acting as union representatives?
- Did the lower courts err in their assessment of evidence regarding the employment status of the petitioners?
- Jadeed Gul vs The State1998 SCMR 1124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail arising from a case registered under sections 274, 275, 276, 420, 483, 482, 485, 487, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act 1976, relating to the business of spurious drugs. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to bail when the trial has not concluded within the stipulated time frame due to the non-functioning of the Drug Court. The Supreme Court held that since the trial could not be concluded as earlier directed due to the non-availability of a Presiding Officer in the Drug Court and the delay was not attributable to the accused, a case for bail was made out. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that failure to conclude the trial within the specified period, owing to the non-functioning of the trial court, entitles the accused to be released on bail.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail if the trial is not concluded within the time period stipulated by the court due to the non-availability of a Presiding Officer?
- Does an offence under the Drugs Act 1976 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the maximum sentence does not exceed ten years?
- Can bail be granted on the ground of delayed trial when the delay is not attributable to the accused?
- J.P. Gupta vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1998 PTD 1154 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
- J.D. Enterprises vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 725 · Gauhati High Court · 1996-05-31Read full judgment →
- Israrul Haq vs Messrs Midway House (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi and another1998 PLC 22 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-01-29Read full judgment →
- Ismat' Naureen vs Additional Sessions Judge, Attock and another1998 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock, transferring a murder case to a Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether a formal judicial order is required to transfer a case involving a scheduled offence to a Special Court, or if such transfer occurs automatically by operation of law. The Court held that the provisions of Section 12 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, are self-executing, meaning that cases involving scheduled offences stand transferred to the Special Court automatically upon the commencement of the Act or the institution of the case. Consequently, no formal judicial order is necessary to effectuate this transfer, and the physical transmission of the case file is merely a ministerial function. The Court established the principle that self-executory statutory provisions take effect by their own force without requiring ancillary judicial intervention. Furthermore, the Court clarified that if a party disputes the classification of an offence, they possess an adequate remedy to seek re-transfer before the Special Court under Section 23 of the Act.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of a scheduled offence to a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 require a formal judicial order?
- Are the provisions of Section 12 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 self-executing?
- Can a party seek the re-transfer of a case from a Special Court to an ordinary criminal court under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Ismat Naureen vs Additional Sessions Judge, Attock And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-07Read full judgment →
- Ismail vs Ahmed Bux & Sons1998 MLD 940 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-26Read full judgment →
- Ismail Magsi and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-15Read full judgment →
- Ismail Khan and 60 others vs Kamran Ali Afzal and 2 others1998 MLD 1340 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-24Read full judgment →
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 41998 SCMR 2075 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the respondent civil servant's appeal challenging his transfer on deputation from the Federal Investigation Agency to the Anti-Narcotics Task Force Unit was accepted and the transfer order was set aside. The core legal question concerns whether the transfer of a civil servant on deputation to another entity under the Federal Government amounts to foreign service requiring the civil servant's consent under Fundamental Rule 110, or whether it is governed by the general transfer liability under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the transfer on deputation was tantamount to foreign service and thus violative of Fundamental Rule 110.
Questions settled- Whether the transfer of a civil servant on deputation to another governmental unit amounts to foreign service requiring his consent?
- Does Fundamental Rule 110 apply to a transfer between departments under the Federal Government?
- Is a civil servant liable to be transferred anywhere under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 without obtaining his option?
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 41998 PLC (C.S.) 919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the transfer of a Federal Investigation Agency (F.I.A.) Inspector on deputation to the Anti-Narcotics Task Force (A.N.T.F.). The respondent had challenged his transfer, arguing that his consent was a prerequisite for such deputation and that the transfer was invalid without his option being obtained. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's plea, distinguishing the case from ordinary transfers under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and invoking Fundamental Rule 110 regarding foreign service. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal erred in applying Fundamental Rule 110, arguing that the transfer was not to 'foreign service' but rather a standard transfer of a civil servant under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which mandates liability to serve anywhere under the Federal Government. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the transfer to the A.N.T.F. constituted 'foreign service' requiring consent under Fundamental Rule 110 or fell within the scope of Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of a civil servant from the Federal Investigation Agency to the Anti-Narcotics Task Force constitute 'foreign service' under Fundamental Rule 110?
- Is the consent of a civil servant required for a transfer on deputation to another unit under the Federal Government?
- Does Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 authorize the transfer of a civil servant to any post under the Federal Government without the employee's prior consent?
- Ishwarchand vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 1150 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-03-21Read full judgment →
- Ishtiaq Nazir and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
- Ishtiaq Khan vs Dministrator/Chairman, Town Committee Shahpur1998 MLD 615 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
- Ishaq Dar vs The Election Tribunal (Punjab), Lahore Bench at the Lahore High Court, Lahore Constituted under the Provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 374 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Irshad Begum, Etc. vs Muhammad SarwarK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 589 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ali Shaikh and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ahmed vs The General Manager and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1247 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-16Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ahmed and others vs Allah Ditta and others1998 SCMR 948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated civil appeals arise from a long-standing property dispute involving an evacuee rice factory where only the superstructure and machinery were transferred to the predecessor of the appellants, while the underlying land vested in the Provincial Government. The core legal questions relate to whether tenants can deny the title of their landlord or the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship during the subsistence of the tenancy based on subsequent assertions of state land ownership or Katchi Abadi declarations, and the scope of writ jurisdiction over concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a tenant is estopped from questioning the title of their landlord or denying the tenancy without first surrendering possession, and concurrent factual findings regarding tenancy and state land ownership cannot be lightly disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court laid down the principle that a tenant during the subsistence of the tenancy cannot challenge the landlord's title as it existed at the commencement of the tenancy without first surrendering possession.
Questions settled- Can a tenant question the title of his landlord during the subsistence of the tenancy?
- Whether a tenant must surrender possession before disputing the landlord's title?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority open to interference in writ jurisdiction on the ground of subsequent Katchi Abadi claims?
- Does the transfer of superstructure and machinery of an evacuee factory include the underlying state land?
- Irshad Ahmad Shahid vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1990 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
- Irfan Zamir Butt vs The Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through its1998 CLC 958 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
- Irfan Masih vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 716 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
- Irfan Jamil Khan vs University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore1998 SCMR 2502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition, which challenged his expulsion from the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, on the grounds that he secured admission using a bogus result card with inflated marks. The core legal questions involved whether a student could be expelled without a prior show-cause notice or inquiry when found to be a beneficiary of tampered academic records, and whether an educational institution could rely on such verification to cancel an admission years later. The Supreme Court held that where primary institutional records conclusively establish that marks were fraudulently inflated, the failure to issue a prior show-cause notice does not vitiate the expulsion, as the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of the court under Article 199 will not be exercised to protect or perpetuate the benefits of fraud. The court laid down the principle that fraud vitiates all proceedings, and a fraudulent admission creates no right that can be sustained through constitutional remedies, regardless of procedural lapses.
Questions settled- Whether the expulsion of a student for securing admission on the basis of a tampered result card is illegal solely because no prior show-cause notice or formal inquiry was conducted?
- Can a university expel a student on the ground of fraudulent admission after the lapse of several years from the date of initial admission?
- Does constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 extend to granting relief to a petitioner who is a beneficiary of tampered academic records?
- Irfan Gul Magsi vs Haji Abdul Khaliq Soomro1998 CLC 364 · Election Tribunal · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
- Iram Ghee Mills Ltd. vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1998 PTD 3835 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax appeal under amended Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was preferred by an assessee company seeking exemption under Paragraph 118-E of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, and challenging a best-judgment assessment under Section 63 as well as the application of Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had affirmed the assessing officer's determination bifurcating the assessee's sales into manufacturing and commercial sales, denying exemption on the ground that statutory conditions were not satisfied. The Lahore High Court examined the nature and ambit of Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, clarifying that substituting 'appeal' for 'reference' was cosmetic and did not alter the Court's fundamental advisory jurisdiction. On the merits, the Court held that tax exemption provisions must be strictly construed against the assessee. The assessee failed to provide audited accounts or substantiating evidence regarding its machinery and manufacturing operations; hence, the best-judgment assessment under Section 63 was valid, and trading activities fell outside Paragraph 118-E. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the substitution of the term 'appeal' for 'reference' in the amended Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 alter the scope or fundamental nature of the High Court's jurisdiction?
- Can an assessee claim tax exemption under Paragraph 118-E of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 for income derived from commercial or trading activities rather than manufacturing activities?
- Is the Assessing Officer empowered to proceed under Section 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 to issue a best-judgment assessment where the assessee fails to produce books of accounts, vouchers, or supporting evidence despite multiple adjournments?
- Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 21 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-16Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Shah vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1177 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Khan through Legal Heirs and 2 otherss vs Muhammad Ilyas and 51998 CLC 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-28Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Brohi vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2066 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application was filed by the applicant/accused who was facing trial for murder and theft under Sections 302 and 381 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought post-arrest bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that he had been in custody for over two years. The prosecution opposed the bail, contending that the delay was partly caused by the defense's adjournment requests, the applicant was a proclaimed offender who had absconded, and the brutal nature of the crime fell under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1). The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that a mathematical calculation of delay is inappropriate where the defense contributed to the postponement of trial. The Court further ruled that the third proviso is controlled by the fourth proviso, and an accused is disentitled to statutory bail if the crime is exceptionally brutal or if the accused's conduct as a fugitive from law warrants such exclusion.
Questions settled- Can statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be calculated using a strict mathematical subtraction of defense adjournments?
- Does the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 control and restrict the benefit of statutory bail under the third proviso?
- Whether unexplained noticeable abscondence as a proclaimed offender disentitles an accused to the concession of bail?
- Can a High Court summon a Special Public Prosecutor to assist the Court in a bail application without causing prejudice to the accused?
- Iqbal Ahmad and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others1998 SCMR 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns 23 civil appeals challenging a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the appellants' claims for inclusion in a newly introduced four-tier service structure for Federal Government school teachers. The appellants, Trained Graduate Teachers in BPS-15 holding selection grade BPS-17, were initially included in a scheme approved by the Prime Minister in 1992 but were subsequently excluded by a revised Office Memorandum issued by the Establishment Division. The core legal question was whether the Establishment Division could unilaterally revise the Prime Minister-approved scheme to exclude the appellants without re-referring the matter to the Prime Minister, and whether such exclusion constituted discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the matter required re-examination, noting the absence of evidence that the revision was submitted for the Prime Minister's re-approval. The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the appellants' case, specifically instructing them to determine if the exclusion was made without proper authorization and to assess whether the appellants were similarly situated to other teachers who had been granted the scheme's benefits, thereby ensuring compliance with constitutional equality principles.
Questions settled- Can an administrative body unilaterally revise a service scheme approved by the Prime Minister without obtaining fresh approval?
- Does the grant of a higher pay scale through a selection grade constitute a form of promotion?
- Is the exclusion of a specific category of teachers from a service structure scheme discriminatory if similarly situated employees are granted the benefit?
- Investment Corporation of Pakistan (I.C.P.) and otherss vs Messrs1998 CLC 731 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-08Read full judgment →
- Investment Corporation of Pakistan (I.C.P.) and otherss vs Messrs1998 CLC 579 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-23Read full judgment →
- Investment Corporation of Pakistan (I. C. P.) vs Messrs Noor Silk Mills1998 CLC 543 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a winding-up petition filed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 by the Investment Corporation of Pakistan against Messrs Noor Silk Mills on the grounds of inability to pay debts and disappearance of substratum, alongside an application by United Bank Limited for impleadment as an intervenor. The core legal questions relate to whether a decree-holder bank should be impleaded in winding-up proceedings and whether temporary financial distress and disputed liability warrant the winding-up of a functioning company. The Sindh High Court held that a decree-holder is merely in the position of an ordinary creditor with alternative execution remedies and need not be impleaded, and further held that winding-up is not a substitute for recovery suits where the company maintains substantial assets, is recognized as a sick unit striving to overcome industry-wide crises, and where the petitioning creditor's debt claims are disputed and unverified. The key principles laid down are that creditors with independent recovery remedies cannot intervene as parties in winding-up petitions, and winding-up orders will be refused when deemed unjust or inequitable against a viable enterprise.
Questions settled- Whether a decree-holder bank is entitled to be impleaded as a party in a company winding-up petition?
- Is the mere existence of a large unpaid claim by a financial institution sufficient ground to order the winding-up of a company?
- Can a winding-up petition be maintained where the petitioning creditor's claimed debt is disputed and lacks statutory notice of demand?
- Whether it is just and equitable to wind up a company that is actively struggling against industry-wide financial crises and possesses sufficient assets?
- Intizar Hussain vs State1998 MLD 1990 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
- Intizar Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 926 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-08Read full judgment →
- Interenational College of Home Economics, Sponsored by Punjab1998 CLC 641 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
- Jamat Ali vs Engineer-in-Chief, G.H.Q.,Rawalp1ndi and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which rejected the appellant's challenge to his placement in a seniority list. The appellant, a Steno typist in the Military Engineering Service Department, went on deputation to Saudi Arabia after executing an undertaking to forego promotion. Upon his return, he was granted retrospective seniority by the department, aligning with a consistent departmental practice for deputationists. Years later, a respondent challenged this seniority before the Secretary Defence, resulting in the reversal of the appellant's seniority. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appellant's subsequent appeal. The Supreme Court considered ESTACODE instructions regarding promotions of civil servants on deputation abroad and observed that the appellant alleged discrimination compared to other deputationists. The Court held that the case requires re-examination to ensure no discrimination occurs, ruling that if other deputationists received retrospective seniority, the appellant must be treated similarly without a different yardstick.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant on deputation abroad is entitled to regain original seniority upon return under departmental policy?
- Can a departmental authority apply a different yardstick to one deputationist regarding retrospective seniority while granting it to others?
- Jamat Ali vs Engineer-in-Chief, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi and others1998 SCMR 2472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which rejected the appellant's challenge to his placement in a seniority list. The appellant, a Stenotypist in the Military Engineering Service Department, went on deputation to Saudi Arabia after executing an undertaking to forego promotion during deputation, but later sought retrospective promotion and seniority upon his return, which was initially granted by the Head of the Department. However, upon a belated representation by a respondent, the appellate authority reversed the seniority, leading to departmental appeals and the Tribunal's dismissal. The core legal question was whether the appellant was discriminated against in the denial of retrospective seniority contrary to established departmental practice and applicable policy. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's case requires re-examination to ensure no discrimination occurs. The key principle laid down is that similarly situated civil servants returning from deputation must be treated uniformly in accordance with departmental practice and governing instructions without application of a different yardstick.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant returning from deputation abroad is entitled to retrospective seniority in accordance with established departmental practice?
- Can an administrative authority apply a different yardstick to a civil servant regarding retrospective promotion while granting the same benefit to other similarly situated deputationists?
- Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan, Karachi and others1998 SCMR 2679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment regarding an S.R.O. issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan, which restricted the number of attempts for Chartered Accountancy examinations. The core legal question was whether the Council could impose such restrictions via an administrative notification under Bye-Law 118, or if it required a formal amendment to the Bye-Laws under Section 27 of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961. The Supreme Court held that the restriction of examination attempts is a substantive policy matter affecting students' rights and educational standards. Consequently, such measures must be implemented through a formally framed Bye-Law as prescribed under Section 27, which mandates previous publication and federal government approval. The Court ruled that the Council could not bypass these statutory requirements through a mere administrative notification. Therefore, the S.R.O. was declared invalid for lacking the requisite statutory authority. The principle established is that administrative bodies cannot circumvent mandatory rule-making procedures to impose substantive restrictions on candidates through executive orders, as such actions exceed their delegated authority.
Questions settled- Can an administrative body impose substantive restrictions on examination attempts through an executive notification instead of a formal bye-law?
- Does the restriction of examination attempts for professional qualifications require adherence to the statutory rule-making process, including previous publication and government approval?
- Does a student have a vested right to be governed by the examination regulations in force at the time of their initial registration?
- Can a High Court, under Article 199, substitute its own policy decisions for those made by a statutory body acting within its jurisdiction?
- Inspector-General of Railway Police and others vs Muhammad Rafiq1998 SCMR 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside an order imposing a penalty of permanent stoppage of increments for two years against the respondent. The core legal question was whether an Inquiry Officer is legally obligated to provide an accused employee an opportunity to produce defense witnesses during disciplinary proceedings, even if the charges appear supported by the record. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated by bias and a failure to adhere to procedural fairness. The Court held that the Inquiry Officer acted under a misconception of law by denying the respondent the right to produce defense evidence, a right grounded in both the relevant service rules and the fundamental principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's judgment, ruling that an inquiry report based on the denial of a fair opportunity to defend oneself is illegal and unsustainable. Leave to appeal was refused, reinforcing the necessity of procedural due process in departmental inquiries.
Questions settled- Is an Inquiry Officer required to provide an accused employee an opportunity to produce defense witnesses during departmental proceedings?
- Does the denial of an opportunity to produce defense evidence render an inquiry report and subsequent penalty order illegal?
- Can disciplinary charges be considered proven without allowing the accused to present a defense?
- Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others vs Fazal1998 SCMR 2732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, and others against a judgment passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether administrative delays caused by internal departmental correspondence and the movement of files between government offices constitute sufficient grounds for the condonation of a significant delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal. The petition was filed 132 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the reasons provided for the delay were insufficient to justify condonation. The Court affirmed the principle that administrative lethargy, bureaucratic correspondence, or the mere movement of files between government departments does not provide a valid or acceptable legal basis for condoning a delay in filing an appeal. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, strictly enforcing the limitation period against the state authorities, thereby emphasizing that government departments are subject to the same rules of limitation as private litigants.
Questions settled- Does internal departmental correspondence and the movement of files between government offices constitute a valid ground for the condonation of delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is the state exempt from the strict application of limitation laws when filing an appeal?
- Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others vs Fazal1998 PLC (C.S.) 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29-10-1996 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 456 of 1994. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether departmental correspondence and movement of the matter between higher authorities constitute sufficient ground for condoning a substantial delay of 132 days in filing the petition. The Court held that departmental correspondence and administrative delays within government departments do not constitute a valid ground for the condonation of delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as time-barred and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that inter-departmental correspondence and routine administrative delays within government ranks do not furnish a sufficient or lawful excuse for extending the period of limitation for filing legal proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether departmental correspondence between government authorities constitutes a valid ground for condoning delay in filing a petition?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained when it is admittedly barred by time without a sufficient cause recognized by law?
- Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore and others vs Mahmood1998 SCMR 765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Inspector-General of Police Punjab and others challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which partly accepted a police constable's appeal by setting aside his dismissal from service and substituting it with a reduction in pay, after he had been convicted under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and granted probation. The core legal questions concern whether departmental disciplinary proceedings are affected by the pendency or outcome of a criminal trial, and whether the grant of probation under section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 obliterates a conviction and grants immunity from departmental penalties for misconduct. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that criminal trials and departmental disciplinary proceedings are independent and distinct, and that departmental authorities are not precluded from punishing a government servant for misconduct regardless of a criminal conviction or the grant of probation. Furthermore, section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 only removes statutory disqualifications attaching directly to a conviction and does not provide immunity from departmental disciplinary action for underlying professional misconduct. The Court allowed the appeal and restored the dismissal order.
Questions settled- Are departmental disciplinary proceedings for misconduct affected by the pendency or outcome of a criminal trial based on the same incident?
- Does the grant of probation under section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 obliterate a criminal conviction for the purposes of departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- Does section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 afford a government servant immunity from dismissal or penalties under efficiency and discipline rules?
- Can a Service Tribunal interfere with a departmental penalty of dismissal without properly analyzing the validity of the departmental proceedings?
- Inspecting Assistant Commissioner And Another vs Pakistan Herald, Ltd1998 P.C.T.L.R. 532 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court that allowed Constitution petitions filed by the respondent, a private limited company and printer of Daily Dawn, challenging notices issued under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance. The core legal question is whether the discovery that a provision of law (specifically section 34-A) had been ignored or misapplied in earlier completed assessments amounts to "definite information" permitting the reopening of assessments under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the non-application of a provision of law that is entirely irrelevant to the case cannot constitute definite information, and that a mere realization that a provision was ignored or misapplied after an assessment has been framed consciously—without any concealment of material facts by the assessee—amounts merely to a change of opinion rather than definite information. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that discovery that a provision of law was ignored or misapplied does not fall within the ambit of "definite information" under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the discovery that a provision of law was ignored or not applied in a previously completed assessment constitutes definite information for reopening an assessment under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance?
- Does a change of opinion or a different interpretation of a provision of law based on the same set of facts amount to definite information under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance?
- Can section 34-A of the Income Tax Ordinance be invoked to set off losses where the assessee is not a company listed on a registered stock exchange and does not own the entire share capital of the subsidiary company?
- Indramohan (P.) Arora vs Commissioner of Income-Tax/Wealth Tax1998 PTD 1747 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-12-20Read full judgment →
- Indo Asahi Glass Company and another vs Income-Tax Officer and others1998 PTD 2860 · Calcutta High Court · 1996-09-17Read full judgment →
- India Leather Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 884 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
- Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi through Manager, Daily Jang, Quetta vs The Chairman of Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (Labour Wing), C.D.A., Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC 196 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Income-Tax Officer vs Middlex Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. and others1998 PTD 1646 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1996-10-18Read full judgment →
- Income-Tax Officer vs Dinesh K. Shah and others1998 PTD 3791 · Madras High Court · 1996-08-12Read full judgment →
- Inayatur Rehman vs The State1998 MLD 1033 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-20Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1998 Criminal Cases 154 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
- Inayat Ullah Shah and anothers vs Muhammad Shah and anothers1998 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit instituted by the respondents claiming a superior pre-emptive right over a land purchase on the ground of collateral relationship with the vendor. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents based on a pedigree table and the cross-examination admission of a defense witness. The appellate court reversed this decision, dismissing the suit because none of the plaintiffs personally appeared in the witness box to testify to the relationship. On revision, the High Court set aside the appellate decree and restored the suit's decree, holding that the appellate court erred in ignoring the clear admission made by the defense witness during cross-examination. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, confirming that the entries in the pedigree table combined with the admission of the defense witness conclusively established the plaintiffs' collateral relationship with the vendor, thereby justifying the decree for pre-emption.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff's claim of collateral relationship with a vendor in a pre-emption suit be established through the admission of a defense witness in cross-examination without the plaintiff testifying in person?
- Whether entries in a pedigree table combined with an admission by a defense witness constitute sufficient evidence to establish a superior right of pre-emption?
- Does an appellate court act illegally by disregarding an admission regarding relationship made by a party's own witness during cross-examination?
- Inam Ullah Rashid vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
- In re: Rowdyism/Violence in the Supreme Court Premises on 28-11-19971998 SCMR 2261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a serious incident of rowdyism and violence that occurred on November 28, 1997, in and around the premises of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Islamabad, where an emotionally charged crowd breached the gates, entered the court building, and raised derogatory slogans against the judiciary. Following an initial inquiry report, the Chief Justice constituted a special three-member bench to identify the persons involved and initiate contempt proceedings. The Court examined extensive evidence, including fifty-three witnesses, video cassettes from closed-circuit television cameras, and reports from the local administration and police. The core legal question concerned identifying the perpetrators and officials whose acts or omissions facilitated the breach, and determining their liability for gross contempt. Holding that the sanctity, dignity, and respect of the apex court must be protected against coercion by street power, the Court concluded that twenty-six individuals—including politicians, party affiliates, and police and administrative officers—were prima facie involved, aided, or abetted the incident. The Court directed that show-cause notices be issued to these individuals for contempt of court under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Questions settled- Whether individuals who force entry into the Supreme Court premises and raise derogatory slogans against the judiciary are prima facie guilty of gross contempt of court?
- Can local administration and police officers be held liable for facilitating a crowd's entry into court premises through inaction or laxity?
- Whether a bench can be constituted to identify persons involved in an attack on court premises and initiate contempt proceedings based on inquiry reports and video evidence?
- In re: Reference No.1 of 1998 Made by the President of the State of Azad1998 CLC 1331 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
- In re_ President's Reference No.1 of 1997 under Section 46-a of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 vs Not1998 CLC 1369 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-03-17Read full judgment →
- In re: M. Aslam Motiwala vs Not1998 MLD 1254 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
- Imran vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1022 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the complainant seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent-accused by the Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, in a case registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge exercised discretion properly in granting bail based on a perceived discrepancy in the medical evidence regarding the time of death and the filing of the challan. The Peshawar High Court held that the order of the Sessions Judge was based on a deep and premature appraisal of the evidence at the bail stage, ignoring material parts of the medical report and misapplying case law regarding the submission of a challan. The High Court set aside the order and cancelled the bail. The key principles laid down are that contradictions between ocular and medical evidence should not be assessed in depth at the bail stage, and superior courts will interfere with bail orders when the lower court's discretion rests on conjecture or misreading of the record.
Questions settled- Can a court evaluate and resolve contradictions between medical evidence and ocular testimony in depth at the bail stage?
- Whether bail once granted to an accused charged with a capital offense can be cancelled if the lower court's order is based on conjecture and misreading of the record?
- Does the mere submission of a challan and commencement of trial operate as an absolute bar against the cancellation of bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in extraordinary circumstances?
- Is a discrepancy in the time of death versus the time of the First Information Report sufficient ground for granting bail in a case involving a capital charge with a nominated single accused?
- Imran Tahir vs The State1998 MLD 1676 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Imran Murtaza vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 301 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
- Imran Khan and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others1998 MLD 318 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-26Read full judgment →
- Imran Iqbal vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 351 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-19Read full judgment →
- Imran Hussain and others vs Lal Din and others1998 SCMR 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' second appeal and civil revision. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had appointed an attorney who allegedly executed two sale agreements in favor of his own brother shortly before the owner's death. Following the owner's demise, the respondent filed suits for specific performance, which were initially dismissed by the trial court but subsequently decreed by the District Judge, leading to the High Court's dismissal of the petitioners' subsequent challenges. The core legal question concerns the validity of the sale agreements and whether they were duly proved by the requisite number of marginal witnesses under the law of evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the delayed surfacing of the agreements and the production of only one marginal witness instead of the required two under Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat require detailed consideration. The key principle laid down is that questions concerning the proper attestation and proof of documents of sale executed through attorneys, when challenged on grounds of delayed assertion and insufficient marginal witnesses, warrant a full hearing by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Whether a sale agreement executed by an attorney requires the testimony of two marginal witnesses for proper proof under Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order?
- Does the delayed assertion of a sale agreement only after the death of the property owner provide sufficient ground to question its authenticity in a suit for specific performance?
- Imdad Awan vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad ,1998 PLC 372 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
- Imamdin vs StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 60 · Other · -Read full judgment →
- Imam Bakhsh and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
- Ilyas vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1927 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
- Ikramullah vs Sami Ullah and another1998 MLD 1184 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →