Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Haji Ahmad vs Secretary, Establishment Division and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 958 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdullah Khan vs The Deputy Commissioner, Quetta and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1031 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Risaldar Major in the Federal Levies, was dismissed from service by the Governor of Baluchistan following an inquiry for negligence and illegal disposal of government property. His subsequent service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed, leading him to seek leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner contended that under the Instructions Regarding Levies of 1935, only the Political Agent had the power of dismissal, that the Federal Levies are a federal body making the Provincial Governor's order without authority, and that in the absence of specific rules, the Civil Servants Act and rules govern the force. The Deputy Attorney-General conceded that no notification had been issued under Article 145 of the Constitution regarding the Governor acting as the President's agent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal's judgment was sustainable in light of these contentions regarding the competent authority for dismissal.
Questions settled- Whether the Governor of a province has the authority to dismiss a member of the Federal Levies?
- Does the absence of specific rules make the Civil Servants Act and rules applicable to the Federal Levies?
- Can the Governor act as the agent of the President under Article 145 of the Constitution without the issuance of a formal notification?
- Haji Abdullah Khan vs Deputy Commissioner, Quetta and 3 others1998 SCMR 2734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Haji Abdullah Khan against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a Risaldar Major in the Federal Levies posted at Quetta, was dismissed from service by the Governor of Balochistan following an inquiry for negligence and involvement in the illegal disposal of government property. The core legal question concerns the competence and authority of the Governor of Balochistan to dismiss an employee of the Federal Levies, considering whether the Federal Levies are governed by the 1935 Instructions or the Civil Servants Act, and whether the Governor acted with proper delegated authority under Article 145 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the sustainability of the impugned judgment in light of these contentions regarding the lack of a proper notification under Article 145 and the statutory authority governing dismissal.
Questions settled- Does the Governor of a Province have the authority to dismiss a member of the Federal Levies?
- Whether the Federal Levies are governed by the Civil Servants Act in the absence of specific rules?
- Can the Governor act as an agent of the President under Article 145 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 without the issuance of a formal notification?
- Haider Abbas vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 627 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court addresses the scope and applicability of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, concerning employees of corporations and statutory bodies, specifically whether a trainee executive or contract employee of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan falls within the definition of a civil servant under the said provision, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the term 'post' and the effect of the deeming provisions in Section 2-A. The court held that Section 2-A is a remedial provision designed to provide broad relief, encompassing ad hoc, temporary, and contractual employees, irrespective of traditional exclusions in civil servant definitions. Consequently, such employees are deemed civil servants, and their service disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that Section 2-A creates a new category of civil servants by statutory fiction, overriding standard exclusions like contract employment, and ousting the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in favor of the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 include contract and temporary employees within the definition of a civil servant?
- Does the declaration of service under a corporation as service of Pakistan require a constitutional amendment or can it be done via ordinary legislation?
- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply to employees of statutory corporations following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Do traditional exclusions from the definition of civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 apply to persons deemed civil servants under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Hafiz Muhammad Riaz vs The State1998 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for kidnapping and rape under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal questions were whether the victim's consent to elope and her age (approximately 15 years) warranted converting the kidnapping conviction to a lesser offence and whether the victim consented to sexual intercourse, thereby necessitating a reduction of the rape conviction. The Court held that while the victim accompanied the appellant voluntarily, her age being under sixteen rendered the kidnapping offence complete under Section 11 of the Ordinance, as consent is irrelevant to the definition of kidnapping from lawful guardianship. However, the Court found the victim did not consent to sexual intercourse, maintaining the conviction for rape under Section 10(3). The principle laid down is that while consent of a minor female does not exonerate an accused from kidnapping charges under the Ordinance, such consent may serve as a mitigating circumstance for sentencing purposes, allowing the court discretion to reduce the punishment for kidnapping below the mandatory life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does the consent of a minor female to elope with an accused negate the offence of kidnapping under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979?
- Is the puberty of a minor female relevant to a conviction for kidnapping under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can a court exercise discretion to award a sentence less than life imprisonment for kidnapping under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does voluntary accompaniment of an accused by a victim necessarily imply consent to sexual intercourse?
- Hafiz Mehboob Elahi vs Mst. Saleh Afzal Khan1998 SCMR 695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the possession of a house and mesne profits. The petitioner, having obtained a decree for possession and money, faced a revision petition in the Lahore High Court, which stayed the operation of the lower courts' judgments. Despite this stay, the petitioner sought to execute the decree, leading to the High Court directing the petitioner to restore vacant possession to the respondent. The core legal question was whether the High Court's order directing the restoration of possession was legally justified given the existing stay order on the execution of the decree. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction was correct, as the petitioner's attempt to dispossess the respondent while a stay order was in effect was improper. The Court affirmed the High Court's order, finding no merit in the petition, but directed the High Court to expedite the disposal of the pending revision petition. The principle established is that a party cannot execute a decree once its operation has been stayed by a superior court.
Questions settled- Is it legally permissible for a decree-holder to execute a decree for possession while a stay order against the operation of that decree is in force?
- Does a High Court have the authority to direct the restoration of possession if a party executes a decree in violation of a stay order?
- Hafiz Mansoor Ahmad and others vs Messrs Rajput Films Corporation1998 CLC 963 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-01Read full judgment →
- Hafeezullah vs Muhammad Saleem1998 MLD 133 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-13Read full judgment →
- Hafeezullah Khan and 2 otherss vs AlHaj Chaudhri Barkat Ali and 21998 PLD Karachi 274 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the learned Single Judge declining interim relief in a suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, who operated transport services, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant No. 1 for violating mutual agreements regarding vehicle departure timings and route operations. The core legal questions involved whether the agreements lacked consideration, whether they were specifically unenforceable barring an interim injunction, and if a party could unilaterally retract from contractual obligations. The Sindh High Court held that the agreements were supported by valid consideration in the form of mutual restrictions, forbearances, and space-time advantages, and that the conclusion regarding specific enforceability was unfounded at the interim stage without evidence. The Court ruled that interim injunctions should protect lawful contractual obligations against unilateral breach and that courts must lean toward upholding contracts. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the respondents were restrained during the pendency of the suit from retracting their obligations under the agreements.
Questions settled- Does the concept of consideration in a contract necessarily require a monetary benefit or an amount susceptible to accurate valuation in terms of money?
- Whether an interim injunction can be refused on the ground of specific unenforceability without identifying the specific clause of the Specific Relief Act barring enforcement?
- Can a party to a lawful mutual agreement unilaterally and wilfully disclaim contractual obligations during the pendency of a suit?
- Is an interim injunction available under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a permanent injunction is sought to prevent the breach of a contract?
- Hafeez-Ur-Rehman alias Papu vs The State1998 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court declining to suspend the petitioner's sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of statutory delay. The petitioner, convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, contended that he was entitled to release on bail due to the lapse of over two years in the disposal of his appeal. The core legal question is whether an accused is entitled to suspension of sentence solely on the ground of statutory delay when the appellate court offers to hear and dispose of the main appeal on merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that where the High Court is willing to proceed with the early hearing and disposal of the main appeal on merits but the petitioner's counsel declines the offer or fails to appear, the application for suspension of sentence under section 426 can be validly refused. The principle laid down is that statutory delay does not confer an absolute right to suspension of sentence if the delay is not attributable to the court and the court offers an expedited hearing of the main appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to suspension of sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground of statutory delay when the appellate court is willing to hear the main appeal on merits?
- Does the refusal of the petitioner's counsel to accept an early hearing date offered by the court disentitle the petitioner to the suspension of sentence?
- Hafeez Ur Rehman vs The State1998 SCMR 2450 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence for qatal-e-amd under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in life imprisonment and compensation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the eye-witness account, the legal consequence of the non-production of an eyewitness, the effect of an unproven motive in a murder case, and the proper appreciation of circumstantial and medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on unimpeachable ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and a prompt weapon recovery, and that the absence of a proven motive does not warrant exoneration where direct evidence is otherwise reliable. The court reaffirmed that the prosecution is not bound to examine every cited witness if the overall evidence is trustworthy, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a proven motive furnish a ground for complete exoneration of an accused in a murder case?
- Whether the non-production of an eyewitness necessarily mandates an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can an accused's statement made in answer to the charge be utilized against them even if subsequently retracted in a statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Habibur Rehman vs Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and another1998 MLD 632 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-15Read full judgment →
- Habib-Ur-Rehman Sheikh vs Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenues, Islamabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 96 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Habib-Ul-Wahab Al-Khairi vs Secretary, Punjab Bar Council and 41998 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenging an order passed by the Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council which had withdrawn a misconduct complaint from the Disciplinary Committee and dismissed it. The core legal question was whether the Executive Committee has the jurisdiction to interfere in, withdraw, or decide disciplinary proceedings pending before the Disciplinary Committee under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. The Lahore High Court held that the Executive Committee has no jurisdiction over disciplinary matters, as the power to entertain, inquire into, and summarily reject complaints against advocates vests exclusively in the Disciplinary Committee under section 41 of the Act, and rule 6.2 of the Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1974 cannot override the parent statute. The court laid down the principle that the Executive Committee and Disciplinary Committee are separate statutory entities with non-overlapping functions, and the Executive Committee possesses no supervisory or appellate authority over the Disciplinary Committee.
Questions settled- Does the Executive Committee of a Bar Council have the jurisdiction to withdraw or interfere in disciplinary proceedings pending before the Disciplinary Committee?
- Whether the power to summarily reject a complaint of professional misconduct against an advocate vests in the Executive Committee or the Disciplinary Committee under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973?
- Can a rule framed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 override or be inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the parent statute regarding disciplinary powers?
- Habib Ullah Sabir vs Shaukat Ali Kazmi and others1998 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition seeking relief regarding the pendency of a writ petition filed by the respondent. The core legal question concerned the delay in the adjudication of the respondent's writ petition, which had remained at the motion stage for a duration of four months. The Court, after hearing arguments from the petitioner's counsel, declined to adjudicate on the merits of the underlying dispute. Instead, the Court exercised its discretion to dispose of the present petition by issuing a specific directive to the relevant forum. The holding of the Court was that the pending writ petition, identified as Writ Petition No. 22766 of 1996, should be resolved expeditiously. The Court established the principle that judicial efficiency is paramount, directing that the matter be concluded preferably within the current month to address the grievance of prolonged pendency at the motion stage. This decision emphasizes the supervisory role of the Supreme Court in ensuring the timely disposal of cases by lower courts without interfering with the substantive merits of the pending litigation.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court direct a lower court to decide a pending writ petition within a specific timeframe?
- Is a petition regarding the delay of a pending writ petition maintainable before the Supreme Court?
- Habib Ullah and others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner_Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore and others1998 SCMR 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved two Petitions for Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a writ petition and a subsequent review application. The writ petition, filed after a delay of nearly 27 years, sought to challenge a Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order from 1968 which transferred a bungalow to Latif Ahmed. The petitioners claimed the transfer was for the benefit of all family members, including themselves, and that they only became aware of the exclusive transfer in 1995. The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the inordinate delay and lack of evidence supporting the petitioners' claim of joint application or allotment. The subsequent review application was also dismissed for lack of legal infirmity. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decisions, refusing leave to appeal, on the grounds that constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised in matters that have become past and closed transactions after an unexplained delay of 27 years, and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity warranting review.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition challenging a property transfer order be entertained after an inordinate delay of 27 years?
- Is a High Court justified in declining to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction in a matter that has become a past and closed transaction due to long delay?
- What grounds are necessary for a High Court to interfere in review jurisdiction?
- Does a petitioner's claim of joint application for property transfer, without supporting evidence and after significant delay, warrant interference by the High Court?
- Habib Ul Wahab El Khairi vs Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and others1998 MLD 1523 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji Sardar Khan vs Registrar of Firms (Societies) and others1998 PLD Peshawar 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
- Habib Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 391 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
- Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Ltd., I.I.Chundrigar Road, Karachi vs Messrs Tariq Cotton Mills Ltd., M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi1998 PLD Karachi 238 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-18Read full judgment →
- Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Ltd. vs Gulzar Ahmed1998 CLC 1419 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd. vs Asghar Ali and others1998 CLC 353 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd. Personnel Division, Karachi through Attorney and 21998 PLC 240 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited, Karachi through Attorneys vs Habib Bank Employees Federation of Pakistan through President, Multan and another1998 PLC 521 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1997-06-22Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited, Etc. vs Syed Zia-Ul-Hassan Kazmi(K.L.R. 1998 SC 46) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises five petitions for leave to appeal directed against interlocutory orders passed by the Lahore High Court, which had suspended the operation of bank suspension orders issued against the respondent employees. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in suspending the suspension orders of employees through interlocutory relief in constitutional petitions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in suspending the said suspension orders, as settled jurisprudence dictates that interlocutory orders of suspension—which are regulatory in character and during which employees continue to receive full salary and fringe benefits—should not be interfered with, and courts should avoid re-inducting employees or halting disciplinary inquiries prematurely. The Court established that granting interim relief that suspends an employer's suspension order violates established principles against arbitrary interference with interlocutory management decisions, particularly where no financial disadvantage is suffered. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, suspended the impugned High Court orders, and directed the High Court to expedite the final hearing on the maintainability of the writ petitions.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in suspending an employer's suspension order through an interlocutory order in a constitutional petition?
- Does the diminution or receipt of full salary and fringe benefits during a suspension period prevent a suspension order from being treated as a penalty?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution be invoked to challenge interim and regulatory orders like suspension when final remedies are available?
- Habib Bank Limited vs Mohsin Ahmed Habib and others1998 CLC 1601 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-27Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs (M/s). Qadri Traders And Another1998 P.C.T.L.R. 923 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-08Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited and others vs Syed Zia-Ul-Hassan Kazmi1998 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose out of five petitions for leave to appeal filed by Habib Bank Limited against interlocutory orders of the Lahore High Court suspending the operation of suspension orders issued against bank employees who had opted for a Golden Handshake Package. The bank challenged the maintainability of the writ petitions and the High Court's interim relief. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in suspending the suspension orders through interlocutory orders. The Supreme Court held that while it generally refrains from interfering with interlocutory orders, interference is necessary where the lower court's order is arbitrary or contrary to well-settled law. The Court reaffirmed that suspension is regulatory in nature and does not constitute a penalty, especially when employees remain entitled to full salary and fringe benefits. Consequently, the High Court erred in suspending the suspension orders. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, suspended the High Court's interlocutory orders, and directed the High Court to decide the maintainability and merits of the main writ petitions expeditiously.
Questions settled- When will the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order passed by a lower court?
- Can a High Court suspend an employee's suspension order through an interlocutory order in a constitutional petition?
- Does an order of suspension where full salary and benefits are paid constitute a penalty?
- Does the rule of master and servant preclude an employee of a non-statutory corporation from seeking reinstatement via constitutional jurisdiction?
- H.E.H. the Nizam's Jewellery Trust vs Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax and others1998 PTD 1694 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-11-21Read full judgment →
- H.E.H. Nizam's Jewellery Trust vs Assistant Commissioner of Wealth1998 PTD 1504 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-11-21Read full judgment →
- Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 1677 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Mahmood vs Director of Fisheries, N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 21998 PLC (C.S.) 691 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
- Gulzar And Another vs The StateK.LiR. 1998 Criminal Cases 367 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-25Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmed vs Director General, Pakistan Coast Guards and others1998 SCMR 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against a common order of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petitions in limine. The petitioner challenged the seizure of three cartons containing television sets at the Karachi Cantonment Railway Station by the Pakistan Coast Guards, contending that the station did not form part of the coastal area as defined under the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether the Karachi Cantonment Railway Station falls within the 'coastal area' under the said Act, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Pakistan Coast Guards to make the seizure. The Supreme Court held that the boundaries specified in the First Schedule to the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973, encompass the location in question and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the station falls within the limits of any port excluded from the coastal area. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's order, refused leave to appeal, and directed the adjudicating authority to finalize the pending customs proceedings within two months. The key principle laid down is that statutory definitions of 'coastal area' provided in specific legislation prevail over ordinary dictionary meanings, and areas expressly included within the statutory schedule fall within the operational jurisdiction of the Pakistan Coast Guards.
Questions settled- Whether the Karachi Cantonment Railway Station falls within the coastal area as defined under the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973?
- Does the definition of a customs-port under the Customs Act, 1969 restrict the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Coast Guards under the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973?
- Are the limits of any port excluded from the coastal area defined in the First Schedule to the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973?
- Gulshan Kumar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 1428 · Delhi High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- Gulab vs Karachi Port Trust and others1998 MLD 2088 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-06Read full judgment →
- Gul Sher and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-02Read full judgment →
- Gul Nawaz vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1730 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from an order of the Special Judge, Lakki, convicting the appellant, Gul Nawaz, under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on multiple counts of murder and sentencing him to death and life imprisonment. The prosecution case rested primarily on the ocular testimony of a solitary witness concerning a fatal shooting incident at a local Baithak arising from a blood-feud. Due to a split opinion between the learned judges of the Peshawar High Court (where one judge upheld the conviction and death sentence while another favored acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt), the matter was placed before a reference judge, who ultimately concurred with the conviction. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of a solitary and related eye-witness, the sufficiency of corroborative evidence, the plausibility of delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the application of the principle of benefit of doubt. The court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, validating the trial court's assessment of the ocular and medical evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the murder reference was answered in the affirmative.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a related and interested eye-witness?
- Whether inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case when explanation is offered?
- Does any discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony necessarily warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- How should an appellate court resolve a split verdict between learned judges in a capital punishment reference?
- Gul Muhammad vs Gul Muhammad Alias Muhammad AbbasK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 446 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad Intervenor vs Gul Muhammad alias Muhammad Abbas1998 PLD Karachi 55 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad and others vs Fazal Yazdan and others1998 SCMR 1521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed a suit concerning the ownership of land in Swabi, N.-W.F.P., originally owned by Akbar Khan. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its review jurisdiction and powers to do complete justice, could issue specific directions to protect the interests of the rightful owners—the legal heirs of the deceased—who were residing in India and had not participated in the litigation. The Court held that while the previous judgment correctly determined the ownership status, it failed to secure the compensation funds and the agricultural produce/income derived from the land by the respondents, who admitted to holding the property as trustees. Consequently, the Court exercised its powers under Article 187 and Article 188 of the Constitution to appoint joint receivers to manage the property, recover past income, and secure the land acquisition compensation in profit-bearing schemes. The principle established is that the Supreme Court possesses the inherent power to issue necessary directions to protect the rights of absent beneficiaries and prevent the misappropriation of property held in trust by litigants.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court exercise its review jurisdiction to issue directions for the protection of property held in trust by litigants for absent beneficiaries?
- Does the Supreme Court have the power to appoint joint receivers to manage property and recover income for the benefit of rightful owners who are not parties to the litigation?
- Can the Supreme Court order the investment of land acquisition compensation funds into profit-bearing schemes to prevent wastage pending the identification of legal heirs?
- Gul Jehan vs The State1998 MLD 288 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
- Gul Daali vs Inspector-General of Police, N.-W.F.P. and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- Gujarat Poly-Avx Electronics Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Assessment)1998 PTD 2444 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-07-05Read full judgment →
- Gujarat Municipal Finance Board vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-1998 PTD 1023 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-05-04Read full judgment →
- Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 930 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of India involved the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, constituted under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act 1962, seeking exemption from income tax under Section 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The High Court had disallowed the claim, holding that an authority established for developing or establishing industries in an area did not fall within the scope of planning, development, or improvement of cities, towns, or villages. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It held that the word 'development' in Section 10(20A) must be understood broadly and is not confined to non-industrial activities. Since establishing industrial complexes involves planned infrastructure—such as roads, buildings, sanitation, and public amenities—it directly contributes to the development of the relevant city, town, or village. The Court reiterated that statutory provisions exempting public bodies created for developing urban or rural areas should be interpreted purposively to uphold their beneficial object.
Questions settled- Does an industrial development corporation constituted under a State Act qualify for tax exemption under Section 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act 1961?
- Should the term 'development' in Section 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act 1961 be interpreted broadly to include industrial development activities?
- How should statutory exemption provisions intended to protect public bodies created for urban or rural development be interpreted under fiscal law?
- Grover Soap (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 502 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-02-09Read full judgment →
- Government of the Punjab, Lahore and anothers vs Imran Ahmad Khan1998 PLD Lahore 365 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
- Government of the Punajb through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another vs Muhammad Ibrahim Azad1998 CLC 569 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-23Read full judgment →
- Government of Punjab and otherss vs J. S. Brothers1998 CLC 876 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
- Government of NWFP through Secretary of Forest, Food and Agriculture Department, Peshawar And Other vs (Syed) Akhtar Hussain Shah And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 621 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, C&W Department vs Sherdil1998 CLC 1805 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
- Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, C&W and others vs Messrs1998 CLC 1680 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question revolves around the legality of deciding a suit summarily under Order 17, Rule 3 without a proper judicial determination on merits based on the available evidence and material on record. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial Court acted illegally and without lawful authority by decreeing the suit straightaway without evaluating the evidence and material present on the record, and that Order 17, Rule 3 requires a decision based on a judicial determination of evidence. The Court laid down the principle that while proceeding under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C., a court must consider the entire material and evidence on record to decide the suit on merits rather than acting in a summary manner, and that delays caused by pursuing remedies in courts lacking pecuniary jurisdiction can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empower a court to decree a suit straightaway without considering the material and evidence available on record?
- Does the time spent in pursuing an appeal before a forum lacking pecuniary jurisdiction constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is it mandatory for a trial court proceeding under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to record its findings on merits after evaluating the entire material on record?
- Golden Eagle Enterprises through Authorized Representative Faiz Akbar1998 MLD 1868 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
- Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 73 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
- Global Produce, Limited vs Habib Credit & Exchange Bank, Limited And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 514 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-04Read full judgment →
- Global Produce Limited vs Habib Credit & Exchange Bank Limited and 61998 CLC 165 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-03Read full judgment →
- Global Container Lines Ltd vs American President Lines Ltd1998 CLC 360 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Yaseen vs Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 1634 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Yahya vs The Administrator, Jamal Noor Hospital, Karachi ,1998 PLC 44 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-08Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Kohinoor Plastics Container through Owner, Karachi1998 PLC 301 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Additional District Judge, Taunsa Camp at D.G.1998 MLD 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-04Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasul vs State1998 MLD 1366 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 58) · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Khan and another1998 CLC 452 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qasim alias Qasoo and another vs The State1998 MLD 746 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-11-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 968 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by two accused, Ghulam Nabi and Irshad Ali, who were charged with murder and denied bail by the trial court, despite the investigating officer finding them innocent and recommending their exclusion from the charge-sheet. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to post-arrest bail given the conflict between the police investigation report and the ocular evidence, and the apparent discrepancy between the medical evidence and the prosecution's version of the incident. The Court held that while the opinion of an investigating officer is not binding, it is a relevant factor. Upon a tentative assessment, the Court observed a significant discrepancy between the alleged distance of firing and the medical findings of charring, which suggested a closer range. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused might not be guilty, warranting further inquiry. Key principles laid down include that bail assessment must be tentative; the investigating officer's opinion is relevant but not binding; and bail should not be withheld solely due to the heinous nature of the charge.
Questions settled- Is the opinion of an investigating officer finding an accused innocent binding upon the court during bail proceedings?
- Can a court grant bail in a murder case based on a tentative assessment of discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence?
- Does the heinous nature of an offense alone justify the refusal of bail?
- Should the benefit of doubt arising from the prosecution's case be extended to the accused at the bail stage?
- Ghulam Nabi alias Kala vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs University of Punjab1998 MLD 144 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Muhammad Shaffi1998 CLC 1327 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and others1998 CLC 432 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition arose from a dispute regarding the petitioner's eligibility to appear in the Intermediate Annual Examination. The petitioner, a former student whose name was struck off the college rolls for non-payment of dues, sought to appear in examinations as a private candidate. The respondents withheld his result and prevented him from sitting for the examination, alleging the petitioner submitted forged documents and false affidavits. The core legal question was whether the High Court could intervene in the internal academic affairs of an educational board under writ jurisdiction when the petitioner had concealed material facts and lacked a vested legal right. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the violation of any specific rule or regulation by the respondents. Furthermore, the Court determined that disputed questions of fact and the petitioner's concealment of material facts precluded the granting of discretionary relief. The principle established is that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interfere with the internal autonomy and functioning of educational institutions in the absence of a clear violation of law.
Questions settled- Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Is a petitioner who conceals material facts and submits false affidavits entitled to discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere in the internal autonomy and functioning of an educational board where no rule or law has been violated?
- Ghulam Mustafa Khairati vs Federation of Pakistan and anothers1998 SCMR 1603 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging his termination of service as Senior Executive Vice-President of Habib Bank Limited under the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981. The core legal question concerns whether the appropriate Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters regarding the terms and conditions of service of employees of corporations and bodies controlled by the Federal Government, following the enactment of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 via amendment Act XVII of 1997. The Supreme Court held that the incorporation of section 2-A has retrospective effect as a procedural amendment, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the Service Tribunal. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that aggrieved employees must approach the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the incorporation of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 have retrospective effect?
- Whether the Service Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to entertain appeals regarding terms and conditions of service of employees of corporations owned or controlled by the Federal Government?
- Can a constitutional petition challenging the termination of a bank employee be maintained in the High Court after the amendment of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Ghulam Mustafa Khairati vs Federation of Pakistan and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 1078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's Constitution petition challenging his termination of service as a Senior Executive Vice-President of Habib Bank Limited under the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981. The High Court held that in view of the amendment introduced via Act No. XVII of 1997 incorporating section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, jurisdiction to entertain appeals relating to the terms and conditions of service of employees of corporations owned or controlled by the Federal Government vests exclusively in the Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns whether the appropriate Service Tribunal alone possesses jurisdiction to entertain the matter following the said statutory amendment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the incorporation of section 2-A has retrospective effect as a procedural amendment, thereby affirming the High Court's view that the aggrieved employee must approach the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the appropriate Service Tribunal alone have jurisdiction to entertain service disputes of employees of corporations and bodies controlled by the Federal Government following the insertion of section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Is the incorporation of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 retrospective in nature?
- Ghulam Mustafa and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1388 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa And Another vs Pakistan Municipal Corporation, through Its Administrator, And OtherK.L.R. 1998 CivH Cases 539 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa and another vs Municipal Corporation, through Administrator and 3 others1998 MLD 474 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1529 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza vs Headmaster Ch. Inayatullah and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 274 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Laboratory Assistant, made pursuant to political directives rather than on merit. The core legal question concerns whether public functionaries can make civil service appointments under the dictatorial influence or recommendations of Members of the National Assembly (M.N.As) or Members of the Provincial Assembly (M.P.As) in violation of statutory rules and constitutional provisions. The Lahore High Court held that appointments made under political pressure or dictation from outsiders to the statutory framework are illegal, void ab initio, and violative of fundamental rights relating to freedom of profession and equality before the law. The Court established that the executive and competent authorities must act independently within their allotted constitutional spheres under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and that political representatives possess no authority to dictate administrative appointments. Consequently, the appointment was set aside, and the authorities were directed to fill the post strictly on merit from eligible candidates who applied under the original advertisement.
Questions settled- Whether an appointment to a civil post made under the direction or recommendation of a Member of the National Assembly or Provincial Assembly is lawful?
- Does a competent appointing authority act without lawful authority when it surrenders its discretion to an external political entity?
- Are initial recruitments to public posts made without proper public advertisement and transparency violative of fundamental rights?
- Whether the judiciary can set aside administrative appointments that violate statutory rules and constitutional mandates regarding merit?
- Ghulam Murtaza vs Government of Punjab and others1998 CLC 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mujtaba vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1379 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-09Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Land Acquisition Collector, Tarbela Dam1998 SCMR 1233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court modifying the Acquisition Judge's decision regarding land compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal question concerns the determination of proper market value for acquired land and the entitlement to damages for property allegedly affected during construction work. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the market value of the land based on evidence are unexceptionable in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence. Furthermore, the Court held that damages caused by blasting during road construction by a contractor do not fall within the scope of Section 23(1) fourthly of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as such damage was not sustained at the time of taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting other property. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether compensation assessed by courts below on the basis of oral and documentary evidence can be interfered with without proving misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does damage caused by blasting during road construction qualify as damage sustained at the time of taking possession under Section 23(1) fourthly of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Is a landowner entitled to enhanced compensation as a building site without proving the same through evidence?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Allah Ditta And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 475 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Additional SESSlONS Judge and 3 others1998 MLD 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected writ petitions challenge an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's revision petition as non-maintainable. The core legal question was whether a revision petition against an order of acquittal is maintainable when an alternate remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. The Lahore High Court held that where the law provides a right of appeal against an acquittal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, section 439(5) expressly bars the entertaining of a revision petition at the instance of the party who could have appealed. The Court affirmed that the Additional Sessions Judge was fully justified in dismissing the revision petition as incompetent, and consequently dismissed the constitutional petitions.
Questions settled- Is a revision petition maintainable against an order of acquittal when a remedy of appeal is available under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does section 439(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a revision petition at the instance of a party who could have filed an appeal?
- Whether the Additional Sessions Judge is justified in dismissing a revision petition as non-maintainable against an acquittal order appealable before the High Court?
- Ghulam Muhammad Dosal and others vs Collector of Customs and others1998 MLD 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad and 24 others vs Superintending Engineer, Rice1998 PLC (C.S.) 87 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from the cancellation of an appointment of the petitioner's son as a Darogha (BPS-4) in the Irrigation Department, Government of Sindh, following his father's retirement. The core legal question concerns the lawfulness of cancelling a completed appointment order made under a preferential employment policy for children of retired employees, without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Sindh High Court held that the appointment was made against a clear permanent vacancy and created a vested right protected by the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, and that the cancellation order passed without notice violated the principles of natural justice and Article 4 of the Constitution. The Court laid down that an order passed in violation of natural justice is a nullity and can be remedied under Article 199 of the Constitution notwithstanding bar clauses, as the right to be treated in accordance with law is an inalienable constitutional right.
Questions settled- Does an appointment order made and acted upon create a vested right that cannot be arbitrarily recalled without notice?
- Whether an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is a nullity correctable under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Can a previous dismissal of a constitutional petition in limine based on a mistaken factual premise operate as res judicata?
- Does the constitutional jurisdiction extend to setting aside administrative orders that violate due process despite general bars on service matters?
- Ghulam Muhammad Alias Guloo And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 98 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad alias Gul Muhammad vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department, Sindh Secretariat, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 2 others1998 PLD Karachi 367 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mahboob and 9 others vs Mst. Saddo Mai and others1998 MLD 613 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Jilani vs Government of N.-W.F.P.1998 PLC (C.S.) 491 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Iqrar Khan alias Iqrar Khan and another vs Sakhi Zaman and another1998 MLD 1202 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam HYDERApplicant/accused vs Muhammad Sadiq and another1998 PLD Karachi 126 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hyder Solangi vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 60 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 175 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 394 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad Bashir and others1998 CLC 701 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 279 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain Gul vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home1998 PLC (C.S.) 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain and others vs Muhammad Yousaf and others1998 PLD Lahore 11 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain And Another vs Muhammad Yousaf And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-17Read full judgment →