Latest 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. 232594 judgments in total.

• MIAN GROUP, CHAKWAL KARAMDAD ARCADE Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD2026 PTD 227 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-11-14
  retrospective applicationprocedural lawchange of forumbeneficial legislationAppellate Tribunal Inland Revenueremittal of referencestax appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This reference before the Islamabad High Court addressed the procedural and jurisdictional consequences of the Finance Act, 2025, which restored the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) as an appellate forum. Previously, the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024, had bypassed the ATIR by requiring direct references to the High Court from orders of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals). The core legal question was whether the 2025 amendments, which restored the ATIR's appellate jurisdiction, applied retrospectively to pending references. The High Court held that statutory amendments altering the forum of adjudication or providing an additional forum of appeal are procedural and beneficial in nature. Consequently, such amendments apply retrospectively to all pending proceedings that have not attained finality. The Court ordered that all pending references filed directly against the orders of the CIR (Appeals) be remitted to the ATIR to be treated and decided as appeals, with the court fees reimbursed to the applicants upon payment of the requisite ATIR appeal fees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether statutory amendments that alter the forum of adjudication or restore an appellate forum apply retrospectively to pending proceedings?
  • Are legislative changes that provide an additional forum of appeal considered beneficial or remedial in nature?
  • Can pending tax references filed directly in the High Court under a repealed procedural law be remitted to the newly restored appellate tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• HUB POWER COMPANY LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (AUDIT-VI)2026 PTD 173 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-30
  Federal Excise DutyFranchise agreementOperations and Maintenance contractIndependent Power ProducerTaxationStatutory interpretationParent-subsidiary relationship
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This reference application under section 34A of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, concerns the taxability of payments made by Hub Power Company Limited (HPCL) to its associated company, International Power Global Development Limited (IPGDL), under an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) agreement. The core legal question was whether this O&M agreement constituted a "franchise" under section 2(12a) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, thereby attracting Federal Excise Duty. The Court held that the O&M agreement did not create a franchise relationship. It rejected the department's reliance on the parent-subsidiary shareholding structure as a basis for inferring a franchise. The Court affirmed that a franchise requires five specific ingredients, most notably that the service or product must be "identified with the franchiser." Because the O&M services were not marketed or identified with the franchiser, the statutory definition was not met. The Court emphasized that business relationships like O&M contracts cannot be reduced to franchises simply because they involve fees or technical services. Consequently, the tax demand was set aside, and the reference was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a parent-subsidiary relationship between two companies automatically constitute a franchise relationship under the Federal Excise Act, 2005?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish a "franchise" under section 2(12a) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005?
  • Can an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) agreement between an independent power producer and an associated company be classified as a franchise for tax purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• IFTIKHAR AHMED KHAN Versus CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL2026 PTD 156 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-22
  customs referencesmugglingburden of proofconfiscationvehicle registrationlimitation periodimport documents
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This custom reference application arises from the outright confiscation of a motor vehicle alleged to be smuggled. The core legal questions involve whether the production of vehicle registration documents discharges the initial burden of proof under Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969, whether the Customs authorities can demand import documents beyond the five-year limitation period under Section 211 of the Customs Act, 1969, and whether an adjudication order passed beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 179 of the Customs Act, 1969 is valid. The Islamabad High Court held that the production of valid registration documents by the possessor discharges the initial burden of proof under Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969, shifting the onus onto the prosecution to prove smuggling. It was further held that the Customs authorities cannot penalize an owner for failing to produce import documents beyond the five-year retention limit prescribed in Section 211 of the Customs Act, 1969, and that an adjudication order issued beyond the limitation period prescribed in Section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 is invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Does the production of vehicle registration documents discharge the initial burden of proof of lawful possession under Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Can Customs authorities demand import records from a vehicle owner beyond the five-year limitation period prescribed under Section 211 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is an adjudication order passed beyond the statutory timeframe stipulated in Section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 legally valid?
  • Does the absence of import data in the PRAL database, established after a vehicle's manufacture year, conclusively prove that the vehicle is smuggled?
  Read full judgment →
• ZUBAIR FEED INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue2026 PTD 126 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-09-05
  monitoring of business premisesIncome Tax OrdinanceSales Tax Actdiscretionary powerstax evasionconstitutional petitionAdditional CommissionerFederal Board of Revenue
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the back-to-back extensions of office orders issued under Section 175C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, whereby Inland Revenue officers were posted at the petitioner's business premises for continuous monitoring without assigned reasons. The core legal questions revolved around whether discretionary monitoring under Section 175C can be extended indefinitely without reasons and whether an Additional Commissioner is competent to issue such orders when the statute vests power exclusively in the Board or the Chief Commissioner. The Islamabad High Court partly allowed the petition, holding that although initial monitoring orders may be valid, subsequent back-to-back extensions without cogent reasons or material justification violate principles of administrative fairness, proportionality, and Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Furthermore, the court held that powers specifically vested in the Board or Chief Commissioner cannot be exercised or issued by an Additional Commissioner without lawful statutory delegation. The court laid down the principle that monitoring under Section 175C must be time-bound, based on written reasons, and exercised strictly by the designated statutory authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether provisions for posting officers to monitor business premises under Section 175C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 can be extended indefinitely through back-to-back orders without assigning reasons?
  • Does an Additional Commissioner have the legal competence to issue posting orders under Section 175C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 when the statute vests such authority exclusively in the Board or the Chief Commissioner?
  • Can monitoring orders issued under Section 175C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 be equated with the scope and principles governing Section 40B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Whether the exercise of discretionary power to monitor a taxpayer requires a time-bound timeframe and compliance with principles of proportionality and administrative fairness?
  Read full judgment →
• ATTOCK GEN LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance2026 PTD 1112 · Islamabad High Court · 2026-04-29
  sales taxconstitutional petitionalternate statutory remedyofficer of inland revenueshow cause noticedelegated legislationvires of SROaggrieved person
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Islamabad High Court challenging a show-cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue under Section 38B(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and seeking to strike down SRO No. 450(1)/2013 as ultra vires. The core legal questions revolved around whether an officer other than the one having assigned territorial jurisdiction can issue such notices, whether a mere request for clarification constitutes an adverse notice or order, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an adequate alternate statutory remedy exists without exhausting departmental avenues. The court held that the impugned communication was merely a request for explanation rather than a formal notice or adverse order, that duly appointed Officers of Inland Revenue derive authority directly from the statute, and that the petition was premature and not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The key principles laid down include that administrative requests for explanations do not afford a cause of action under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and that litigants must exhaust available alternate statutory remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a communication from a tax authority requesting an explanation or clarification regarding tax returns constitutes an adverse order giving rise to a cause of action under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 be maintained when an adequate and efficacious alternate statutory remedy is available under the tax framework?
  • Whether an Officer of Inland Revenue appointed under Section 30 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 is competent to issue notices and seek information independently of specific administrative assignment by a Commissioner?
  • What are the mandatory grounds required to strike down subordinate or delegated legislation such as an SRO?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJEED (DECEASED) Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (CHENAB ZONE) RTO, FAISALABAD2026 PTD 931 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2025-10-21
  deceased taxpayervoid ab initiolegal heirssales tax assessmentex parte ordernon-impleadmentnullity in law
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This second appeal was filed before the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal against the appellate order confirming an ex parte sales tax assessment. The core legal question was whether tax proceedings and a show-cause notice can be validly initiated and continued against a person who had already passed away before the initiation of proceedings, without impleading their legal heirs. The Tribunal held that any legal proceedings initiated against a deceased person are void ab initio and a nullity in the eyes of law, as a deceased person lacks legal personality. It further held that while Section 53 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 creates a tax liability charge on the estate of a deceased person in the hands of their successors, the department must first identify, implead, and afford a hearing to the legal heirs before fastening any liability. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment orders, establishing that proceedings against a dead person without proper substitution of legal heirs are without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether legal proceedings initiated and continued against a deceased person are void ab initio?
  • Can tax assessment proceedings be validly conducted without impleading the legal heirs of a deceased taxpayer?
  • What is the scope of tax liability against the estate of a deceased registered person under Section 53 of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Does the failure to implead necessary legal heirs render subsequent adjudication and recovery proceedings a nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• DILSON (PVT.) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CTO, LAHORE2026 PTD 839 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2025-09-22
  amended assessmentgroup taxationapportionment of expensesrectification orderdoctrine of mergermaintainability of appealNormal Tax RegimeFinal Tax Regime
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The taxpayer, a private limited company acting as a holding company, filed a group taxation return under Section 59AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The assessing officer amended the assessment under Section 122(5A) of the Ordinance, asserting that group-level expenses were not properly apportioned under Section 67 between the Normal Tax Regime (NTR) and the Final Tax Regime (FTR) regarding export sales made by a subsidiary. During the pendency of the taxpayer's appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the taxation officer passed a rectification order that significantly reduced the taxpayer's tax liability. The core legal question was whether the original assessment order remained appealable after being modified by a subsequent rectification order. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, holding that when an original assessment order is modified or amended by a subsequent rectification order, the original order ceases to exist and is replaced by the rectified order. Consequently, any appeal must be filed against the subsequent rectified order, except where the rectification is confined to a minor clerical error that does not affect the merits of the adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an original assessment order remains maintainable for appeal after it has been modified by a subsequent rectification order?
  • Does the doctrine of merger apply to an order passed by the same authority by way of rectification or review?
  • Can a taxpayer maintain an appeal against an original tax demand when a subsequent rectification order has completely altered the assessed income and tax liability?
  Read full judgment →
• KHYBER TEA AND FOOD COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (PESHAWAR ZONE) RTO, PESHAWAR2026 PTD 809 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2025-04-16
  sales tax refundlimitation periodcondonation of delayde novo proceedingstax appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal was filed by a registered person against the order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue rejecting a sales tax refund claim on the ground of delay in filing the application under Rule 28 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006. The core legal question was whether a sales tax refund claim can be lawfully rejected solely on the ground of limitation without examining the merits and verifying the record. The Appellate Tribunal held that since the delay in filing had already been condoned in previous proceedings, the refund claim ought to have been decided on its merits after proper verification of records rather than on a technical ground. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner Inland Revenue for de novo proceedings and a decision on facts and law. The key principle laid down is that tax authorities must decide refund claims on merits after verifying relevant records and cannot dismiss them solely on limitation grounds once a delay has been condoned.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sales tax refund claim be rejected solely on the ground of delay in filing the application?
  • Does the onus lie upon the taxpayer to prove the correctness and entitlement of a sales tax refund claim?
  • What is the proper course of action for an appellate tribunal when a tax authority rejects a refund claim on technical grounds without examining the merits?
  Read full judgment →
• BAIG ENTERPRISES, LAHORE Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-IV, RTO, LAHORE2026 PTD 790 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2025-08-26
  input tax creditblacklisted suppliertax fraudspeaking orderburden of proofsales tax assessmentremandcredential misuse
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal concerns the disallowance of input tax credit by the tax department on the grounds that the taxpayer's supplier was blacklisted. The taxpayer contended that their login credentials were hacked, leading to fabricated returns without their knowledge. The core legal question is whether input tax can be disallowed solely due to a supplier's blacklisting without investigating the taxpayer's defense or establishing actual fraud. The Tribunal held that the impugned order was legally deficient and remanded the matter for a comprehensive inquiry. The ratio established is that while supplier blacklisting is a red flag, it is not a self-executing ground to deny input tax. The department bears the burden to prove fraud through positive findings, including forensic examination of audit logs, IP addresses, and banking channels. Furthermore, the department must address material pleas regarding credential misuse rather than relying on conclusory statements. An assessment order must be a speaking order that provides a reasoned analysis of the transactional chain to satisfy statutory requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Does the subsequent blacklisting of a supplier automatically disentitle a registered person from claiming input tax for earlier periods?
  • Is the tax department required to conduct a forensic inquiry when a taxpayer alleges the misuse of login credentials for filing fraudulent returns?
  • What evidentiary standard must the tax department meet to disallow input tax on the basis of alleged tax fraud?
  • Can an assessment order be sustained if it fails to trace the movement of consideration through banking channels as required by law?
  Read full judgment →
• QAISER AZEEM Versus The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RANGE-I, ZONE SOUTH, RTO, ISLAMABAD2026 PTD 724 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2024-09-25
  agricultural income taxIslamabad Capital TerritoryIncome Tax Ordinance 2001Section 41 exemptionSection 111(1)(d)unexplained incometax assessment
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal before the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan arose from an order passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), which confirmed an assessment order adding declared agricultural income to the appellant's taxable income under Section 111(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The core legal question was whether agricultural income derived from land situated within Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) could be taxed or added to taxable income under the proviso to Section 111(1)(d) for failure to pay provincial agricultural income tax. The Tribunal held that since ICT is under federal jurisdiction and no law exists imposing agricultural income tax within ICT, the proviso requiring payment of agricultural income tax under provincial law to claim an exemption under Section 41 does not apply. The Tribunal ruled that the declared agricultural income was fully explained and exempt under Section 41 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and annulled the tax demand.

  Questions settled

  • Is agricultural income derived from land located within Islamabad Capital Territory exempt from income tax under Section 41 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?
  • Does the proviso to Section 111(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 apply to agricultural land situated in Islamabad Capital Territory where no provincial agricultural income tax law exists?
  • Can an addition under Section 111(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 be made on documented agricultural income from Islamabad Capital Territory for failure to pay provincial tax?
  Read full judgment →
• GULZAR AFZAAL, FAISALABAD Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, FAISALABAD2026 PTD 690 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2025-07-31
  sales tax registrationblacklistingsuspension of registrationtax fraudadjudicationfundamental rightsfreedom of tradespeaking order
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal concerns the suspension and blacklisting of the appellant's sales tax registration by the Commissioner Inland Revenue. The core legal question was whether the indefinite suspension of a registered person under Section 21 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, is sustainable after the completion of adjudication proceedings under Section 11 of the same Act, and whether such action violates the constitutional right to conduct business. The Tribunal held that the impugned suspension was unsustainable, noting that the department failed to fulfill the mandatory conditions prescribed in Section 21(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and failed to provide a speaking order or adequate opportunity for the appellant to be heard. The Tribunal emphasized that suspension is a temporary measure, not a permanent punitive disability, and cannot be maintained indefinitely without fresh cause or justification, especially after the underlying tax liability has been fully adjudicated. The key principle laid down is that punitive measures like blacklisting must be rooted in objective facts, proportionate in duration, and subject to periodic review, as indefinite suspension infringes upon the fundamental right to trade and business guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sales tax registration be suspended indefinitely after the completion of adjudication proceedings under Section 11 of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Does the suspension of sales tax registration without a speaking order or proper compliance with Section 21(2) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 constitute a violation of natural justice?
  • Is the indefinite suspension of a taxpayer's business registration a violation of the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. NASREEN TAYYAB Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II, RTO-I, KARACHI2026 PTD 680 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2024-10-08
  Assets Declaration ActComputerized Payment Receiptforeign assetsprocedural lapseamnesty schemetax liabilityState Bank of Pakistan instructions
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal was filed by a taxpayer against the order of the Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue declaring her declaration under the Assets Declaration Act, 2019 void due to the absence of a Computerized Payment Receipt (CPR) for tax paid on foreign assets. The core legal question was whether the non-generation of a CPR by the State Bank of Pakistan or FBR, despite the taxpayer paying the tax in accordance with statutory instructions, vitiates the amnesty declaration and creates a tax liability. The Tribunal held that since the taxpayer successfully established payment through documentary evidence and followed the prescribed procedure, the failure to generate a CPR was a procedural lapse by the department and could not prejudice the taxpayer. The Tribunal established the principle that a taxpayer cannot be penalized for failing to perform an act made impossible by administrative or departmental omissions beyond their control.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-generation of a Computerized Payment Receipt (CPR) by authorities renders a tax declaration void under the Assets Declaration Act, 2019?
  • Can a taxpayer be penalized for an administrative or procedural lapse attributable solely to the State Bank of Pakistan or the Federal Board of Revenue?
  • Whether proof of money transfer in accordance with State Bank instructions discharges the taxpayer's burden of tax payment under an amnesty scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• KHYBER TEA AND FOOD COMPANY, PESHAWAR Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (PESHAWAR ZONE), RTO, PESHAWAR2026 PTD 535 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2025-03-14
  condonation of delaylimitationrefund applicationFederal Tax Ombudsmansubstantial justiceInland Revenue Appellate Tribunal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This miscellaneous application for condonation of delay was filed by the appellant registered person before the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal against an appellate order dated 24.07.2020 passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals). The core legal question was whether a 99-day delay in filing an appeal to the Tribunal could be condoned where the appellant mistakenly pursued a remedy before the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) under the wrong impression that no right of appeal existed. The Tribunal found force in the appellant's explanation regarding the mistaken reliance on FTO proceedings, which were ultimately rejected for lack of jurisdiction under Section 9(2) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000. Condoning the delay, the Tribunal held that technicalities and procedural defaults should not defeat substantial justice, particularly in revenue matters where limitation does not create a valuable vested right in favor of the State against a citizen. Consequently, the condonation application was allowed and the main appeal admitted for hearing on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pursuit of a remedy before the Federal Tax Ombudsman under a mistaken belief constitutes a valid ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal before the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal?
  • Whether the lapse of limitation in revenue matters creates an absolute or valuable vested right in favor of the State against a taxpayer?
  • Should technical and procedural default regarding limitation yield to substantial considerations of justice in tax litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTO, LAHORE Versus EXPO LAHORE (PVT.) LIMITED LAHORE Nadeem Asad , M. Usman Farooq2026 PTD 502 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2024-02-15
  income from propertytaxation of rental incomeownership prerequisitebusiness incomeincome tax assessmentapportionment of expenses
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal was filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue against an order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), which had set aside an assessment order treating the taxpayer's income from renting exhibition space as 'Income from Property'. The core legal question was whether income derived from renting out exhibition halls, which the taxpayer does not own but operates, qualifies as 'Income from Property' under Section 15 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The taxpayer, a private limited company, argued that since it does not own the land or buildings—which are owned by the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Punjab—the income cannot be classified as property income. The Tribunal held that ownership of the land or building is a mandatory prerequisite under Section 15(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 for rental receipts to be classified as 'Income from Property'. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the appellate order, ruling that the Additional Commissioner's attempt to treat the receipts as property income and apportion expenses accordingly was legally unjustified. The principle established is that rental income can only be taxed under the head 'Income from Property' if the taxpayer is the owner of the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Is ownership of land or a building a mandatory prerequisite for rental receipts to be classified as 'Income from Property' under Section 15 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?
  • Can income derived from renting out facilities not owned by the taxpayer be treated as 'Income from Property'?
  • Is an assessing officer justified in apportioning expenses between 'Income from Property' and 'Income from Business' if the income does not legally qualify as property income?
  Read full judgment →
• A. RAHIM FOODS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTO, LAHORE2026 PTD 367 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2025-05-22
  tax recoverystay orderappellate tribunalstatutory periodadministrative directiveincome taxmiscellaneous application
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This miscellaneous application was filed by the taxpayer seeking an extension of a stay order against tax recovery proceedings beyond the statutory period. The core legal question was whether the Appellate Tribunal has the authority to extend a stay order beyond the 90-day limit in light of specific administrative directives received from the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the stay order is automatically vacated upon the expiry of the legally stipulated period. The Tribunal reasoned that it is bound by the directions of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, which mandate that presiding officers shall not extend stay orders beyond the period stipulated under the law, and that non-adherence would be considered in performance reviews. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that it could not grant the requested extension, as the statutory period had already expired. The principle established is that administrative directives concerning the limitation of stay orders are binding on the Tribunal, effectively overriding the discretion to extend stays even when the main appeal remains pending adjudication due to administrative delays.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Appellate Tribunal extend a stay order beyond the 90-day statutory period?
  • Are administrative directives from the Chief Justice of Pakistan regarding stay orders binding on the Appellate Tribunal?
  • Does a stay order automatically vacate upon the expiry of the statutory period without further application?
  Read full judgment →
• JANANA DE MALUCHO TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONE-III, LTO, LAHORE2026 PTD 356 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2025-06-13
  sales taxdefault surchargepenaltyprincipal tax liabilityshow cause noticetax assessmentappellate tribunal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal was filed before the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal challenging an assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue regarding sales tax liability, default surcharge, and penalties for the period October 2021 to May 2022. The core legal question was whether default surcharge and penalties could be validly imposed when the principal tax liability had been voluntarily discharged by the taxpayer prior to the issuance of a show-cause notice. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and annulled the assessment order. It held that the adjudicating officer failed to properly consider the facts and applicable legal provisions, noting that the principal tax amount was paid before the initiation of proceedings. The Tribunal established the principle that default surcharge and penalty provisions under the Sales Tax Act 1990 cannot be invoked independently when the underlying principal tax liability has already been discharged by the taxpayer before the issuance of a show-cause notice. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed unsustainable as the statutory conditions for triggering such penalties were not met.

  Questions settled

  • Can default surcharge and penalty be imposed under the Sales Tax Act 1990 if the principal tax liability is discharged before the issuance of a show-cause notice?
  • Does the retrospective application of Section 11E of the Sales Tax Act 1990 apply to tax periods prior to its enactment?
  • Is an assessment order sustainable if the adjudicating officer fails to consider the taxpayer's evidence regarding the timing of tax payments?
  Read full judgment →
• WAQAS PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS, PESHAWAR Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (UNIT-21-PESHAWAR ZONE), RTO, PESHAWAR2026 PTD 341 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2023-08-25
  sales taxwithholding sales taxexempt suppliestext booksmanufacturing processprinting servicestax assessment
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal was filed by a registered person against the appellate order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), which had partially upheld a sales tax demand created by the Assessing Officer concerning the supply of books to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Text Book Board. The core legal question was whether the printing and supply of books exempt from sales tax under the Sixth Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 are liable to sales tax and withholding sales tax under the Sales Tax Special Procedure (Withholding) Rules, 2007. Relying on binding high court precedents, the tribunal held that since the supply of books is exempt under section 13 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the withholding agent has no responsibility to withhold general sales tax on such exempt supplies, and the printing of books constitutes manufacturing rather than a taxable service under the Act. The tribunal ultimately set aside the impugned tax demands and allowed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Are supplies of books exempt from sales tax under section 13 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 subject to withholding sales tax?
  • Does the process of printing and publishing books fall within the definition of manufacturing under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Is a registered person entitled to claim input tax adjustment on goods used in making supplies that are totally exempt from general sales tax?
  • Does a withholding agent have the responsibility to withhold sales tax when making payments against goods that are exempt from the levy of tax?
  Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, LAHORE Versus PREMIUM LEATHER (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE2026 PTD 307 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2025-04-21
  withholding taxfiscal exemptionstatutory interpretationtax liabilityspeaking orderIncome Tax Ordinance 2001appellate tribunal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This tax appeal concerns a dispute over withholding tax liability under Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Commissioner Inland Revenue challenged an appellate order that deleted a tax demand against a leather processing company. The core legal question was whether the reduced 1% withholding tax rate under Clause 45A, Part IV of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, applies broadly to all business payments or is restricted to local sales, supplies, and services. The Tribunal held that exemption provisions in fiscal statutes must be construed strictly against the taxpayer. It determined that Clause 45A is limited to local sales, supplies, and services, rejecting the taxpayer's claim for a blanket exemption on all expenses. Furthermore, the Tribunal criticized the appellate commissioner for issuing a non-speaking order based on unsubstantiated evidence. The Tribunal established that where an exemption clause is susceptible to two interpretations, the one favoring the state must be adopted. Consequently, the Tribunal partially allowed the department's appeal, modifying the original tax assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the reduced withholding tax rate under Clause 45A, Part IV of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 apply to all business payments or only to local sales, supplies, and services?
  • Must exemption clauses in fiscal statutes be construed strictly against the taxpayer?
  • Is an appellate order valid if it deletes a tax demand without analyzing the evidence or providing a speaking order?
  • Under what circumstances does Section 161(1B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 relieve a withholding agent from liability for non-deduction of tax?
  Read full judgment →
• KINGCRETE ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CTO, LAHORE2026 PTD 179 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2025-09-29
  amended assessmentlimitation periodtime-barred assessmentextension of timeincome tax appealmandatory provision
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This tax appeal was preferred by the taxpayer company against an amended assessment order passed by the assessing officer for the tax year 2018 under section 122(1)/122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, whereby an addition of a substantial amount was made regarding the purchase of properties. The core legal question revolved around whether the amended assessment order was finalized beyond the stipulated statutory time limit and whether an extension granted by the Commissioner Inland Revenue exceeding ninety days was lawful. The Appellate Tribunal held that the first proviso to section 122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is mandatory in nature, strictly limiting any extension of time by the Commissioner to a maximum of ninety days, and that extensions granted beyond this period are patently illegal. The Tribunal concluded that even after excluding permissible adjournments taken by the taxpayer and allowable extensions, the impugned assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period, rendering it time-barred, void ab-initio, and legally unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that statutory time limits and restrictions on extensions for finalizing tax assessments are mandatory, and failure to pass an assessment order within the prescribed timeframe vitiates the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the first proviso to section 122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 regarding the time limit for passing an amended assessment order is mandatory in nature?
  • Can the Commissioner Inland Revenue grant an extension of time exceeding ninety days under the first proviso to section 122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • What is the legal effect of an assessment order passed beyond the stipulated statutory time limit under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAFAR ASLAM KHAN, PESHAWAR Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-SOUTH, RTO, ISLAMABAD2026 PTD 150 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2024-12-17
  appeal maintainabilityscanned signaturepower of attorneyincome tax appealprocedural complianceappellate tribunal inland revenue
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal was filed by the taxpayer under Section 131 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, challenging an assessment order passed for the tax year 2018. The core legal questions involved the validity of filing an appeal using electronically scanned signatures, the requirement of personal or properly authorized physical filing under the Income Tax Rules, 2002, and whether the Power of Attorney explicitly authorized the representative to file the appeal. The Tribunal held that appeals before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue must be physically filed using the prescribed form and manual signatures, as no electronic filing mechanism or acceptance of scanned signatures is provided under the relevant law, and that the Power of Attorney failed to explicitly empower the representative to institute the appeal. The Tribunal laid down the principle that procedural requirements regarding manual signatures and explicit authorization in a Power of Attorney for filing an appeal are mandatory, and scanned signatures do not satisfy legal authentication standards.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue can be validly filed using an electronically scanned signature?
  • Does a general authorization to represent a taxpayer in appeal proceedings include the distinct legal act of filing an appeal?
  • Whether the use of scanned signatures on an appeal, condonation application, and affidavit complies with the requirements of Rule 77 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• TARIQ ULLAH SUFI Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, AEOI, LAHORE2026 PTD 1201 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2025-10-23
  Capital Value TaxForeign AssetsSunset LegislationTax ImmunityStare DecisisJurisdiction of AEOI ZoneFinance Act 2022FADRA 2018
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal challenges an order by the DCIT Range-I AEOI-Zone, Lahore, demanding Capital Value Tax (CVT) on foreign assets under the Finance Act, 2022. The taxpayer contested the levy, citing pending litigation regarding the statute's constitutionality, challenging the jurisdiction of the AEOI Zone, and claiming immunity under the Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation) Act, 2018 (FADRA). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the mere pendency of appeals against a statute's vires does not suspend its operation absent a stay order. Regarding jurisdiction, the Tribunal relied on the principle of stare decisis, affirming the AEOI Zone's authority based on prior settled decisions. Crucially, the Tribunal ruled that FADRA, being a temporary sunset legislation, provides immunity only for the specific assets declared under that scheme and does not confer perpetual immunity from future taxes. The imposition of CVT under the Finance Act, 2022 is a valid exercise of legislative power under Article 77 of the Constitution, operating independently of the expired FADRA scheme. The demand for CVT was thus upheld as legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere pendency of an appeal challenging the vires of a statute operate as a stay against the levy of tax under that statute?
  • Does the Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation) Act, 2018 provide perpetual immunity from future taxation for assets declared under its scheme?
  • Is the AEOI Zone authorized to collect Capital Value Tax under the Finance Act, 2022?
  • Can a temporary or sunset legislation override the constitutional taxing power of Parliament regarding future tax liabilities?
  Read full judgment →
• DIAMOND CLOTHING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, FAISALABAD2026 PTD 1180 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2026-06-04
  Sales Tax Act 1990audit selectionmaintainability of appealappellate tribunalpreliminary noticeexpressio unius est exclusio alteriussub-silentioper incuriam
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This statutory appeal was instituted by a registered taxpayer before the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal challenging an audit selection intimation and record-requisition notice issued under Section 25 read with Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The department raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, asserting that an audit selection notice does not constitute an appealable order. The primary legal issue was whether a notice selecting a taxpayer for audit and requisitioning documents under Section 25 equates to an 'order' appealable before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 46 read with Section 45B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Tribunal held that the appeal was incompetent and non-maintainable in limine. It ruled that the right of appeal is strictly statutory and not inherent. Applying the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius and noting the conscious legislative deletion of Section 25 from Section 45B via the Finance Act, 2025, the Tribunal affirmed that investigative audit selection notices are purely preliminary, determine no liabilities, and do not constitute adjudicatory orders amenable to appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an intimation notice selecting a taxpayer for audit and requisitioning records under Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 constitutes an appealable order under Section 46 read with Section 45B?
  • Can a right of appeal be inferred by judicial interpretation when the legislature has consciously omitted a statutory provision from the list of appealable orders?
  • Does an earlier tribunal decision that resolved a dispute on merits without considering or deciding the preliminary question of maintainability operate as a binding precedent or fall under the doctrine of sub-silentio?
  Read full judgment →
• IMRAN ASHRAF Versus GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR2026 PTD 221 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-11-10
  constitutional petitionadvance taxwithholding tax agentdouble taxationultra virespresumption of constitutionalitytaxation on retailers
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This constitutional petition filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974 challenged the ultra vires nature and constitutional validity of Section 236H of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, as adapted via the Finance Act 2024. The petitioners, acting as registered distributors and wholesalers, contended that forcing them to collect advance tax from retailers under Section 236H constitutes unlawful double taxation alongside existing levies under Sections 153 and 236G. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition, holding that Section 236H imposes advance tax on retailers rather than distributors, who merely serve as statutory withholding agents. The Court held that Sections 153, 236G, and 236H apply to distinct transactions and separate stages in the supply chain without amounting to double taxation. The decision established that tax policy and collection mechanisms fall within the legislative domain, that enactments carry a strong presumption of constitutionality, and that where revenue laws allow two reasonable interpretations, the one favoring the revenue should be adopted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 236H of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 constitutes double taxation alongside Sections 153 and 236G?
  • Whether wholesalers and distributors acting as withholding agents are aggrieved parties to challenge advance tax levied on retailers under Section 236H?
  • Which interpretation should be adopted when a revenue law is susceptible to two equally plausible interpretations?
  Read full judgment →
• SCEPTRE (PVT.) LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2026 PTD 925 · Federal Constitutional Court · 2026-01-23
  tax raidstatutory interpretationsearch and seizureIncome Tax Ordinanceenforcement powerstaxpayer rights
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner challenged a Sindh High Court decision upholding a tax raid conducted under Section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether Section 175 requires the existence of on-going proceedings against a taxpayer as a prerequisite for tax authorities to conduct a search and seizure. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 175 does not require pending proceedings to be triggered. The Court established that statutory interpretation must begin with the plain, ordinary meaning of the text. Where legislative language is express and unequivocal, courts cannot qualify or dilute it by reading in implied conditions like 'pending proceedings.' The Court explicitly disagreed with the precedent in Agha Steels Industries v. Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation, which had suggested such a requirement. However, the Court clarified that while the power under Section 175 is not contingent on pending proceedings, it is not unfettered; it is conditional upon the 'enforcement' of a provision of the Ordinance, which implies a breach of law must exist, necessitating an explicit, written statement by the Commissioner regarding the provision being enforced and the reasons for the action to prevent abuse.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 require the existence of pending proceedings against a taxpayer before a search and seizure can be conducted?
  • Can courts read implied conditions into a statute when the legislative language is express and unequivocal?
  • Is the power of the Commissioner to search premises under Section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 unfettered?
  • What is the requirement for the Commissioner to invoke the power of search and seizure under Section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• MATRACON PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED, ISLAMABAD Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SALES TAX ON SERVICES, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chairman, Peshawar2026 PTD 802 · Federal Constitutional Court · 2026-02-02
  sales tax on servicesvires of statuteconstitutional interpretationfederal constitutional courtconstruction servicesdouble taxationinput tax adjustment
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitions challenged the constitutional validity of Serial No. 14 of Schedule 2 to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sales Tax on Services Act, 2022, arguing that it infringed upon the Federal Government's exclusive domain over sales tax on goods under Entry 49 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions involved the vires of the provincial sales tax on construction services encompassing goods, and the jurisdictional competence of the Federal Constitutional Court to adjudicate tax references involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation. The Court held that Serial No. 14 is intra vires the Constitution as it imposes tax strictly on services rather than goods, and that under Article 175E(5) of the Constitution 1973, the Federal Constitutional Court possesses the jurisdiction to call for the record of any case, including tax references, provided a substantial question of constitutional interpretation is involved. The petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Serial No. 14 of Schedule 2 to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sales Tax on Services Act, 2022 is ultra vires Entry 49 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the Federal Constitutional Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate tax references involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation under Article 175E(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a provincial revenue authority levy sales tax on the entire contractual consideration that includes both services and goods without bifurcation?
  Read full judgment →
• D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED Versus The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Islamabad2026 PTD 625 · Federal Constitutional Court · 2026-01-27
  super taxincome tax ordinanceconstitutional viresretrospective taxationpetroleum concession agreementsexploration and production companiesbanking companiesexemption certificates
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter involves appeals and petitions concerning the constitutional vires and applicability of super tax under sections 4B and 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, introduced via the Finance Acts of 2015 and 2022 respectively. The core legal questions address the legislative competence to enact these provisions retrospectively, their applicability to oil exploration and petroleum companies, banking companies, capital gains, and exempt benevolent and provident funds, alongside challenges regarding sector-based classifications under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Federal Constitutional Court held that sections 4B and 4C are intra vires the Constitution and constitute valid standalone taxes on income falling within Entry 47 of the Fourth Schedule. The Court ruled that section 4C applies retroactively for tax year 2022 and onwards, and that the sector-specific classifications and rates are constitutionally permissible. Furthermore, the Court clarified the application of the provisions to oil exploration and petroleum companies subject to their respective Petroleum Concession Agreements and Fifth Schedule protections, while exempting provident and benevolent funds holding valid exemption certificates. The appeals and petitions were disposed of accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 4B and section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are intra vires the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether section 4C applies retroactively to income arising in tax year 2022?
  • Does the imposition of super tax under sections 4B and 4C override the protections and thresholds provided to oil exploration and petroleum companies under the Fifth Schedule and their Petroleum Concession Agreements?
  • Are benevolent and provident funds holding valid exemption certificates liable to pay super tax under section 4C?
  • Is the classification of specific sectors subjected to a higher rate of super tax under the First Proviso to Division IIB of the First Schedule discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD USMAN, KARACHI Versus The DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CUSTOMS VALUATION, CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI2026 PTD 884 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2025-07-28
  Customs valuationValuation rulingReview petitionSection 25-DRemand orderCustoms Act 1969Transaction value
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal challenged an order passed by the Director General (DG) Valuation, who, while reviewing a Valuation Ruling under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, remanded the matter back to the Director of Valuation for re-determination. The core legal question was whether the DG Valuation possesses the authority to remand such matters or is statutorily required to resolve them personally. The Customs Appellate Tribunal held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable. The Tribunal clarified that Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, does not empower the DG Valuation to remand a Valuation Ruling. Instead, the statute explicitly mandates that the DG must either rescind the existing ruling or determine the value afresh. The Tribunal established the principle that the DG Valuation functions as a reviewing authority, not an appellate forum, and is obligated to personally conduct the review process to ensure conclusive redressal of grievances, rather than delegating the task back to the subordinate authority that issued the original ruling.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, empower the Director General Valuation to remand a Valuation Ruling to the Director of Valuation?
  • Is the Director General Valuation, when exercising powers under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, an appellate forum or a reviewing authority?
  • What are the statutory options available to the Director General Valuation upon the filing of a review petition under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• WAHID ULLAH Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION)2026 PTD 163 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2024-01-18
  customs appealsmugglinghigh speed dieseloutright confiscationredemption finetampered chassisforensic science laboratory reportoil tanker seizure
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This customs appeal arises from an Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs (Adjudication), wherein two oil tankers transporting High Speed Diesel under the garb of solvent oil were seized along with the offending goods, and one of the vehicles (TUB-572) was ordered to be confiscated outright due to alleged tampering of its chassis number based on a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. The core legal question was whether an FSL report indicating tampering is sufficient to warrant the outright confiscation of a vehicle as a smuggled vehicle without conclusive proof, and whether the owner should be allowed the option to redeem the vehicle. The Customs Appellate Tribunal held that a sketchy or non-specific FSL report regarding chassis tampering is insufficient to establish that a vehicle is smuggled. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, setting aside the outright confiscation and permitting the appellant to redeem the seized vehicle upon payment of a redemption fine equal to twenty percent of its value, in accordance with Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969. The key principle laid down is that vague or uncorroborated FSL reports regarding vehicle tampering cannot form the sole conclusive basis for declaring a transport vehicle as smuggled or subjecting it to outright confiscation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sketchy or non-conclusive FSL report regarding chassis tampering sufficient proof to establish that a vehicle is smuggled?
  • Can a transport vehicle seized during internal movement without exclusive use for smuggling be subjected to outright confiscation?
  • Is the owner of a seized vehicle entitled to an option of redemption under Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 when no direct involvement in smuggling is proven?
  • What evidentiary value does a forensic laboratory report hold when it fails to specify the exact nature or purpose of alleged vehicle tampering?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAHEER & CO. Versus COMMISSIONER APPEALS-I, SINDH REVENUE BOARD, KARACHI2026 PTD 961 · Board of Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Sindh · 2024-03-11
  default surchargesales tax on servicesmens reatax assessmentlate payment of taxappellate tribunal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The appellant challenged an order confirming a default surcharge imposed under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011, after the principal tax amount was paid prior to the original assessment order. The core legal question was whether a default surcharge under section 44 of the Act can be sustained when the principal tax due has already been paid before the passing of the original order and the appellate authority has deleted the penalty under section 43 due to a lack of mens rea. The tribunal held that the imposition of a default surcharge is unjustified under such circumstances because the statutory scheme contemplates default surcharge as an addition to existing tax or penalty liability, and where no tax or penalty remains due at the time of the original assessment order, the proceedings ought to be concluded. The tribunal laid down that default surcharge cannot be levied in isolation when the principal tax has been paid prior to the assessment order and no willful default or sustainable penalty exists.

  Questions settled

  • Whether default surcharge imposed under section 44 of the Act, 2011 is justified when the principal tax amount is paid prior to the passing of the original assessment order?
  • Is the existence of mens rea a necessary ingredient for imposing penalties under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011?
  • Can a default surcharge under section 44 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 be sustained independently when no tax or penalty under section 43 remains due?
  Read full judgment →
• SUNDER MEHRAN BUILDERS Versus COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-I), SINDH REVENUE BOARD, KARACHI2026 PTD 650 · Board of Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Sindh · 2023-10-31
  tax penaltyaudi alteram partemmens reaservice of noticeSindh Sales Tax on Services Act 2011doctrine of proportionalitytax return filing
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal concerns a challenge to a penalty imposed by the Sindh Revenue Board for the appellant's failure to file tax returns under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011. The core legal questions addressed whether the appellant was duly served with a show-cause notice, whether the principle of audi alteram partem was violated, and whether mens rea existed to justify the penalty. The Tribunal held that the appellant was properly served and deliberately abstained from proceedings, thereby negating the claim of being condemned unheard. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that mens rea was established by the appellant's willful non-compliance. However, noting that the appellant had filed "NULL" returns and caused no actual loss to the government exchequer, the Tribunal applied the doctrine of proportionality. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to a token amount of Rs. 5,000. The judgment reaffirms that while obedience to law is an inviolable obligation, penalties must correspond to the gravity of the wrong and the specific circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply when a party is properly served but deliberately chooses to remain absent from proceedings?
  • Can mens rea for the non-filing of tax returns be inferred from a taxpayer's willful absence despite valid service of a show-cause notice?
  • Is the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, rebuttable by the taxpayer?
  • Does the doctrine of proportionality require a reduction in penalty when a taxpayer fails to file returns but causes no actual loss to the government exchequer?
  Read full judgment →
• NAEEM FISH FRY Versus COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-I), SINDH REVENUE BOARD, KARACHI2026 PTD 525 · Board of Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
  sales tax registrationcompulsory registrationtax exemptionpenalty impositionutility bill thresholdSindh Sales Tax on Services Acttax compliance
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Sindh Revenue Board, which confirmed a penalty of Rs. 100,000 imposed on the appellant for failing to register under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011. The core issues were whether the appellant was liable for compulsory registration despite claiming a turnover-based exemption, and whether the imposed penalty was legally justified. The Tribunal held that the appellant was liable for registration because, although the turnover was within the exemption limit, the monthly utility bills exceeded the threshold of Rs. 40,000. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, ruling that the statutory provision mandates a minimum penalty of Rs. 100,000 in cases of non-compliance with a notice for compulsory registration. The Tribunal clarified that Section 43 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011, distinguishes between voluntary non-registration and non-compliance with compulsory registration notices, with the latter triggering a mandatory minimum penalty, leaving no discretion for the assessing officer to reduce the amount.

  Questions settled

  • Is a restaurant liable for compulsory registration under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011, if its monthly utility bills exceed the prescribed threshold despite its turnover being below the exemption limit?
  • Does the penalty provision under Section 43 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011, allow for discretion in reducing the penalty amount when a taxpayer fails to comply with a notice for compulsory registration?
  • What is the distinction between the penalties applicable for voluntary non-registration versus non-compliance with a compulsory registration notice under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011?
  Read full judgment →
• HUFFAZ SEAMLESS PIPE INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-III), SINDH REVENUE BOARD, KARACHI2026 PTD 509 · Board of Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Sindh · 2024-09-13
  Workers Welfare FundCouncil of Common Interestsstatutory periodappellate tribunaljurisdictiondouble taxationpenalties
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The appellant challenged the confirmation of an order directing payment of Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) along with penalties and default surcharge. The core legal questions involved whether the appellate order was barred by the statutory period, the validity of levying WWF by provincial authorities contrary to decisions of the Council of Common Interests, and the justification of penalties. The Appellate Tribunal held that orders passed beyond the statutory period by the Commissioner (Appeals) without valid justification are void, treating the appeal as transferred to the Tribunal under section 59(7) of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011. Furthermore, based on the constitutional role of the Council of Common Interests and decisions maintaining WWF under federal collection until a mutually agreed mechanism is developed, the provincial levy and associated penalties were held to be unjustified. The Tribunal laid down principles regarding the mandatory nature of Council of Common Interests decisions under the Constitution and the prospective application of fiscal circulars.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an appellate order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011?
  • Whether the assessing officer was justified in levying Workers' Welfare Fund when its collection is governed by decisions of the Council of Common Interests?
  • Does a circular restricting tax adjustments have retrospective effect in the absence of explicit provision?
  • Whether the imposition of penalties and default surcharge is sustainable when the principal liability itself is unjustified?
  Read full judgment →
• KARACHI AERO CLUB (GUARANTEE) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-II), SINDH REVENUE BOARD, KARACHI2026 PTD 274 · Board of Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Sindh · 2025-03-20
  taxable serviceskill-based trainingpilot training coursesales tax registrationpenalty for non-registrationcompulsory registrationSindh Sales Tax on Services Act
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The appellant, Karachi Aero Club (Guarantee) Ltd., assailed an appellate order confirming a penalty of Rs. 100,000 imposed under Serial No. 1 of the Table under section 43 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 for failing to obtain registration before providing taxable services. The core legal questions were whether the appellant's economic activity of offering on-ground and flying courses (including Private and Commercial Pilot License courses) constitutes taxable service requiring registration, and whether the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 100,000 for compulsory registration non-compliance was justified. The Appellate Tribunal held that the appellant's activities amount to skill-based professional training rather than mere educational training, thereby falling within the definition of taxable service under section 2(98AA) of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011. The Tribunal further held that since the appellant failed to respond positively to the notice for voluntary registration, compulsory registration and the consequential minimum penalty of Rs. 100,000 under section 43 were fully justified. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pilot training courses and flight training provided by an aero club constitute taxable services requiring registration under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011?
  • What is the distinction between educational training and skill-based professional training in the context of sales tax on services?
  • Whether the imposition of a minimum penalty of Rs. 100,000 under Serial No. 1 of the Table under section 43 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 is justified upon compulsory registration following non-compliance with a notice?
  Read full judgment →
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (ENFORCEMENT), CUSTOM HOUSE AIRPORT ROAD, QUETTA Versus ARZ MUHAMMAD2026 PTD 900 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-08-20
  customs referenceredemption fineconfiscation of vehiclesmuggled goodsappellate tribunalfact-finding forumcustoms act
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns consolidated customs references filed by the Collector of Customs challenging judgments of the Customs Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had modified original adjudication orders by allowing the release of vehicles seized for transporting smuggled goods, subject to payment of redemption fines. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising reference jurisdiction under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, could interfere with the Tribunal’s factual findings regarding the confiscation of these vehicles. The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding forum, and the High Court cannot re-examine factual determinations unless a distinct question of law is presented. The Court observed that the Customs authorities failed to establish that the vehicles were used exclusively for smuggling or contained false cavities, which are necessary conditions under SRO 499(I)/2009 to deny the option of a redemption fine. Consequently, the Court dismissed the references, affirming that in the absence of a legal error or misappreciation of facts, the Tribunal's decision remained unamenable to interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with factual findings of the Customs Appellate Tribunal under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • What criteria must be established to deny the option of a redemption fine for a vehicle seized under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is the Customs Appellate Tribunal the final forum for determining factual controversies in customs matters?
  Read full judgment →
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (ENFORCEMENT), CUSTOM HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, QUETTA Versus SHER ALI2026 PTD 662 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-07-02
  customs appealtribunal jurisdictionsingle member benchcoram non judicestatutory interpretationcustoms dutybench composition
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns custom reference applications challenging judgments passed by a Single Member (Judicial) of the Customs Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question is whether a Single Member (Judicial) possesses the jurisdiction to decide appeals involving duty, taxes, penalties, or fines exceeding five million rupees under Section 194-C of the Customs Act, 1969. The Court held that the impugned judgments were coram non judice because the statutory framework mandates that such high-value appeals must be heard by a Special Bench comprising at least two members, including one judicial and one technical member. The Court clarified that the exception allowing a single member to sit singly under Section 194-C(4) is narrow, applying only when a previously constituted division bench is non-functional, and does not authorize a single member to adjudicate high-value matters as a matter of course. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the cases for de novo hearing before a properly constituted bench. The principle established is that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, and statutory requirements for bench composition are mandatory.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Single Member (Judicial) of the Customs Appellate Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide appeals involving duty, taxes, or fines exceeding five million rupees?
  • Can the jurisdiction of a Tribunal be conferred or waived by the consent of the parties?
  • Under what circumstances may a member of the Customs Appellate Tribunal sit singly to dispose of a case?
  • Is a judgment passed by a Tribunal member lacking the requisite jurisdiction considered coram non judice?
  Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONE-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, QUETTA Versus DEENAR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.2026 PTD 329 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-12-10
  Sales Tax Reference Appealinput tax adjustmentblacklisted suppliersflying invoicesburden of proofreverse onusbanking channel paymentSection 73 compliance
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The Commissioner Inland Revenue filed a Sales Tax Reference Appeal under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, challenging concurrent orders of the CIR(A) and the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which set aside an Order-in-Original disallowing input tax adjustment claimed by the respondent on supplies from subsequently blacklisted or suspended units. The core legal questions pertained to whether input tax adjustments can be invalidated retrospectively due to subsequent blacklisting of suppliers where purchases were made via crossed banking instruments when the suppliers were active, and whether the burden of proving allegations of tax fraud or illegal input tax claims lies with the tax authorities or the registered person. The High Court dismissed the reference appeal, holding that transactions conducted when suppliers are active and registered cannot be retrospectively invalidated solely due to their subsequent blacklisting, provided Section 73 is complied with. Furthermore, the Sales Tax Act contains no reverse onus provision; hence, the burden strictly rests on the tax department to establish alleged illegalities on the balance of probabilities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the subsequent blacklisting or suspension of a supplier automatically invalidate input tax adjustments claimed by a buyer who made purchases through proper banking channels when the supplier was active?
  • Under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, does the burden of proving that a registered person committed tax fraud or claimed inadmissible input tax lie upon the tax department or the taxpayer?
  • Is there any statutory provision in the Sales Tax Act, 1990 providing for reverse onus of proof regarding allegations of tax evasion or non-payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. SEEMA HANIF KHAN Versus WAQAS KHAN2026 PLD 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-09-19
  dissolution of marriagekhulacrueltypolygamybalance of probabilitiesmaintenancedowergender-sensitive reasoning
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the Peshawar High Court regarding the dissolution of marriage. The core legal questions involved whether a Family Court can sua sponte grant khula without the wife's consent, the standard of proof required to establish cruelty under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, and the legal consequences of a husband contracting an additional wife in violation of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Supreme Court held that khula is a distinct remedy requiring voluntary consent and cannot be judicially imposed, that the standard of proof for establishing cruelty and statutory grounds in family disputes is the balance of probabilities, and that contracting a second marriage without statutory permission constitutes a valid ground for dissolution and forfeiture of defenses. The court laid down principles emphasizing gender-sensitive judicial reasoning, rejecting patriarchal stereotypes, applying the civil standard of proof rather than requiring documentary evidence for domestic abuse, and upholding the wife's statutory rights to dower and maintenance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Family Court grant khula of its own accord without explicitly seeking the consent of the wife?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish cruelty under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939?
  • Does contracting an additional wife in contravention of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 constitute a valid ground for the dissolution of marriage?
  • Is documentary or medical corroboration mandatory to prove physical, mental, or emotional cruelty in matrimonial proceedings?
  • Does a wife's desire to pursue a career or education abroad amount to disobedience disentitling her from claiming maintenance?
  Read full judgment →
• JUSTICE TARIQ MEHMOOD JAHANGIRI, JUDGE, ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT Versus MIAN DAWOOD, ADVOCATE HIGH COURT2026 PLD 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-09-30
  quo warrantojudicial restraintinterim orderoffice objectionsspeaking orderadministrative functionsuperior court judgewrit jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an Islamabad High Court order restraining a High Court Judge from performing judicial functions during the pendency of a writ of quo warranto. The core legal question was whether a High Court possesses the authority to issue interim orders prohibiting a superior court judge from exercising judicial duties in such proceedings. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent in Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan, held that while quo warranto is maintainable against a superior court judge, the High Court cannot issue interim orders restraining the judge from performing official functions, as such power is restricted by Article 199(5) of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court emphasized that administrative office objections must be resolved through speaking orders before a matter proceeds on the judicial side, ensuring compliance with the principles of audi alteram partem and Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Consequently, the impugned restraining order was set aside, and the High Court was directed to decide the office objections first.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court issue an interim order restraining a superior court judge from performing judicial functions during the pendency of a quo warranto petition?
  • Are proceedings regarding office objections on the presentation of a writ petition administrative or judicial in nature?
  • Is a High Court required to pass a speaking order when deciding on office objections raised by the registry?
  • Does the power of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan include the authority to issue interim orders that a High Court cannot issue under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed BASIT HYDER TAQVI Versus State2026 PLD 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-30
  pre-arrest bailcounsel-client relationshipdishonoured chequeprofessional feesabuse of processfiduciary dutycriminal liability
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Sindh High Court's dismissal of the petitioner’s pre-arrest bail application in a case involving an advocate’s criminal complaint against his client for unpaid professional fees. The core legal question was whether an advocate may initiate criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against a client for the non-payment of fees. The Supreme Court held that the counsel-client relationship is fiduciary and disputes regarding professional fees are essentially civil in nature. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be utilized as a tool for civil recovery or to exert pressure on clients. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail to the petitioner. The judgment established that criminal liability under Section 489-F requires proof of mens rea (dishonest intent) and that lawyers must adhere to professional ethics, resolving fee disputes through civil remedies like the Contract Act 1872 or the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rather than resorting to the criminal justice system.

  Questions settled

  • Can an advocate initiate criminal proceedings against a client for the non-payment of professional fees?
  • Does the initiation of criminal proceedings for a civil fee dispute constitute an abuse of process?
  • Is a fiduciary relationship between counsel and client a bar to initiating criminal proceedings for fee recovery?
  • Must mens rea be established for a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• The PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore Versus T&T EMPLOYEES IDEAL COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED2026 PLD 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-25
  Cooperative Societies Act 1925Punjab Government Rules of Business 2011Administrative LawChief Minister's AuthorityStatutory InterpretationHarmonious ConstructionExecutive OversightWrit Jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that restricted the Chief Minister of Punjab's authority to initiate inquiries into cooperative societies. The core legal question was whether Clause 5 of the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, empowers the Chief Minister to order an inquiry into a society governed by the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, despite the Act's specialized regulatory mechanism. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by adopting a restrictive interpretation that rendered the Chief Minister's administrative oversight powers dormant. The Court ruled that while the Chief Minister possesses the authority to call for information or records under the Rules of Business, this administrative oversight must be distinguished from statutory functions. Consequently, the Court established that the Chief Minister is not excluded from exercising administrative oversight, provided that any formal action taken against a society strictly adheres to the procedural and substantive requirements prescribed by the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Clause 5 of the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, empower the Chief Minister to order an inquiry into the affairs of a cooperative society?
  • Can administrative rules of business override the specific regulatory mechanism provided under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Is the Chief Minister's power to call for records under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, limited by the existence of a specialized statutory regime for cooperative societies?
  Read full judgment →
• DIRECTOR GENERAL (HQS) CIVIL WORKS ORGANIZATION (CWO), RAWALPINDI Versus Syed WALI SHAH2026 PLD 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-10-17
  execution proceedingsjudgment-debtordecretal amountland acquisitionprocedural compliancemandatory depositcivil petition
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil petition challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's objections to an execution proceeding regarding land acquisition compensation. The core legal question was whether a government entity, as a judgment-debtor, is exempt from the mandatory requirement to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security under Order XXI, Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by invoking the exemption provisions of Order XXVII, Rule 8-A of the same Code. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Executing Court correctly rejected the objections due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the mandatory jurisdictional preconditions of Order XXI, Rule 23-A. The Court affirmed that Order XXVII, Rule 8-A does not override or dilute the specific requirements for filing objections in execution proceedings. The key principle laid down is that the requirement to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security under Order XXI, Rule 23-A is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite for a judgment-debtor to challenge execution, and this obligation applies to government entities notwithstanding general exemptions regarding security in appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XXVII, Rule 8-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, exempt a government entity from the requirement to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security under Order XXI, Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, during execution proceedings?
  • Is the deposit of the decretal amount or the furnishing of security a mandatory jurisdictional precondition for a judgment-debtor to file objections in execution proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Can a court consider objections filed by a judgment-debtor in execution proceedings if the judgment-debtor has failed to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security as required by law?
  Read full judgment →
• ABRAR HUSSAIN Versus Mst. BIBI SHAHIDA2026 PLD 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-08-29
  inheritanceco-sharersgiftpartitionmesne profitsecond appealabuse of process
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a second appeal dismissed by the High Court, affirming concurrent judgments of the lower courts that decreed a suit for declaration, partition, and recovery of mesne profits filed by respondent No.1 against her brother, the petitioner. The core legal question concerned the validity of the petitioner's claim of exclusive ownership based on a purported gift and agreement to sell, and whether he could lawfully exclude his siblings from their inheritance. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the execution and validity of the documents relied upon for the alleged gift, and that the estate devolved upon all legal heirs immediately upon the death of the predecessor-in-interest. The court reaffirmed that the right of inheritance is a divine and legal right which vests automatically, that the possession of one co-sharer is for the benefit of all, and that doctrines like adverse possession or waiver do not apply among co-heirs. Finding the petition to be an abuse of the judicial process, the Court dismissed it with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ownership of property devolves automatically upon all legal heirs immediately upon the death of the predecessor-in-interest?
  • Does the possession of one co-sharer in joint property operate as possession for the benefit of all co-sharers?
  • Can a defendant successfully claim an exclusive gift of ancestral property without producing attesting witnesses and proving valid offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession?
  • Do doctrines such as waiver, estoppel, relinquishment, or adverse possession apply amongst co-heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DIWAYA Versus DIRECTOR EDUCATION QUETTA2026 PLD 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-10-24
  fugitive disentitlement doctrineservice lawaccess to justiceproclaimed offenderdue processcivil rightsconstitutional remedies
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a service dispute where petitioners, Junior Vernacular Teachers, challenged the withholding of their salaries following allegations of fake appointments. The primary legal question was whether the status of an absconder or fugitive in a criminal case bars a person from pursuing civil or service remedies. The Supreme Court held that the 'Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine' is strictly confined to criminal proceedings and cannot be extended to civil or service-law contexts. The Court ruled that abscondence in a criminal matter does not extinguish or suspend independent civil or service rights unless a statute expressly provides otherwise. The holding emphasizes that the right of access to justice, protected under the Constitution, cannot be curtailed merely because a person is an accused or absconder in another domain of law. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal, directing the Tribunal to decide the service matter on its merits, as criminal status does not automatically disqualify a litigant from seeking judicial review of civil or service-related grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of an absconder or fugitive in a criminal case bar a person from pursuing civil or service remedies?
  • Can the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine be extended to civil or service-law contexts?
  • Does the status of a proclaimed offender automatically disqualify a person from instituting or defending a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RAZZAQ Versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES2026 PLD 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-04-22
  rectification of registercompanies act 2017limitation act 1908central depositaries act 1997doctrine of lachesequitable tollingresiduary limitationregister of members
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses whether a statutory period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1908, bars an aggrieved person from initiating proceedings for the rectification of a register of members under Section 126 of the Companies Act, 2017. The core legal questions involved the applicability of Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to petitions under Section 126, the nature of such proceedings, and the effect of Section 11 of the Central Depositaries Act, 1997. The Court held that proceedings for the rectification of a company's register under Section 126 of the Companies Act, 2017, are initiated by petition rather than a plaint or ordinary suit, and are not subject to the residuary limitation period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Furthermore, Section 11 of the Central Depositaries Act, 1997, bars rectification of the central depository register but does not extinguish the statutory remedy of rectifying the company's own register of members under the Companies Act, 2017. The key principle laid down is that no fixed statutory limitation period applies to register rectification under Section 126, and instead, issues of delay must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through equitable doctrines such as laches and equitable tolling.

  Questions settled

  • Whether there is a statutory period under the Limitation Act, 1908, that bars a person from commencing proceedings for register rectification under Section 126 of the Companies Act, 2017?
  • Does Section 11 of the Central Depositaries Act, 1997, prohibit the rectification of a company's own register of members?
  • Are proceedings for the rectification of a register under Section 126 of the Companies Act, 2017, subject to Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • How should the issue of delay be evaluated by courts in the absence of a fixed statutory limitation period for register rectification applications?
  Read full judgment →
• QAISER JABBAR Versus Syed MATI ULLAH SHAH2026 PLD 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-08-08
  illegal dispossessionpendency of civil litigationco-ownersremedial statutecriminal complaintremand
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition assails a judgment of the Islamabad High Court dismissing a criminal revision against the trial court's order, which had dismissed the petitioner's complaint under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 as not maintainable. The core legal question was whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is maintainable when civil litigation is pending between the parties and they are co-owners of un-partitioned land. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that pendency of civil litigation or being co-owners does not bar criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as civil and criminal liabilities operate independently. The court laid down the principle that trial courts must inquire into the merits of actual dispossession rather than summarily dismissing complaints on the grounds of pending civil disputes or un-partitioned status of the property, setting aside the lower courts' orders and remanding the matter for a proper determination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of civil litigation between contesting parties render a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 non-maintainable?
  • Can co-owners of un-partitioned land initiate proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against each other?
  • What are the mandatory conditions required to attract the provisions of section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • How should a trial court proceed when a police report fails to answer specific questions regarding the possession of immovable property in an illegal dispossession case?
  Read full judgment →
• ANWAR KENETH Versus State2026 PLD 326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-10-08
  BlasphemyBipolar Affective DisorderMens ReaBenefit of DoubtMental HealthCriminal LiabilityDeath Penalty
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The appellant, convicted under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for allegedly blasphemous content in a letter, challenged his conviction. During appeal proceedings, a court-constituted Medical Board diagnosed the appellant with Bipolar Affective Disorder. The Board concluded that the appellant likely suffered from significant mental disorder, including delusions and hallucinations, at the time of the alleged offense, and that the content of the offending letter reflected these symptoms. The core legal question was whether this medical evidence raised sufficient doubt regarding the mens rea required for the offense. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the medical evidence created a serious doubt regarding the existence of the necessary criminal intent. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and acquitted him. The principle laid down is that where medical evidence establishes a mental disorder that likely influenced the accused's actions, it negates the requisite mens rea, entitling the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a diagnosed mental disorder at the time of an offense negate the mens rea required for conviction under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can medical evidence regarding an accused's mental state, obtained post-conviction, be used to establish reasonable doubt regarding criminal intent?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove mens rea beyond reasonable doubt even when an accused raises a specific plea of mental incapacity?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. WAJIHA RASHEED Versus ADEEL AKHTER2026 PLD 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-08-27
  Khuladowerdissolution of marriagesubsequent eventsfamily court decreecrueltyHaq Mahr
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns the entitlement of a wife to retain dower, specifically immovable property, following the dissolution of her marriage. The petitioner, having obtained a decree for a plot of land as dower in an earlier suit, subsequently filed for dissolution of marriage. In the latter proceedings, the family court dissolved the marriage but found that the petitioner failed to prove cruelty by the respondent, thereby necessitating the restoration of dower. The High Court, considering this subsequent development, set aside the earlier decree for the plot, holding that the wife was not entitled to retain the dower upon dissolution of marriage absent proof of cruelty. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that courts may take judicial notice of subsequent events that render earlier decrees obsolete. The ratio is that where a marriage is dissolved without proof of cruelty, the wife is not entitled to retain dower, and an earlier decree for such dower becomes unenforceable upon the subsequent dissolution of the marriage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take into account subsequent events when deciding the validity of an earlier decree?
  • Is a wife entitled to retain dower if she fails to prove cruelty in a suit for dissolution of marriage?
  • Does a decree for dower become unenforceable if the marriage is subsequently dissolved via Khula?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHATTHA Versus SHEHNAZ AKHTAR ZAHOOR AHMED2026 PLD 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-11-18
  past maintenancemaintenance allowancecontinuing wronglimitation periodfamily suithusband's liabilityrights of wife
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal by leave arises from a family suit initiated by the respondent wife under the Family Courts Act, 1964, seeking recovery of past maintenance allowance. The core legal question concerns the extent of the period for which a neglected wife can claim maintenance and the maximum retrospective period the court can consider, factoring in the law of limitation. The Supreme Court held that arrears of maintenance constitute a debt owed by the husband, and since a husband's failure to provide maintenance amounts to a continuing wrong under Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a fresh cause of action arises month by month. The Court affirmed that Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies, allowing recovery of past maintenance for up to six years preceding the suit when the right to sue accrued. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the High Court's restoration of the Family Court decree.

  Questions settled

  • What is the maximum retrospective period for which a neglected wife can claim past maintenance under the law?
  • Does a husband's failure to pay maintenance constitute a continuing wrong under the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act, 1908 governs a suit for the recovery of past maintenance allowances?
  • When does the cause of action arise for a wife seeking the recovery of unpaid maintenance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAILA JAVED Versus NASIR KHAN2026 PLD 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-01-12
  dissolution of marriagekhulacrueltysecond marriagedowerarbitration councilfamily court jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which dissolved the petitioner's marriage on the basis of khula, thereby depriving her of her dower, despite her suit being grounded in cruelty and the respondent's unauthorized second marriage. The core legal questions were whether the court can suo motu convert a suit for dissolution of marriage into one for khula, and whether a husband's failure to comply with statutory requirements for a second marriage constitutes a valid ground for dissolution under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by unilaterally converting the suit to khula without the wife's express request, noting that khula is a distinct remedy requiring voluntary consent. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that contracting a second marriage without the Arbitration Council's permission, as required by the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, entitles the wife to dissolution under Section 2(iia) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. The principle established is that courts cannot convert a dissolution suit into khula without a clear, unequivocal statement from the wife, and statutory grounds for dissolution must be adjudicated upon when proven.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Family Court suo motu convert a wife's suit for dissolution of marriage into a decree for khula?
  • Does a husband's failure to obtain permission for a second marriage under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 constitute a valid ground for dissolution of marriage?
  • Is a wife entitled to her full dower when a marriage is dissolved on grounds of cruelty rather than khula?
  • Does the mere expression of aversion by a wife justify the court in granting khula without her express request?
  Read full judgment →
• ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE UNIT III ZONE-CANTT, RTO, RAWALPINDI Versus UMER TARIQ KHAN2026 PLD 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-01-27
  Sales Tax Actmandatory time limitOrder-in-Originalstare decisisbinding precedenttax assessmentfrivolous appeals
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arises from a petition filed by the tax authorities challenging an order of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside a tax assessment on the ground that the Order-in-Original was passed beyond the statutory time limit. The core legal question was whether the time period prescribed for passing an assessment order under the relevant tax statute is mandatory or directory. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the requirement to pass an order within the stipulated statutory period (such as 120 days) is mandatory in nature, reaffirming its previous binding precedents. The Court laid down the principle that statutory timelines limiting the powers of tax authorities to conclude proceedings are mandatory, and failure to adhere to them renders the assessment void. Furthermore, the Court deprecated the mechanical filing of appeals by government departments on settled questions of law, emphasizing institutional discipline, the doctrine of stare decisis, and the responsibility of the State as a fair litigant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time limit prescribed for passing an assessment or adjudication order under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 is mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure of a tax authority to pass an Order-in-Original within the statutory timeframe render the proceedings illegal?
  • Are judgments of the Supreme Court on tax matters binding on the Federal Board of Revenue and tax authorities under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• MOON DENTAL CLINIC, ISLAMABAD Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ISLAMABAD-WEST2026 PLD 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-12-12
  constitutional amendmentappellate jurisdictionSupreme CourtFederal Constitutional Courtrent matterproviso constructionmaintainabilityleave to appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter came before the Supreme Court upon an Office objection regarding the maintainability of a civil petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment rendered under Article 199 of the Constitution in a rent matter, following the introduction of the Twenty-Seventh Constitutional Amendment and Article 175F. The core legal question was whether the express exclusion of rent and family matters from the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court under the proviso to Article 175F(1)(c) operates to bar appeals before the Supreme Court under Article 185(3). Overruling the Office objection, the Court held that the proviso to Article 175F(1)(c) acts as a true proviso carving out rent and family matters from the operational scope of the Federal Constitutional Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, such matters do not fall under cases to which Article 175F(1) applies, meaning the bar in the proviso to Article 185(3) is not attracted, and petitions arising from rent matters remain maintainable before the Supreme Court subject to the grant of leave. The key principle laid down is that the exclusion of certain matters from the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court via a true proviso removes them from that court's scope entirely, thereby leaving them subject to the general appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185(3).

  Questions settled

  • Whether the exclusion of rent and family matters from the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court under Article 175F(1)(c) bars appeals before the Supreme Court under Article 185(3)?
  • Does a true proviso operate to carve out specific exceptions from the substantive enacting part of a constitutional provision?
  • Are civil petitions for leave to appeal arising out of rent matters maintainable before the Supreme Court under the constitutional framework following the Twenty-Seventh Constitutional Amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• SAJID KHAN Versus State2026 PLD 288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-10-10
  narcotics controlfederal supremacyrepugnancysentencing guidelinesconstitutional interpretationprovincial legislation
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, for possession of methamphetamine. The core legal question was whether a provincial law prescribing more stringent punishments for narcotics offences prevails over the Federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when the offence is registered under the latter. The Supreme Court held that under Article 143 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Federal legislation occupies the field regarding narcotics control and prevails over repugnant provincial laws. The Court ruled that the Trial and Appellate Courts erred by applying the provincial statute. Consequently, the conviction was converted to the Federal Act of 1997, and the sentence was reduced to align with the Federal law's sentencing guidelines. The key principle laid down is that where a conflict exists between Federal and Provincial legislation, the Federal law prevails, and sentencing must be governed by the applicable Federal statute to ensure uniformity in penal sanctions for national issues.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 prevail over the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 in cases of conflict?
  • Can a court convict an accused under a provincial narcotics law when the FIR was registered under the Federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the effect of Article 143 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 on conflicting provincial and federal penal statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE KHAN Versus MADRISA TALEEM-UL-QURAN KHAIRUL MADARIS, MULTAN2026 PLD 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-01-15
  escheatcivil revisionpleadings and proofsuo motu declarationinheritance disputewaqf deedjurisdiction of high court
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgments of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision and a review application regarding a property dispute between private parties. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in an inter se dispute between private parties without the Government being impleaded, could suo motu declare the property as escheat and direct the Government to take possession when no such plea, issue, or evidence existed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by traveling beyond the pleadings and making a collateral declaration of escheat without foundational facts being established or the Government being a party. The Court laid down the principle that courts are bound by the pleadings of the parties, and a declaration of escheat cannot be made incidentally in a private lis where it was neither pleaded nor put in issue, leaving the matter open for the Government to proceed independently in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can suo motu declare a suit property as escheat in the absence of pleadings, issues, or evidence regarding escheat?
  • Can a declaration of escheat be made incidentally or collaterally in a civil suit between private parties where the Government is not a party?
  • Are courts bound by the pleadings of the parties when granting relief or recording findings in a civil lis?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha ABID MAJEED KHAN Versus IDREES AHMED2026 PLD 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-02-18
  execution of decreemoney decreeCNIC blockingexecuting court powerscivil procedurejudgment debtor
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a civil petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that upheld an executing Court's decision to block the judgment debtor's Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) to compel satisfaction of a money decree. The core legal question was whether an executing Court possesses the inherent or statutory jurisdiction to order the blocking of a judgment debtor's CNIC as a mode of execution under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that such an order is legally unsustainable. The Court reasoned that while Section 51(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provides flexibility for execution, it does not authorize measures that deprive a debtor of essential aspects of daily life, such as a CNIC, which is necessary for normal living. The Court established the principle that in the absence of an express statutory provision—such as the specific rule introduced in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa jurisdiction—an executing Court cannot imply or exercise a general power to block a CNIC to enforce a money decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does an executing Court have the jurisdiction to order the blocking of a judgment debtor's CNIC to enforce a money decree?
  • Can the general power of execution under Section 51(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be interpreted to include the blocking of a CNIC?
  • Is the blocking of a CNIC a permissible mode of execution in the absence of an express statutory provision?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer Revenue / Collector District Bhakkar Versus ZULFIQAR2026 PLD 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-01-20
  civil suitdeclaration of titleallotmentmutation entryburden of prooflimitationdoctrine of electionrevenue jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land ownership where the respondents claimed title based on an allotment under R.L-II No.188 and subsequent mutation entries, which they allegedly purchased from the original allottee. The petitioners (the State) contended that the land belonged to the Thal Development Authority and was not amenable to private allotment. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, which was reversed by the appellate court, but subsequently restored by the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the respondents failed to produce the foundational allotment document (R.L-II No.188) in evidence, and its mere mention during cross-examination did not constitute proof. Furthermore, mutation entries do not confer title and, once disputed, the underlying transaction must be strictly proved. The Court also ruled that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 14 of the Limitation Act 1908, and that initiating a fresh civil trial after exhausting statutory revenue remedies violates the doctrine of election.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere reference to or admission of a document during cross-examination constitute legal proof of its existence and validity?
  • Can mutation entries in revenue records serve as a substitute for proof of title when the underlying transaction is disputed?
  • What is the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1908 for instituting a suit to set aside an act or order of a government officer made in an official capacity?
  • Does the doctrine of election bar a litigant from initiating a fresh civil trial after exhausting statutory remedies before the revenue hierarchy?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAHIR ZAKIR JAFFAR Versus State2026 PLD 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-20
  circumstantial evidenceCCTV footagedigital evidencesilent witness theorycapital punishmentcriminal appealforensic evidencemurder conviction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant for murder and related offenses, challenging the High Court's dismissal of his appeal and the enhancement of his sentence. The core legal questions addressed by the Court were whether criminal convictions can be predicated on circumstantial evidence, the admissibility and evidentiary value of CCTV footage, and whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt. The Supreme Court maintained the conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, maintained the conviction under Section 376(1) but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 364. The Court laid down the principle that while conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence is permissible, it requires a complete, unbroken chain of evidence inconsistent with innocence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that digital evidence, such as CCTV footage, constitutes primary evidence if it passes a two-step test regarding authenticity and source reliability. Under the 'Silent Witness' theory, such footage is admissible as substantive proof without requiring an eyewitness, provided its provenance and integrity are established through forensic verification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value and admissibility of CCTV footage in criminal proceedings?
  • Does digital evidence require corroboration by an eyewitness to be admissible as primary evidence?
  • What criteria must be met to establish the authenticity of digital evidence under the Silent Witness theory?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus Dr. SANA SATTAR2026 PLD 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-16
  child custodybest interests of the childright to be heardGuardians and Wards ActCRCupdating constructionreview petitionworking mother
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This review petition arises from a child custody dispute concerning two minor children, where the mother was initially granted custody by the appellate court, a decision upheld by the High Court and subsequently through a civil petition for leave to appeal before this Court. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of 'welfare of the minor' under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and constitutional protections, specifically focusing on the child's right to be heard and the best interests standard. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that Section 17 must be interpreted dynamically through the doctrine of updating construction to incorporate Articles 3 and 12 of the CRC, transforming the traditional paternalistic concept of 'welfare' into a rights-based, participatory standard. The key principles laid down include the mandatory judicial obligation to hear children directly in custody matters, the harmonization of domestic guardianship laws with international child rights frameworks and constitutional values, and the affirmation that a mother's professional employment status does not diminish her custodial suitability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 can be interpreted dynamically through the doctrine of updating construction to incorporate the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?
  • Is it a mandatory judicial obligation for courts to directly hear the voice of the child in custody and guardianship proceedings?
  • Does a mother's professional employment status negatively impact her suitability as a custodial parent?
  • How do the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan regarding dignity, life, and equality intersect with international child rights obligations in custody determinations?
  Read full judgment →
• ZUNAIR YOUNAS Versus State2026 PLD 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-22
  circumstantial evidencelast seen togethercustodial disclosuresArticle 40 QSOrule of consistencybenefit of doubtpolice recoveriesinvestigative flawscriminal appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The criminal petition arose from the conviction of the petitioner, Zunair Younas, under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder following an unnatural offence, which conviction was upheld by the High Court with a commutation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and admissibility of custodial disclosures under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the reliability of circumstantial and last-seen evidence, and the rule of consistency in cases of co-accused acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, noting critical flaws in recoveries, unexplained delays in ballistic reporting, withholding of forensic DNA evidence, and the parity of the petitioner's case with an acquitted co-accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the petitioner, and laid down mandatory procedural guidelines to ensure transparency and integrity in police investigations regarding custodial discoveries and recoveries.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential elements required for the valid invocation of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 regarding custodial disclosures?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence and last-seen testimony without independent corroboration and medical determination of the time of death?
  • Does the principle of consistency require the acquittal of a convict whose role is identical to that of a co-accused already acquitted by the High Court?
  • What procedural safeguards must law enforcement agencies observe to ensure the evidentiary reliability of recoveries made pursuant to custodial statements?
  Read full judgment →
• ZHONGZING TELECOM PAKISTAN (PVT) LIMITED Versus The IMPERIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PVT), LIMITED2026 PLD 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-11-13
  arbitration awardlimitation periodfiling of awardpetition for leave to appealresiduary limitationarbitrator
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court which set aside the dismissal of an arbitration award enforcement proceeding and remanded the matter. The core legal question concerns the applicability of Article 178 of the Limitation Act 1908 regarding the limitation period for filing an arbitration award in court. The Supreme Court held that Article 178 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies only when a party to the arbitration proceedings applies directly to the court for the filing of the award, requiring prior service of notice under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act 1940. It does not govern a situation where an award is filed by the arbitrator himself upon a party's request, which instead falls under the residuary limitation period. The Court laid down the principle that the preconditions for invoking Article 178 of the Limitation Act 1908 are strict and inapplicable when the arbitrator files the award on his own accord without a formal court application compelling him to do so.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Article 178 of the Limitation Act 1908 is attracted only when a party to the arbitration applies to the Court for filing of the Award?
  • Does Article 178 of the Limitation Act 1908 govern a request made by a party to the Arbitrator for filing the Award before the Court?
  • Under the scheme of the Limitation Act 1908, is any period of limitation prescribed for an Arbitrator or umpire when filing an Award before the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN Versus DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN2026 PLD 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-11-12
  Illegal Dispossession ActAbatement of appealRestoration of possessionSpecial law vs general lawCriminal procedureProperty rightsCivil consequences
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns the abatement of criminal appeals under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, following the death of a convict who was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to restore possession of land. The core legal question was whether an appeal against such a judgment abates entirely upon the convict's death or survives regarding the civil-consequence order for property restoration. The Supreme Court held that while the penal aspect of the conviction abates under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the appeal survives to the extent of the order for restoration of possession. The Court reasoned that the Act of 2005 is a special law designed to protect property rights, and its provisions regarding appeals, specifically Section 8-A, must prevail over the general abatement rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the appellate court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of the possession order, ensuring that remedial objectives are not frustrated by procedural lacunae. The legal heirs of the deceased convict must be afforded a hearing regarding the property dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against a conviction and an order for restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, abate entirely upon the death of the convict?
  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, prevail over the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding the abatement of appeals involving property restoration?
  • Can an appellate court adjudicate the issue of property restoration under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, after the death of the convict-appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• KHALID MEHMOOD Versus The DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, D.G.KHAN2026 PLD 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-08-21
  departmental proceedingsmisconductcustodial tortureillegal detentionacquittal in criminal caseenhancement of penaltypolice disciplinary rulesfundamental rights
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by police officials who were dismissed from service following departmental proceedings for grave misconduct involving illegal detention and torture. The core legal questions relate to whether acquittal in a criminal trial exonerates an accused official from departmental disciplinary proceedings, and whether a competent authority can enhance a penalty recommended by an authorized officer. The Supreme Court held that acquittal in a criminal case based on the benefit of doubt does not exonerate a public official from departmental proceedings for misconduct, and that the competent authority possesses the power to enhance penalties after providing due opportunity of being heard. The key principles laid down are that criminal misconduct and departmental misconduct are distinct; that illegal detention and custodial torture by law enforcement personnel constitute grave misconduct; and that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution mandate absolute protection against unlawful detention, torture, and extrajudicial actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal trial automatically exonerate a public official from departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  • Whether illegal detention and torture of a detainee by a police official constitute misconduct under service rules?
  • Does a competent authority have the power to enhance a penalty recommended by an authorized officer in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Are fundamental rights regarding protection against torture and illegal detention applicable to persons in custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. FAKHRA JABEEN Versus WASIF ALI2026 PLD 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-28
  Nikahnama interpretationdowerMehrcivil contractfamily lawMuslim Family Laws Ordinanceproperty rights
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a civil appeal regarding the interpretation of dower (Mehr) entries in a Nikahnama. The core legal question was whether columns 13 (cash dower) and 16 (property dower) of the Nikahnama are to be read conjunctively, making the property transfer contingent upon the non-payment of cash, or as independent, disjunctive obligations. The Supreme Court held that the Nikahnama is a civil contract where the intention of the parties, rather than the headings of the prescribed form, is paramount. The Court ruled that the entries in columns 13 and 16 are distinct and independent, meaning the property in column 16 became the wife's exclusive property upon the execution of the marriage contract. The Court emphasized that ambiguities in a Nikahnama must be scrutinized with caution, particularly given the potential for the bride to be in a disadvantageous position due to social and cultural norms. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the appellate court's decision that recognized the wife's entitlement to both the cash dower and the immovable property.

  Questions settled

  • Are columns 13 and 16 of the Nikahnama to be read conjunctively or disjunctively?
  • Does the heading of a column in the prescribed Nikahnama form conclusively determine the intention of the parties?
  • Is the entitlement to dower in the form of immovable property contingent upon the non-payment of cash dower?
  • How should ambiguities in a Nikahnama be interpreted regarding the rights of the bride?
  Read full judgment →
• COCA COLA PAKISTAN LTD. (The Coca-Cola Export Corporation, PB), Lahore Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LARGE TAXPAYERS OFFICE, LAHORE2026 PLD 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-11-12
  apportionment of deductionspresumptive tax regimesubordinate legislationamendment of assessmentincome taxreasonable basis
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arises out of an appeal concerning the interpretation and interplay between Section 67 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and Rule 13 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 regarding the apportionment of expenditures for tax year 2003. The core legal question was whether Rule 13 is mandatory and overrides the principle of 'any reasonable basis' provided in Section 67(1), making it the exclusive method for proration of expenses between Presumptive Tax Regime (PTR) and Non-PTR incomes. The Supreme Court held that the rule-making power under Section 67(2) is subordinate to the primary enactment, and Rule 13 cannot be given an exclusive or overriding effect to the exclusion of other reasonable bases. The Court ruled that as long as the basis adopted by the taxpayer is reasonable within the meaning of Section 67(1), it cannot be displaced simply because a rule framed by the Board provides a different formula, nor does adopting such a reasonable basis amount to income escaping assessment under Section 122(5). The appeal was accordingly allowed in favor of the taxpayer.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 13 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 have an exclusive or overriding effect over the principle of 'any reasonable basis' set out in Section 67(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a basis of apportionment adopted by a taxpayer be displaced solely because it differs from the formula provided under Rule 13 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002?
  • Does the adoption of a reasonable basis for apportioning expenditures under Section 67(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which differs from Rule 13, amount to income escaping assessment under Section 122(5)?
  Read full judgment →
• HASSAN KHAN Versus State2026 PLD 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-12-02
  rape convictionfornicationzina with consentminor offenceDNA evidencecriminal appealdelayed FIRSection 238 CrPC
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter involved a criminal appeal against a conviction for rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the offence of rape, citing a seven-month delay in the FIR and lack of physical evidence of resistance. The core legal question was whether the evidence supported a conviction for rape or if the circumstances warranted a conviction for the minor offence of fornication (zina with consent) under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court, by a majority, held that while the prosecution failed to prove the element of force required for rape, the evidence of sexual intercourse was established. Consequently, the Court invoked Section 238(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to convert the conviction from rape to fornication. The key principle laid down is that where a charge for a major offence is framed but the evidence establishes only a minor offence, the court may convict the accused for the minor offence, provided the ingredients of that minor offence are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court convert a conviction for rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to a conviction for fornication under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure to prove the element of force in a rape charge preclude a conviction for the minor offence of fornication?
  • Is an accused entitled to be convicted for a minor offence under Section 238(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the evidence for the major offence is insufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAKINA BI Versus BARKAT HUSSAIN2026 PLD 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-02-20
  declaratory suitwithdrawal of suitres judicatacivil proceduretitle to landappellate discretioncollateral attack
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal arose from a declaratory suit where the appellants sought ownership of land based on a judgment and decree from a previously withdrawn suit. The core legal question was whether a judgment and decree from a suit that was subsequently withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit remains valid and enforceable in subsequent litigation. The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of the first suit with permission to file a fresh suit effectively restores the parties to their original legal position as if the initial suit had never been instituted. Consequently, the previous judgment and decree were rendered ineffective and could not serve as a valid foundation for claiming title. The Court affirmed that such an order of withdrawal cannot be challenged collaterally in subsequent proceedings. The key principle laid down is that when a suit is withdrawn with leave to file a fresh one, the prior adjudication is nullified, and the parties cannot rely on it to establish rights or title in a new suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judgment and decree from a suit that was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit remain valid for the purpose of establishing title in subsequent litigation?
  • Can an order granting permission to withdraw a suit be challenged collaterally in a subsequent proceeding?
  • Does the withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh one restore the parties to the legal position as if the original suit had never been filed?
  • Is it permissible to amend a plaint to fundamentally alter the character of the claim under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IMRAN BAQIR Versus Mst. ZARNAIN ARZOO2026 PLD 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-07-10
  minor maintenancechild maintenancefather's financial capacityIslamic jurisprudencedissolution of marriagedowerdowry articlesearning capacity
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition against concurrent judgments of the family courts regarding maintenance, dower, and dowry articles. The primary dispute before the Supreme Court concerned the quantum of maintenance allowance awarded to the petitioner's minor son. The Supreme Court addressed the continuous obligation of a father under Islamic jurisprudence and Pakistani law to maintain his minor child, clarifying that this duty is independent of the mother's entitlement to maintenance and persists despite custody changes or marital dissolution. The Court held that maintenance encompasses all reasonable expenses for physical, mental, and emotional development, including healthcare and education, balanced against the child's needs and the father's earning capacity. Finding that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence of diminished income and possessed sufficient earning capacity, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings below.

  Questions settled

  • Does a father's obligation to maintain his minor child persist after the dissolution of marriage and irrespective of maternal custody?
  • Can a father avoid his legal obligation to pay child maintenance on the ground of unemployment where he possesses the earning capacity to work?
  • What factors determine the appropriate quantum of child maintenance under Islamic law and Pakistani statutory family law?
  Read full judgment →
• TAHIR alias TAHRI Versus State2026 PLD 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-29
  expectancy of lifecommutation of death sentencemitigating circumstancesinordinate delayprison conditionsdouble jeopardycapital punishmentcriminal justice system
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The appellant sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court upholding his convictions and death sentences on five counts for a 1991 daylight incident involving multiple murders. The core legal question concerned whether prolonged incarceration awaiting the conclusion of legal remedies entitles a convict to commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life under the rule of expectancy of life, and whether prison conditions constitute an unauthorized punishment. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the convictions but converting the death sentences to imprisonment for life on five counts. The Court held that while the rule of expectancy of life and inordinate, unjustified appellate delays coupled with poor prison conditions do not by themselves operate as a sole ground for commutation, they constitute critical mitigating and extenuating circumstances when combined with other factors such as youth, absence of prior criminal record, and doubtful weapon recovery, warranting the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a convict acquires expectancy of life as of right after serving a period of custody equal to or exceeding a full term of imprisonment for life during the pendency of legal remedies?
  • Can the principle of expectancy of life alone serve as a sole mitigating factor to commute a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  • Does prolonged incarceration in deplorable death cell conditions amount to an unauthorized punishment violating fundamental constitutional rights?
  • Whether the alteration of a sentence during appeal or revision proceedings constitutes double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• TAHIR KAZMI Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE2026 PLD 145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-14
  back benefitsconstructive continuitycivil servicereinstatementwrongful dismissalrestitutionservice jurisprudence
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  These petitions address the entitlement of civil servants to back benefits following reinstatement after the setting aside of dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement penalties. The core legal question concerns whether reinstatement automatically entitles a civil servant to back benefits and how the intervening period of absence should be treated. The Court holds that reinstatement, particularly when the foundational disciplinary order is declared unlawful, necessitates full restitution. It introduces the 'doctrine of constructive continuity,' which posits that a wrongfully removed civil servant is deemed to have remained in continuous service. Consequently, the civil servant is entitled to all salary, allowances, and service benefits that would have accrued had the unlawful act not occurred, subject only to lawful deductions or limitations arising from any modified penalty. This doctrine is rooted in constitutional guarantees of fairness, due process, and the right to livelihood. The Court concludes that denying back benefits without evidence of gainful employment elsewhere constitutes a disproportionate and unconstitutional penalty, necessitating the restoration of the employee's financial and service status quo ante.

  Questions settled

  • Does the reinstatement of a civil servant after the setting aside of a dismissal order automatically entitle them to back benefits?
  • What is the doctrine of constructive continuity in the context of service jurisprudence?
  • Can a civil servant be denied back benefits if they were not gainfully employed during the period of their wrongful removal?
  • How should the intervening period between a civil servant's removal and their subsequent reinstatement be treated for service record purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHID ALI Versus State2026 PLD 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-06
  last seen evidencechance witnessextra-judicial confessioncustodial confessionfair trialcircumstantial evidencemedia trialbenefit of doubt
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of a minor. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of a purported confession recorded by a journalist while the accused was in police custody, the evidentiary value of 'last seen' evidence, and the reliability of 'chance witness' testimony. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court held that a statement amounting to a confession made to a journalist while in police custody is inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as it violates the statutory protections regarding custodial statements. Furthermore, the Court ruled that 'last seen' evidence is circumstantial and insufficient for conviction without strong, independent corroboration. The judgment emphasized that police facilitating media interviews of accused persons in custody undermines the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. The Court directed relevant authorities to take measures to prevent such practices, asserting that the criminal justice system must strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards prescribed by law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a statement amounting to a confession made by an accused to a journalist while in police custody admissible in evidence?
  • Can a conviction for a capital offense be sustained solely on the basis of 'last seen' evidence?
  • Does the facilitation of media interviews of an accused person in police custody violate the right to a fair trial?
  • What are the legal requirements for the admissibility of a confession made by an accused while in police custody?
  Read full judgment →
• NASEEM MAI Versus Malik MUHAMMAD SHAH AALAM2026 PLD 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-07-07
  marriage expensesfamily courtfuture cause of actionmaintenance allowancesupreme courtleave to appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenges the Lahore High Court's judgment setting aside a decree for prospective marriage expenses in favor of the petitioners. The core legal question was whether a suit for future and indeterminate marriage expenses against a father is maintainable under the Family Courts Act, 1964. The Supreme Court held that while Islam emphasizes a father's duties to support his children, the law does not create a statutory obligation or enforceable legal debt for advance, speculative, or indefinite marriage expenses where no marriage date is fixed or preparations are underway. The ratio is that courts cannot adjudicate upon premature claims based on hypothetical causes of action. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that relief requires an actual infringement of existing rights, while preserving the petitioners' right to seek legal recourse when a proper cause of action arises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for future and indeterminate marriage expenses against a father is maintainable under the Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Can a court grant relief based on speculative or premature causes of action where no marriage date is fixed?
  • Does a father have a judicially enforceable statutory obligation to bear advance marriage expenses for his children?
  Read full judgment →
• KHURRUM JAVED Versus AHMED BILAL2026 PLD 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-30
  child custodybest interests of the childalternative dispute resolutionmediationco-parentingguardianship
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition arose from a custody dispute over a minor, Meher Fatima, between her father and her maternal grandmother. The Guardian Court initially denied the father's application for custody, granting it to the grandmother with visitation rights for the father. The Islamabad High Court subsequently set aside these concurrent judgments, ruling that a biological parent, if not unfit, should not be deprived of custody in favor of a third party. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the parties were encouraged to resolve the matter through mediation, guided by the principle of the 'best interests of the child' as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Supreme Court referred the dispute to an accredited mediator under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2017. The mediation process successfully resulted in a co-parenting settlement agreement covering custody, visitation, and educational arrangements. The Supreme Court accepted the settlement, disposed of the petition accordingly, and directed the Guardian Court to draw up a decree reflecting the agreed terms, thereby modifying the High Court's judgment to the extent of any inconsistency.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court refer a child custody dispute to mediation under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2017?
  • Does the principle of the best interests of the child justify the use of mediation in custody litigation?
  • Can a Supreme Court order modify a High Court judgment based on a settlement agreement reached through mediation?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF SINDH Versus ABDUL TAWAB2026 PLD 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-13
  limitationcondonation of delayland acquisitionsufficient causegovernment litigationvigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal was filed by the Province of Sindh challenging a High Court judgment that upheld a Referee Court's decision to enhance compensation in a land acquisition case. The core legal questions were whether the compensation enhancement was justified on merits and whether the 30-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on both grounds. Regarding the delay, the Court held that government departments are not entitled to preferential treatment or extraordinary clemency regarding limitation periods; they must be treated like ordinary litigants. The Court emphasized that administrative delays caused by inter-departmental procedures do not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation. The judgment reinforces the principle that the law aids the vigilant and not the indolent, and that the doctrine of equality before the law requires even-handed administration of limitation statutes. Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the lower court's decision, noting that the appellant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay.

  Questions settled

  • Are government departments entitled to preferential treatment or special consideration when seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals?
  • Does the administrative process of seeking inter-departmental instructions constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning a delay in filing an appeal?
  • Is the court required to delve into the question of limitation even if it is not specifically raised by the parties?
  • Does the law of limitation apply equally to the State and private litigants?
  Read full judgment →
• FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, through Chairman, Islamabad Versus Dr. SHUMAILA NAEEM2026 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-17
  civil service recruitmentdomicile changedirect recruitmentgender equalityfederal quotafrozen domicileconstitutional interpretation
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) against a High Court judgment that allowed a female civil servant to change her domicile during service for the purpose of 'direct recruitment.' The core legal question was whether a civil servant, having entered service with a specific domicile, can change it to that of her spouse during service to apply for a post designated for 'direct recruitment,' and whether such a change violates the 'frozen' domicile rule under Establishment Division Office Manuals. The Supreme Court dismissed the FPSC's petition, holding that while domicile is generally immutable upon entry into service to maintain federal parity, a limited, one-time exception exists for female civil servants to adopt their husband's domicile for 'direct recruitment' purposes. This interpretation aligns with constitutional guarantees of gender equality and non-discrimination. The Court affirmed that 'direct recruitment' includes in-service candidates and that the respondent's experience certificate, issued by the competent authority, was valid and binding.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant change their domicile after entry into government service for the purpose of 'direct recruitment'?
  • Does the domicile of a married female civil servant automatically shift to that of her husband upon marriage?
  • Are the terms 'direct recruitment' and 'initial recruitment' interchangeable in the context of Pakistani service law?
  • Does the Federal Public Service Commission have locus standi to challenge a decision made in its administrative capacity?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAFFAR-UL-HASSAN GILLANI Versus NABI SHAH INQELABI2026 PLD 5 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-02-13
  procedural compliancelegal representativesmaintainability of appealmandatory rulesinherent powerscivil procedure
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal arose from a dispute over land ownership and caste identity, where the appellant challenged a High Court judgment that had upheld an earlier decree in favor of the respondents. The core legal question was whether the appeal was maintainable given the appellant's failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements regarding the filing of lists of legal representatives for all parties involved in the underlying suits. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the appeal was incompetent due to the appellant's failure to annex the required lists of legal representatives for both suits, or alternatively, a certification from the trial Court confirming their non-existence, as mandated by the procedural rules. The Court emphasized that compliance with these rules is mandatory, and failure to adhere to them warrants dismissal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on this procedural ground without addressing the merits of the case, ruling that inherent powers could not be invoked to dispense with clear statutory requirements when the party was aware of the obligation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the filing of lists of legal representatives of plaintiffs and defendants mandatory under Order XIII, Rule 3(1-A) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978?
  • Can the Supreme Court invoke inherent powers to dispense with the mandatory requirement of filing lists of legal representatives when the appellant has failed to comply?
  • Does the failure to annex lists of legal representatives or a certification of their non-existence from the trial court render an appeal incompetent?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed NASEER BURHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT2026 PLD 32 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  civil servant promotiondelayed departmental promotion committeeseniority list litigationlegitimate expectationvacancies
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The matter involves the promotion of Sub-Inspectors to the post of Inspector (BPS-16), where 25 vacancies occurred in August 2015 but the Departmental Promotion Committee was delayed until October 2017 due to stay orders stemming from litigation over a flawed seniority list. The core legal question is whether civil servants are entitled to be considered for promotion from the date vacancies arise when the delay in holding promotion meetings is caused by the department's own flawed administrative actions and resultant litigation. The Supreme Court held that a civil servant's claim to promotion crystallises when the vacancy arises, and administrative delay caused by the department's own irregularities cannot prejudice eligible, blameless officers. The Court established the principle that delays resulting from departmental flaws cannot be deemed justified, and civil servants are entitled to have their promotions reckoned from the date vacancies originally arose, protecting the doctrine of legitimate expectation and constitutional guarantees of fair treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant's claim to promotion crystallize the moment a vacancy within their quota arises?
  • Can the administration plead delay caused by litigation resulting from its own flawed seniority list to deny backdated promotion?
  • Should delay in holding a Departmental Promotion Committee be assessed from a civil servant-centric lens regarding fault?
  Read full judgment →
• NEW FINE FLOUR AND RICE MILLS PVT. LIMITED Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT2026 PLD 26 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  Court feesMemorandum of appealCivil procedureFair trialRejection of plaintJudicial discretionSubstantial justice
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil matter concerns the rejection of a first appeal by the District Judge due to an inadequately stamped memorandum of appeal, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question is whether such rejection complies with legal standards when the court fails to first explicitly assess the exact deficiency and provide a reasonable opportunity for rectification. The Supreme Court held that the rejection was unlawful. It established that while the Court Fees Act 1870 and the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 grant courts discretion, they also impose a mandatory duty. Before rejecting a document for insufficient court fees, a court must ascertain the precise amount of the deficiency and grant the party a reasonable timeframe to remedy it. Failure to perform this essential exercise deprives the litigant of a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court emphasized that judicial processes must prioritize substantial justice over rigid technical compliance, ensuring that errors not stemming from intentional misconduct do not result in the denial of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate court required to explicitly determine the exact amount of court fee deficiency before rejecting a memorandum of appeal?
  • Does the failure of a court to grant a reasonable opportunity to rectify court fee deficiencies render the rejection of an appeal unlawful?
  • Are the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to a memorandum of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD Versus JALIL-UR-REHMAN TAREEN2026 PLD 17 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-11-19
  land acquisitionallotmentproprietary rightsproperty rightslachescontinuous wrongfundamental rights
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court, whereby a writ petition filed by the private respondents concerning ownership and compensation for land at Chatter Kalas, Muzaffarabad, was accepted. The core legal questions involved whether the respondents' allotment and Proprietary Rights Transfer Order (PRTO) were valid, whether the appellant (Education Department) could claim the land under a prior alleged allotment to the Agriculture Department, and whether the petition was barred by laches. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the respondents' title and allotment had already attained finality through a previous competent forum decision in 1993, whereas the Agriculture Department's alleged prior allotment was based only on an inadmissible photocopy and was never substantiated. The Court ruled that depriving citizens of property without compensation constitutes a continuous wrong, rendering the doctrine of laches inapplicable, and that the fundamental right to property is duly protected under Islamic principles and constitutional law. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of evacuee property upheld by a forum of exclusive jurisdiction can be subsequently challenged by a department without producing valid primary evidence of a prior competing allotment?
  • Does the doctrine of laches apply to a writ petition filed for the non-payment of compensation for land acquired for a public purpose?
  • Whether the Azad Government is the necessary party in a writ petition seeking compensation for land acquisition?
  • Can a citizen be deprived of property for a public purpose without the payment of fair compensation under Islamic law and the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• AURANGZEB SIDDIQUI Versus State2026 PLD 12 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-02-12
  death sentenceqisasconfirmation of death sentencedivision benchnecessary partieslegal heirsremand
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arose from a judgment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat Court, which confirmed the appellant's death sentence as Qisas under Section 302 of the Azad Penal Code. Two primary legal questions were addressed: first, whether the non-impleadment of the deceased's legal heirs rendered the appeal incompetent; and second, whether a single Judge of the Shariat Court possessed the jurisdiction to confirm a death sentence awarded as Qisas, or whether Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandated a bench of at least two Judges. The Court rejected the preliminary objection regarding non-impleadment, holding that legal heirs were not necessary parties where the trial originated from a State case rather than a private complaint. On the substantive jurisdictional issue, the Court held that confirming a death sentence as Qisas required hearing and judgment by at least two Judges. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remanded for constitution of a two-member bench.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal is incompetent if the legal heirs of the deceased are not impleaded when the criminal case proceeded on a State challan rather than a private complaint?
  • Can a single Judge of the Shariat Court confirm a sentence of death awarded as Qisas under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it mandatory under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for at least two Judges of the Shariat Court to hear and sign a judgment confirming a sentence of death, Qisas, or Hadood?
  Read full judgment →
• SAJIDA PARVEEN, JUNIOR TECHNICAL TEACHER B-09 Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Secretary Education (Schools), Muzaffarabad2026 PLD 10 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-01-09
  restoration applicationdismissal for non-prosecutionsufficient causeprocedural fairnessSupreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmirwrit petition
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal arises from an impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing a restoration application filed by the appellant after her writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether sufficient cause was shown for the non-appearance of the appellant's counsel on the date fixed for arguments. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the High Court erred in dismissing the restoration application and failing to demonstrate procedural fairness, given that the previously engaged counsel had requested an adjournment due to the newly engaged counsel's preoccupation before the Supreme Court and his attendance at a judicially noticeable memorial reference as President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. The Court laid down the principle that valid professional engagements of counsel and judicially noticeable events constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance, and tribunals must exercise discretion in accordance with principles of procedural fairness to ensure matters are decided on merits rather than dismissed summarily.

  Questions settled

  • Whether engagement of counsel in another court constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside a dismissal for non-prosecution?
  • Did the High Court commit a legal error in summarily dismissing the restoration application without considering the adjournment request?
  • Whether attendance at a memorial reference by the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association is a judicially noticeable event justifying absence?
  Read full judgment →
• SUGHRAN BIBI Versus SULTAN MEHMOOD2026 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-01-30
  family appealcertified copy of decreemaintainability of appealprocedural defectFamily Courts Actdower recoverylimitation
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appellant's family appeal regarding a dower recovery suit. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of the appeal before the Supreme Court due to the appellant's failure to append a certified copy of the High Court's decree at the time of filing, allegedly violating Section 14(5) of the Family Courts Act, 1993, and Rule 22(3) of the Family Courts Procedure Rules, 1998. The Supreme Court held that the requirement to annex a certified copy of the decree is mandatory and that a belated attempt to cure this defect after an inordinate delay of one year is time-barred and inadmissible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent. The key principle laid down is that the omission to attach a mandatory certified copy of a decree at the time of filing an appeal constitutes a fatal procedural defect that cannot be cured by a belated application filed outside the prescribed statutory period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to attach a certified copy of the decree with an appeal under Section 14(5) of the Family Courts Act, 1993 is a fatal defect?
  • Is the requirement to annex a certified copy of the decree and decision under Rule 22(3) of the Family Courts Procedure Rules, 1998 mandatory?
  • Can a belated application to place a missing certified copy of the decree on record cure the initial defect when filed after a substantial delay?
  Read full judgment →
• TASCO Versus FRANZEN LANDBOUW C.V.2026 PLD 96 · Sindh High Court · 2025-11-21
  foreign arbitral awardrecognition and enforcementinherent jurisdictioninternational commercial arbitrationNew York Conventionarbitration agreement
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This High Court appeal challenged a judgment whereby a foreign arbitral award was made a rule of the court pursuant to the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 and the New York Convention of 1958. The core legal question was whether the recognition and enforcement of an eligible foreign arbitral award could be refused or the judgment vitiated through the court's inherent jurisdiction on grounds falling outside Article V of the Convention. The court held that recognition and enforcement cannot be refused except in accordance with section 7 of the Act read with Article V of the Convention, and that courts possess no inherent or plenary jurisdiction to bypass statutory commands or review the merits of a foreign award. The key principles laid down are that Pakistani courts must adopt a pro-enforcement stance with minimum interference in international commercial arbitration, restrict challenges strictly to the permissive grounds under Article V of the Convention, and that jurisdiction cannot be exercised outside the confines of express legislative grant.

  Questions settled

  • Can recognition and enforcement of an eligible foreign arbitral award be refused on grounds other than those stipulated in Article V of the Convention?
  • Does a High Court possess inherent jurisdiction to set aside a foreign arbitral award outside the framework of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011?
  • Whether Pakistani courts can examine the merits of a foreign arbitral award on points of fact or law during enforcement proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMJAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Defence Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2026 PLD 88 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-24
  rejection of plaintdismissal of suitres judicatapossessionstatutory authorityfresh suit
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil matter arose from a suit filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 for recovery of possession. The respondents sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the grounds of res judicata, citing two earlier suits in which plaints were rejected. The trial court dismissed the application, but the appellate court reversed that decision and held the suit barred under Section 11, C.P.C. The High Court examined whether the rejection of earlier plaints operates as res judicata to bar a subsequent suit, and whether Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act barred the suit against a statutory authority. The High Court set aside the revisional order, holding that mere rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 does not constitute a final adjudication on the merits and cannot operate as res judicata under Section 11, nor preclude the presentation of a fresh plaint under Order VII, Rule 13. Furthermore, while Section 9 bars suits against the Federal Government, it does not bar a suit against a statutory authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 operate as res judicata under Section 11 to bar the filing of a fresh suit?
  • What is the legal distinction between the rejection of a plaint and the dismissal of a suit regarding the right to institute fresh proceedings?
  • Does the statutory bar against filing a suit for possession against the Government under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 extend to statutory authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• VIRGOZ OILS AND FATS PTE. LIMITED Versus FAISAL EXPORTS (PVT.) LIMITED2026 PLD 75 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-05
  foreign arbitral awardrecognition and enforcementNew York Conventionpro-enforcement biaslimitation periodarbitrabilityunilateral amendment
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This suit was filed under Section 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award rendered under the rules of the Palm Oil Refiners Association of Malaysia (PORAM). The core legal questions revolved around whether a binding and enforceable contract existed between the parties, whether the claims adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal were time-barred under the PORAM Rules, and whether the award suffered from material illegalities and violations of due process warranting refusal of enforcement under Article V of the New York Convention and the enforcing statute. The Sindh High Court held that no concluded or enforceable contracts were established between the parties due to the absence of valid offer and acceptance, that the claims were filed beyond the 120-day limitation period prescribed by the PORAM Rules, and that the arbitral tribunal committed glaring errors violating due process and the Contract Act, 1872. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the suit, laying down the principle that while courts maintain a pro-enforcement bias under international commercial arbitration, an award based on non-existent contracts, time-barred claims, and lacking due process cannot be enforced and falls foul of public policy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a foreign arbitral award can be enforced under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 when no concluded or enforceable contract existed between the parties?
  • Does an arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that are clearly barred by limitation under the applicable institutional arbitration rules?
  • Whether the pro-enforcement bias under the New York Convention precludes a court from refusing enforcement of an award that suffers from material illegality and a lack of due process?
  • Can a party unilaterally amend the terms of a shipment period in a contract without the consent of the other party to circumvent limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• SABIR HUSSAIN Versus Mst. HINA UROOJ2026 PLD 65 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-10
  civil revisionmoulding reliefOrder VII Rule 7limitationtime-barred appealsufficient causemisleading by counsel
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil revision arises from a suit for declaration, cancellation, possession, and permanent injunction filed by respondent No. 1 against the applicant and others regarding properties allegedly usurped from her deceased mother's estate. The trial court decreed the suit against the applicant for recovery. The applicant filed a civil appeal before the Additional District Judge after a delay of over a year, which was dismissed as time-barred under Section 5 and Article 152 of the Limitation Act 1908. The applicant contended in revision that the trial court granted relief beyond what was specifically prayed for and that the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation. The High Court affirmed that under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, courts can look at the substance of pleadings and mould relief appropriately even if not explicitly prayed for. It further held that failure of counsel to inform a litigant does not constitute sufficient cause for delay, as litigants must proactively pursue their cases and explain each day's delay. The revision was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court can mould relief under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and grant unprayed relief if supported by pleadings and evidence?
  • Whether lack of communication or misleading advice by a litigant's counsel constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Whether the bar of limitation applies to a challenge brought against an alleged void or unprayed decree?
  Read full judgment →
• COSCO SHIPPING PROJECT LOGISTICS CO. LIMITED Versus SHANGHAI MARINE DIESEL ENGINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE2026 PLD 58 · Sindh High Court · 2025-11-14
  foreign arbitral awardNew York Conventionenforcement of awardlimitation periodinternational commercial arbitrationarbitration agreement
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns an application under Section 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2011, seeking the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award rendered by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission. The core legal questions involved whether the enforcement proceedings were barred by the limitation period prescribed in the Limitation Act 1908, and whether the award suffered from jurisdictional or procedural infirmities under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958. The Court held that the application was maintainable, rejecting the limitation defense as the 1908 Act does not govern foreign award enforcement. Furthermore, the Court found no valid grounds under Article V of the Convention to refuse enforcement. The judgment affirms that courts must support the arbitral process with minimal interference, emphasizing that the Arbitration Act 1940 is inapplicable to international commercial arbitration. Consequently, the award was recognized and made a rule of court, with the applicant granted a decree for the awarded amount.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period prescribed in the Limitation Act 1908 apply to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2011?
  • Is the Arbitration Act 1940 applicable to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Pakistan?
  • What are the permissible grounds for a court to refuse the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award?
  Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR QADIR Versus The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2026 PLD 49 · Sindh High Court · 2025-10-08
  Passport Control ListExit Control Listfundamental rightsright to lifefreedom of movementmedical treatment abroadconstitutional petition
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner, a retired Director General of the Sindh Building Control Authority and an accused in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference, challenging the refusal of the Accountability Court to remove his name from the Passport Control List (PCL) and seeking permission to travel to Canada for medical treatment for Stage IV cancer. The core legal questions addressed were whether the State can indefinitely curtail a citizen's fundamental rights to life and freedom of movement under Articles 9 and 15 of the Constitution due to the pendency of a criminal trial, and whether travel restrictions can override urgent, life-saving medical needs. The Court held that the pendency of a criminal case cannot justify indefinitely depriving an accused of fundamental rights, especially when suffering from a life-threatening illness where specialized overseas treatment is recommended. The High Court set aside the impugned orders, directed the removal of the petitioner's name from the PCL, ECL, and any other stop lists for a period of three months to enable medical travel, subject to furnishing adequate security and a binding undertaking.

  Questions settled

  • Can the State indefinitely deprive an accused person of their fundamental right of freedom of movement and right to life during the pendency of a criminal trial?
  • Whether the pendency of a criminal reference before an Accountability Court furnishes sufficient justification for prohibiting a citizen's foreign travel for life-saving medical treatment?
  • Under what conditions may a court grant permission to an accused facing trial for corruption to travel abroad for medical reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• HUNANENG FUYUN PORT AND SHIPPING (PVT.) LTD. Versus JIAOZUO CREATION HEAVY INDUSTRY COMPANY LTD.2026 PLD 42 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-23
  foreign arbitral awardenforcement of awardexecuting courtarbitration proceedingspro-enforcement biasNew York Conventionrecognition of award
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal challenged an order of a Single Judge dismissing applications to summon arbitral records and conduct a site inspection in a suit for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011. The core legal question was whether the executing court could re-examine the merits of the award or gather additional evidence by summoning the entire arbitral record. The Court held that the executing court's jurisdiction is limited to recognition and enforcement and does not extend to acting as an appellate court to reopen the merits or summon the entire arbitral record. The Court affirmed that unless specific grounds for refusal under Article V of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 are established, the court must enforce the award. The key principle laid down is that the court enforcing a foreign arbitral award acts as an executing court, not an appellate court, and is precluded from substituting its own view for that of the arbitrators or conducting a trial on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court, while enforcing a foreign arbitral award, summon the entire record of the arbitral proceedings to re-examine the merits of the case?
  • Is an executing court empowered to conduct a site inspection to collect additional evidence during proceedings for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award?
  • What is the scope of a court's jurisdiction when considering an application for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011?
  • Under what circumstances can a court refuse to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award?
  Read full judgment →
• SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED Versus BHAJAN LAL2026 PLD 37 · Sindh High Court · 2026-01-31
  Gas Utility Courtjurisdictiondelegated legislationrejection of plaintreturn of plaintstatutory interpretationcivil procedure
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns the jurisdictional scope of Gas Utility Courts established under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016. The core legal question was whether these courts, despite a notification seemingly limiting their scope to criminal trials, possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate civil disputes arising under the Act. The Court held that the Gas Utility Courts indeed possess exclusive jurisdiction over both civil and criminal matters as mandated by the Act. It reasoned that delegated legislation, such as a notification, cannot restrict or contradict the jurisdiction expressly granted by the principal statute. Furthermore, the Court clarified that even if a court lacks jurisdiction, the appropriate procedure is to return the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rather than rejecting it under Order VII, Rule 11. The key principle laid down is that delegated legislation cannot create distinctions or limitations that contravene the express provisions of the parent Act, and courts must interpret notifications in harmony with the principal statute to avoid inconsistency.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Gas Utility Court established under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil disputes?
  • Can a notification issued under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 restrict the jurisdiction of a Gas Utility Court to criminal matters only?
  • Is it legally permissible for a court to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when the court merely lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter?
  • What is the correct procedural course of action for a court that finds it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Petroleum Division) Federal Government of Pakistan Versus PREMIUM TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED2026 PLD 321 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-03
  gas pricingOGRA notificationFederal Cabinetex-post facto approvalMustafa Impex principlestatutory interpretationretrospective effectRules of Business 1973
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns 92 appeals challenging a judgment regarding the legality of an Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) notification prescribing gas sales prices. The core legal question was whether a notification issued by OGRA without the prior advice of the Federal Cabinet, but subsequently ratified by it, is lawful. The Court held that the notification was illegal and void ab initio. Relying on the principle established in the Mustafa Impex case, the Court affirmed that the term "Federal Government" in Section 8(3) of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, refers exclusively to the Federal Cabinet. Consequently, the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) cannot exercise this power. The Court held that statutory requirements for prior approval cannot be cured by ex-post facto ratification, as executive actions generally lack retrospective effect unless explicitly authorized. The Court rejected the appellants' arguments regarding procedural irregularities and the applicability of the Attock Cement judgment, clarifying that leave-refusing orders do not establish binding precedents. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision that the notification was invalid from its inception.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'Federal Government' in the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, refer exclusively to the Federal Cabinet?
  • Can an executive notification issued without prior cabinet approval be validated through ex-post facto ratification?
  • Does the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) possess the authority to act as the Federal Government for the purpose of advising on gas sales prices?
  • Can executive actions be given retrospective effect in the absence of specific statutory authorization?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI DINO ABBASI Versus MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT CMCH LARKANA2026 PLD 314 · Sindh High Court · 2025-10-30
  constitutional petitionlocus standipublic interest litigationblood bank closurepublic healthregulatory complianceparens patriaeblood transfusion safetyultra vires
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenged the closure of the Sindh Blood Transfusion Authority (SBTA) Blood Bank at Chandka Medical College Hospital, Larkana, by the respondents. The petitioner sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the closure was illegal, mala fide, and detrimental to public health. The core legal questions revolved around the petitioner's locus standi and the legality of the blood bank's closure due to non-compliance with regulatory standards. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, finding the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the closure was lawful, necessitated by the blood bank's failure to renew its license for 17 years, use of substandard screening methods, lack of essential equipment, and employment of untrained personnel, all in violation of the Sindh Transfusion of Safe Blood Act, 1997. Despite dismissal, the Court, invoking the doctrine of parens patriae, issued several binding directions to ensure seamless, safe, and accessible blood supply, mandating audits, grievance mechanisms, and adherence to statutory requirements for all blood banks in the province.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petitioner challenging an administrative action need to demonstrate direct injury or personal grievance to establish locus standi under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a blood bank's operation be deemed illegal if it fails to renew its registration license for an extended period under the Sindh Transfusion of Safe Blood Act, 1997?
  • Is the closure of a public blood bank justified if it operates with substandard screening methods, lacks essential equipment, and employs untrained personnel?
  • Can a High Court issue directions in the public interest under the doctrine of parens patriae, even if a constitutional petition is dismissed for lack of merit and locus standi?
  • Do directions issued by a High Court under the doctrine of parens patriae, incidental to the reliefs sought, transgress the constitutional boundary set by the 26th Amendment to Article 199(1)(c)(1A)?
  Read full judgment →
• AMIN ALI Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DADU2026 PLD 304 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-28
  inherent jurisdictionJustice of PeaceFIR registrationquasi-judicial orderconstitutional petitionCode of Criminal Proceduremaintainability of applicationjudicial reviewadministrative ordersupervisory jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The Sindh High Court addressed multiple Criminal Miscellaneous Applications invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to challenge orders passed by an ex-officio Justice of Peace (JoP) under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. The core legal question was whether such JoP orders, directing FIR registration or otherwise, are amenable to challenge under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., and the true nature of these orders. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's larger bench decision in Younas Abbas v. Additional I.G. Police Punjab (PLD 2016 SC 581), held that functions performed by a JoP under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. are quasi-judicial, not administrative or purely judicial. Consequently, such quasi-judicial orders do not fall within the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., which is reserved for judicial orders of criminal courts or administrative orders by Magistrates. The appropriate forum for challenging JoP orders is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. All listed applications were dismissed as not maintainable under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Are orders passed by an ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. amenable to challenge under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.?
  • What is the nature of functions and powers exercised by a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C.?
  • What is the appropriate forum for challenging quasi-judicial orders passed by a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C.?
  • Does the designation of a Sessions Judge as an ex-officio Justice of Peace render their orders amenable to inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.?
  • Do the actions or orders passed by a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. qualify as orders passed by a 'court' as defined under Section 6 of the Cr.P.C.?
  • Can inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. be invoked to interfere with or restrain investigatory actions undertaken by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK Versus MOHAMMAD BUX SHAIKH2026 PLD 297 · Sindh High Court · 2026-01-12
  Banking lawLimitation periodRecovery suitAcceleration clauseLoan defaultContractual maturityBanking Court
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns two appeals challenging Banking Court judgments that dismissed the Appellant Bank's recovery suits as time-barred. The core legal question is whether, in loan agreements structured with monthly instalments, the limitation period for instituting recovery proceedings commences upon the occurrence of default (specifically, consecutive defaults triggering acceleration clauses) or upon the expiry of the contractual maturity date. The Court held that acceleration clauses are designed for the creditor's benefit and provide an option, not a mandatory obligation, to initiate immediate recovery proceedings. Consequently, the Bank retains the discretion to either exercise the acceleration option or continue with the original instalment schedule. The Court ruled that the limitation period does not automatically commence upon the occurrence of default if the creditor chooses not to exercise the acceleration option. Therefore, suits instituted within three years of the contractual maturity date are within the prescribed limitation period. The impugned judgments were set aside, and the cases were remanded for adjudication on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acceleration clause in a loan agreement compel a creditor to initiate recovery proceedings immediately upon default?
  • Does the limitation period for a recovery suit in an instalment-based loan agreement commence upon the first default or upon the expiry of the contractual maturity date?
  • Can a bank choose to defer legal proceedings until the contractual maturity date despite the occurrence of defaults?
  Read full judgment →
• RAYAN TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior2026 PLD 29 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-31
  FIA Actbank account blockingdebit-blockseizure of propertyinvestigationconstitutional petition
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner challenged an FIA notice issued under Section 5 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974, which ordered the blocking of the petitioner company's bank accounts upon a private bank's complaint. The core legal question was whether the FIA could arbitrarily or hastily freeze bank accounts without fulfilling mandatory statutory prerequisites such as recording written opinions, demonstrating urgency preventing recourse to a court, or maintaining proper investigation stages. The Sindh High Court allowed the petition, holding that powers under Section 5(5) of the FIA Act 1974 are not unfettered, must be exercised sparingly with caution, require written reasons in case diaries, and cannot be invoked merely on a freshly received complaint without an established investigation or exceptional urgency. The Court laid down that failure to record grounds of urgency or reasons in writing violates Section 5(5) of the FIA Act 1974 and Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897, rendering any freezing or seizure order unlawful.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Investigation Agency has unfettered powers under Section 5(5) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 to freeze bank accounts without forming a written opinion?
  • Is it mandatory for an investigating officer to establish a lack of sufficient time to approach a competent court before exercising seizure powers under Section 5(5) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974?
  • Does the issuance of a debit-block on bank accounts without recording reasons in the case diary violate Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897?
  • Can the Federal Investigation Agency order the blocking of bank accounts merely upon the receipt of a complaint and prior to the formal initiation of an investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• HAZOOR BUX Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH2026 PLD 279 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-08
  allotment cancellationcattle colonyfreedom of tradewomen rightsmarital statusfinancial independenceconstitutional petition
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  Constitutional petitions were filed challenging orders passed by the Administrator, Cattle Colony Sukkur, cancelling provisional allotments of cattle pans issued to various petitioners. The cancellations were primarily made on grounds of failure to establish cattle pans, misuse of plots for residential purposes, non-association with dairy business, or because female allottees were married to male plot-holders. The core legal questions pertained to whether women can be deprived of commercial allotments on the basis of marital status and whether allotments could be cancelled for non-compliance with unformulated conditions in the absence of set policy rules. The High Court held that under Articles 4, 9, 18, 23, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, women are independent rights-bearing citizens whose fundamental right to conduct business cannot be restricted by marital status. The Court further ruled that while Article 18 permits regulation of trade, cancelling allotments without defined rules or prior opportunity, where vacant land exists, is unjustified. Consequently, the Court restored allotments for genuine dairy operators and women, while upholding cancellations for non-dairy users and residential misusers.

  Questions settled

  • Can a woman's commercial plot allotment be cancelled solely on the ground that her husband holds a similar allotment?
  • Whether the right to conduct a lawful trade or business under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is absolute or subject to reasonable regulation?
  • Can penal cancellation of an allotment be sustained in the absence of defined policy rules or prior conditions framing such non-compliance as a violation?
  Read full judgment →
• ANOUD TASVEER JUMANI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2026 PLD 250 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-15
  constitutional petitionmalice in lawpublic procurementcontractual obligationsalternative remedyarbitration clausedealership licensemis-procurement
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the termination of a dealership license agreement by Pakistan State Oil Company Limited (PSO) and the subsequent award of a new dealership to a third party. The core legal questions involved whether a public authority's contractual termination tainted by bad faith constitutes malice in law, whether an arbitration clause ousts the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction, and whether PSO's award of the dealership violated the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and Public Procurement Rules, 2004. The Sindh High Court held that PSO's termination notice based on a falsely claimed lease expiry, while simultaneously renewing the lease, manifested malice in law, and that the new dealership agreement constituted illegal mis-procurement. The court established that constitutional jurisdiction is not barred by an arbitration clause where a public body acts with malice or commits mis-procurement, and that public instrumentalities must act fairly and reasonably in contractual matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of an arbitration clause in a contract with a state-owned enterprise oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether terminating a contract on a knowingly false ground by a public functionary amounts to malice in law?
  • Are state-owned corporations bound to comply with the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 when granting dealership agreements?
  • Does a defect in the verification of a power of attorney render a constitutional petition entirely not maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• SALAMULLAH KHAN Versus State2026 PLD 242 · Sindh High Court · 2025-10-07
  joint trialsame transactionSpecial Court (Central)jurisdictionjoinder of chargesPakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1958double jeopardy
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns the jurisdictional competence of a Special Court (Central) to conduct a joint trial for offences arising from the same transaction, where some offences are scheduled under the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, and others fall under different special statutes like the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000. The Trial Court had declined to accept the charge sheet, citing lack of jurisdiction over non-scheduled offences. The High Court held that the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, while mandating exclusive jurisdiction for scheduled offences, does not explicitly prohibit the trial of connected non-scheduled offences. Applying the principle of "same transaction" under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court ruled that where offences are factually and transactionally linked, a joint trial is permissible to ensure judicial efficiency, prevent conflicting findings, and avoid the violation of double jeopardy protections. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to reconsider the charge sheets in light of this legal position.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Special Court (Central) try non-scheduled offences alongside scheduled offences if they arise from the same transaction?
  • Does the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 explicitly prohibit the joint trial of non-scheduled offences with scheduled offences?
  • What criteria determine whether multiple offences constitute the 'same transaction' for the purpose of a joint trial?
  • Does a joint trial for offences under different special laws violate the doctrine of double jeopardy under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MONEM (Ex. Chief Technician) Versus VICE CHIEF OF AIR STAFF [Pakistan Air Force]2026 PLD 214 · Sindh High Court · 2025-10-22
  Pakistan Air Force Actconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitydue processdismissal from servicecourt-martialultra viresarmed forces
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The Petitioner, an ex-Chief Technician of the Pakistan Air Force, challenged his dismissal from service issued under Section 20(1) of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953 read with Rule 31-A of the Pakistan Air Force Rules, 1957, following allegations of financial embezzlement regarding service medicines. The core legal questions involved whether the constitutional petition was maintainable despite the bar in Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, whether due process and statutory procedures were violated by the respondents, and whether Section 20(1) of the Act and Rule 31-A of the PAF Rules were ultra vires the Constitution. The Sindh High Court held that while the constitutional petition is maintainable on grounds of mala fide, coram non judice, or jurisdictional defect, and that the respondents grossly violated due process and statutory procedure by failing to conduct a court-martial before invoking dismissal under Section 20, the statutory provisions themselves (Section 20 and Rule 31-A) are not inherently unconstitutional or ultra vires. The court set aside the impugned dismissal order, directing that the petitioner be deemed discharged from service with all applicable benefits, while dismissing the challenge to the constitutionality of the provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition against an action taken by the military authorities is maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can Section 20(1) of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953 be invoked to dismiss an employee without completing the prescribed court-martial procedure?
  • Are Section 20(1) of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953 and Rule 31-A of the Pakistan Air Force Rules, 1957 ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does a four-year delay in concluding inquiry and disciplinary proceedings vitiate a dismissal order in the Pakistan Air Force?
  Read full judgment →
• State Versus NIKSON MALIK2026 PLD 211 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-27
  enhancement of sentenceattempted rapejudicial discretionquantum of punishmentcriminal revisionmitigating circumstances
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This Criminal Revision Application was filed by the State under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent by the trial court under section 376 read with section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempting to commit rape on a minor. The core legal question was whether the trial court's exercise of discretion in awarding a lesser sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment, considering the respondent's age of 17 years and lack of previous criminal record, warranted interference for enhancement. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court committed no illegality in exercising its discretion to award a lenient sentence, noting that section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 provides discretionary punishment up to one-half of the longest term, and the offender's youth and reformative potential justified the sentence. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with the sentencing discretion exercised by the trial court under section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the principle governing the quantum of punishment when a statute uses the phrase may extend up to?
  • Can the youth and lack of previous criminal record of an accused serve as mitigating circumstances for awarding a lesser sentence in an attempt to commit an offence?
  Read full judgment →
• ASLAM MASIH Versus State2026 PLD 204 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-29Read full judgment →
• KHAMISO Versus MANSIGNO2026 PLD 184 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-06
  rejection of plaintdismissal of suitattestation of documentspecific performanceQanun-e-Shahadat Ordercivil revisionmarginal witnessesscribe
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil revision application challenges an appellate court judgment that set aside the rejection of a plaint in a suit for specific performance of contract. The trial court had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, holding that the underlying agreement was barred by Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 because it was attested by only one witness instead of the mandatory two. The core legal question was whether a suit can be dismissed or a plaint rejected without recording evidence by invoking evidentiary requirements regarding attestation. The Sindh High Court held that the sufficiency of attestation and admissibility of evidence cannot be adjudicated prematurely at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C., without affording parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The court clarified that the rejection of a plaint is procedural, whereas the dismissal of a suit is a substantive decision on merits. The court further held that a scribe cannot be treated as a substitute for an attesting witness under Article 79, though the revision was ultimately dismissed, maintaining the remand for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground that a document lacks the required number of attesting witnesses under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can a scribe be treated as a substitute for a marginal attesting witness to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What is the distinction between the rejection of a plaint and the dismissal of a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • At what stage of proceedings can the admissibility and proof of an attested document under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 be examined by a court?
  Read full judgment →