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.
- Abdul Razzak Billoo and another vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 226 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razaque and 4 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1360 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 451 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-02-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs The State and others1998 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine the petitioner-complainant's writ petition against the discharge of respondent No. 4 by a Duty Magistrate. An F.I.R. was registered against the respondent under sections 452 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Initially found innocent, the accused was subsequently found involved during a further investigation conducted by an A.S.P., who directed his arrest and the submission of a challan. However, upon production before the Duty Magistrate, the accused was discharged without physical remand and without adequate reasons, overlooking the subsequent investigation report. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine through a non-speaking order. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether a Magistrate could legally discharge an accused without providing reasons, disregarding a superior police officer's report of involvement, and whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition through a non-speaking order.
Questions settled- Whether a Magistrate can discharge an accused without giving reasons despite a police report finding the accused involved in the offence?
- Is a High Court justified in dismissing a writ petition challenging a Magistrate's discharge order through a non-speaking order?
- Abdul Rashid vs District Education Officer (Secondary), Muzaffarabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 304 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a service matter where the appellant’s appointment as a Junior Clerk was annulled by the District Education Officer (DEO) following a challenge by a respondent. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appellant's challenge on the technical ground of non-joinder of the Divisional Director of Schools as a necessary party. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal and whether the DEO’s order was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the Service Tribunal erred by focusing on technicalities rather than merits. The Court determined that the DEO lacked the competence to sit in appeal over his own appointment order. Furthermore, the respondent, having neither applied for the post nor participated in the selection process, lacked standing to challenge the appointment. The Court affirmed that the principle of locus poenitentiae prohibits the arbitrary withdrawal of an appointment order without providing the affected party an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the appellant's appointment.
Questions settled- Can a District Education Officer sit in appeal against his own appointment order?
- Is an appointment order subject to the rule of locus poenitentiae requiring a hearing before cancellation?
- Does a candidate who did not participate in the selection process have the standing to challenge an appointment?
- Should a Service Tribunal decide a case on merits instead of dismissing it on technical grounds when the record is sufficient?
- Abdul Rashid Nasir and anothers vs Pakistan State Oil Company Limited1998 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Balochistan High Court, which had allowed a miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of criminal bail matter. The petitioner had previously secured bail after depositing approximately Rs. 45 million with the High Court Registrar pursuant to a dispute arising from an agreement with Pakistan State Oil (PSO). Following the disposal of the bail application, the High Court directed the refund of the deposited amount to PSO upon an undertaking. The petitioner challenged this order, contending that the miscellaneous application was incompetent under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that civil liability could not be adjudicated within a disposed of bail application. The Supreme Court observed that considerations regarding breach of contract were relevant to civil litigation and questioned whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Sections 516-A, 561-A, or any other provision of law to direct the release of deposited funds in this manner. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted.
Questions settled- Whether a miscellaneous application is maintainable in a criminal bail application that has already been finally disposed of?
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 516-A or Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order the release of money deposited as a condition of bail to a complainant company?
- Can a criminal court adjudicate upon and determine prima facie civil liability arising from a commercial contract within bail proceedings?
- Abdul Rasheed vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 363 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rasheed vs Ibrahim and 2 others1998 SCMR 2356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a civil revision against the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondent from interfering with his possession of land, despite a prior decree for possession through pre-emption obtained by the respondent. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could challenge the validity of the respondent's pre-emption decree after having accepted the pre-emption money and acknowledged the respondent's tenancy. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the decree due to his prior conduct of accepting the pre-emption money and acknowledging the tenancy. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Revenue Officers are duty-bound to update revenue records in accordance with binding civil court adjudications. Finding no illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, establishing that a party who accepts the benefits of a decree is estopped from subsequently challenging its validity or enforcement on grounds of laches.
Questions settled- Is a party who has accepted pre-emption money estopped from challenging the validity of the underlying pre-emption decree?
- Are Revenue Officers legally obligated to update revenue records to conform with binding civil court adjudications?
- Can a party challenge the enforcement of a decree on the grounds of laches after having accepted the benefits of that decree?
- Abdul Qayoom and 11 others vs Government of Sindh through Chief1998 PLD Karachi 192 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadoos vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 625 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 426 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a Murder Reference and a criminal appeal concerning a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, awarded by a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether a death sentence passed by such a Special Court requires confirmation by the High Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that a reference for confirmation of a death sentence under Section 374 is not competent when the sentence is imposed by a Special Court under the Act of 1975. The Court reasoned that the Act of 1975 is a special law designed for the speedy trial of scheduled offences, and its procedural framework intentionally excludes the requirement of confirmation by the High Court, as the Special Court is not subordinate to the High Court in this capacity. Consequently, the Court established that special statutes override general procedural laws where inconsistency exists. Ultimately, the appeal was accepted following a valid compromise between the legal heirs of the deceased and the convict.
Questions settled- Does a death sentence awarded by a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 require confirmation by the High Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of revisionary jurisdiction?
- Can a conviction and sentence for murder be set aside by the High Court upon a compromise between the parties?
- Abdul Qadir and 3 others vs Abdul Qadir and 2 others1998 MLD 321 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir and 13 others vs Sher Muhammad1998 P Cr. L J 240 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadeer Qamar and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Nabi and 29 otherss vs Jan Muhammad and 26 others1998 CLC 1842 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Majlis-e-Shoora, Kalat Division, which reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the petitioners' suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and cancellation of mutation entries concerning ancestral property. The core legal questions involved whether revenue record entries confer title without independent proof, whether a witness's testimony can be discarded merely for lacking knowledge of settlement operations, and whether a suit for declaration of title by a person in possession is barred by limitation upon a belated discovery of wrong mutation entries. The Balochistan High Court held that entries in the record of rights do not confer title by themselves and must be supported by independent evidence, that witnesses cannot be discredited solely for ignorance of administrative revenue updates when their testimony on physical possession is firm, and that persons in continuous possession are not strictly bound by limitation periods until their possession is threatened or they acquire notice. The court established that appellate findings based on conjectures and misreading of evidence cannot override a well-reasoned trial court judgment.
Questions settled- Do entries in the record of rights independently confer title or ownership of property?
- Can the testimony of a witness regarding physical possession be discarded solely because they lack knowledge of settlement operations and mutation entries?
- Whether a suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation entries is barred by limitation when the plaintiff is in continuous possession and files the suit upon learning of adverse entries?
- Can a clerical error regarding Khasra numbers in a judicial decree serve as a valid ground for dismissing a civil suit?
- Abdul Mujeeb vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1381 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court No. 1 (S.T.A.), Hyderabad, for the illegal possession of a weapon. The appellant was convicted for possessing a TT pistol without a license. The core legal questions were whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of a ballistic expert report confirming the weapon's working condition and nature, and whether the failure to associate private witnesses during the recovery violated mandatory procedural requirements. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained due to the lack of evidence regarding the weapon's functionality and the failure to comply with statutory requirements for independent witnesses. The Court emphasized that the absence of private witnesses in a populated area, without evidence of efforts to procure them, violates mandatory procedural safeguards. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt, noting that the appellant had already served the full sentence, but the conviction remained a stigma that required judicial correction.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a ballistic expert report regarding the functionality of a recovered weapon invalidate a conviction for illegal possession?
- Is the failure to associate private witnesses during a recovery in a populated area a violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an appellate court set aside a conviction when the appellant has already served the full sentence but seeks to remove the stigma of conviction?
- Abdul Mogees and others vs M.C., Kasur and others1998 MLD 106 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Mateen vs Muhammad Saleem and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 305 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-09-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Malik vs The State and another1998 MLD 1307 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Malik vs Sarfaraz Kenneth1998 MLD 2009 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid Khokhar vs Fazal Elahi Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court1998 CLC 1296 · Pakistan Bar Council · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid alias Fauji and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1914 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid (Deceased) through Legal Representatives vs SH. BashirK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 163 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 399 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 4 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs The State through A.-G., Sindh, Karachi1998 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had upheld his conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, while modifying the sentence. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether a conviction can be sustained when there is a significant, unexplained delay of over two months between the recovery of the alleged contraband (heroin) and its submission to the Chemical Examiner, coupled with a lack of evidence regarding the safe custody of the substance during that interval. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contention regarding the evidentiary impact of the inordinate delay and the chain of custody required further judicial examination. The Court held that the petitioner's bail shall remain operative pending the final decision of the appeal. The principle established is that unexplained delays in forensic analysis and failure to prove the safe custody of recovered narcotics during such delays warrant a deeper appellate review of the conviction.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in sending recovered narcotics to the Chemical Examiner vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Is the failure to prove safe custody of recovered contraband during the period before forensic analysis a valid ground for challenging a conviction?
- Can leave to appeal be granted on the basis of procedural lapses in the handling of case property?
- Abdul Majeed and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed and 2 others vs Raja Mukhtar Ali1998 SCMR 473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' appeal and upholding the trial court's decree in a pre-emption suit. The respondent filed a suit for pre-emption claiming a superior right to purchase the suit property sold to the petitioners. The petitioners contested the suit, raising a preliminary objection that the respondent had waived his right of pre-emption and was estopped by his acts and conduct from bringing the suit. Both the trial court and the High Court evaluated the oral and documentary evidence on record and concurrently found that the petitioners failed to establish the plea of waiver and estoppel, noting that the witnesses produced were related and not neutral, and that the respondent derived no benefit from any such alleged assurance. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence were based on cogent reasons and unexceptionable. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding waiver of a pre-emption right can be interfered with when based on proper appreciation of evidence?
- Can a plea of waiver and estoppel in a pre-emption suit be sustained on the basis of interested and non-neutral witness testimony without proof of benefit derived by the pre-emptor?
- Abdul Latif vs Federation of Pakistan and 174 others1998 SCMR 1876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the seniority of a Pakistan Army officer, Lt. Col. Abdul Latif, who was seconded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The appellant sought to have his seniority in the Foreign Service antedated to his initial 1981 deputation, alleging discrimination compared to other officers who received such benefits. The core legal question was whether an officer on secondment from the Armed Forces to a civil ministry is entitled to seniority from the date of deputation, and whether the appellant's induction into the Foreign Service entitled him to retrospective seniority. The Supreme Court held that secondment does not constitute induction into civil service; an officer remains a member of the Armed Forces until formal induction. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to seniority from the date of his deputation. The Court distinguished the appellant's case from precedents, noting that those officers received specific, valid retrospective seniority orders from the competent authority, which the appellant lacked. The principle established is that seniority is not a vested right and is governed by the specific terms of induction.
Questions settled- Does the secondment of an Armed Forces officer to a civil ministry constitute induction into the civil service?
- Is an officer on deputation entitled to claim seniority from the date of initial secondment?
- Can an officer claim discrimination based on the seniority granted to other officers if the circumstances of their induction differ?
- Abdul Latif vs Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns a service matter where the appellant, a Test Inspector, was posted as a Foreman (Instrument) in his own pay scale, subject to completing mandatory training for promotion to the higher pay scale (NPS-16). The appellant performed the duties of the higher post but was denied the corresponding salary because the required training could not be provided by the employer, WAPDA. The core legal question was whether an employee who discharges the full duties and responsibilities of a higher post is entitled to the salary of that post, even if a prerequisite condition like training was not met due to reasons attributable to the employer. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to the higher salary. The Court affirmed the principle that when an officer is appointed to a higher post and discharges the full duties and responsibilities associated with that position, they are entitled to draw the presumptive pay of that post, regardless of administrative failures to provide required training.
Questions settled- Is an employee entitled to the salary of a higher post if they discharge the full duties and responsibilities of that position?
- Does the failure of an employer to provide mandatory training preclude an employee from claiming the salary of a higher post they have already occupied and performed duties for?
- Is an employee entitled to presumptive pay when appointed to a higher post despite not fulfilling a prerequisite training condition caused by the employer's inability to provide such training?
- Abdul Latif vs Chairman, WAPDA, and 3 others1998 SCMR 2614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's claim for the regular pay scale (NPS-16) during his tenure as Foreman (Instrument) at a WAPDA power station. The core legal question is whether an employee appointed to perform the duties of a higher post is entitled to the salary of that higher post when the failure to complete the requisite training condition was attributable to the employer rather than the employee. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that since the appellant discharged the full duties and responsibilities of the higher post and the lack of training was not due to any default on his part, he was entitled to draw the salary of the higher post. The key principle laid down is that an employee who performs the duties of a higher post is entitled to the corresponding higher salary, provided the failure to meet formal prerequisites is not attributable to their own default.
Questions settled- Is an employee entitled to the salary of a higher post when posted against it but lacking a training prerequisite due to the employer's default?
- Does an employee who discharges the full duties and responsibilities of a higher post have a right to the presumptive pay of that post?
- Abdul Khaliq Anjum vs Secretary Education, Government of Punjab1998 PLC (C.S.) 839 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor on deputation as Secretary of the Punjab Board of Technical Education, challenged his transfer order issued before the completion of his three-year tenure. He alleged that the transfer was mala fide and retaliatory due to his reporting of financial irregularities by the Board Chairman. The respondents contended that the transfer was an administrative necessity due to internal conflict and that the petitioner lacked a vested right to remain on deputation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that a civil servant on deputation does not possess a vested right to continue in that position for the full tenure and is subject to recall by the borrowing department in accordance with established policy. The Court further observed that the transfer was consistent with the relevant Office Memorandum governing deputation. Additionally, the Court took judicial notice of the widespread misuse of government vehicles, issuing guidelines for their proper allocation and usage, and directed the Chief Secretary to formulate a clear policy to curb such practices.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to continue on deputation for the full tenure?
- Can a civil servant maintain a constitutional petition against a transfer order from a deputation post?
- Is a transfer order of a deputationist valid if it complies with the borrowing department's policy, even if issued before the expiry of the deputation tenure?
- Abdul Khalil vs Manzoor Ahmad and 5 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1396 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order of the High Court whereby a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 was accepted and the orders of the Ombudsman and the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir were quashed. The core legal question involved whether the appointment of respondent No. 1 as a Forest Guard was ab initio void for lack of advertisement and whether the Ombudsman had jurisdiction in service matters under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that an appointment made without advertising the post is illegal rather than ab initio void when the authority is competent and the appointment is subsequently approved by the selection committee, thereby necessitating a right of hearing under the principle of audi alteram partem. Furthermore, the Court held that the Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction to entertain service-related complaints from public servants or functionaries regarding personal grievances in their agency. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether an appointment made without advertising a vacancy renders the appointment ab initio void or merely illegal?
- Does the Ombudsman have jurisdiction under section 9(2) of the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman Act to entertain service matters and personal grievances of public servants?
- Is an affected party entitled to a hearing before an adverse order is passed against them, even if their initial appointment allegedly violated recruitment rules?
- Abdul Kasim vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1998 PLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a retired employee, challenged an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside a compensation award granted by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Authority had originally awarded the petitioner his retirement benefits plus Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental torture and litigation delay. The Labour Appellate Tribunal, exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside the compensation portion. The High Court examined whether the Authority possessed the power to grant lump-sum compensation for mental torture and litigation costs. Upon analyzing Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Court held that the Authority’s power to award compensation is strictly circumscribed by statute. In cases of delayed wages, the Authority is limited to awarding a maximum of ten rupees, regardless of the perceived inadequacy of that amount in contemporary times. The Court affirmed that the Authority, being a creature of statute, cannot exceed its defined jurisdiction to award damages for mental torture or litigation costs. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to recall the compensation award.
Questions settled- Does the Authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have the jurisdiction to award lump-sum compensation for mental torture and litigation costs?
- What is the maximum compensation limit the Authority can award in cases of delayed wages under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Are orders passed by a Labour Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 subject to revision by the Labour Appellate Tribunal?
- Abdul Karim vs Nazir Ahmad1998 PLD Lahore 163 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit for recovery filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court dismissed the appellant-defendant's application for leave to appear and defend the suit due to a delay in filing, subsequently decreeing the suit against him. The core legal question was whether the service of summons upon the defendant was legally sufficient to trigger the limitation period under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908, given that the plaint was not attached to the summons. The Lahore High Court held that in a summary suit, proper service requires the summons to be accompanied by a copy of the plaint to effectively apprise the defendant of the claim. Without the plaint, the defendant cannot be expected to move expeditiously for leave to defend. Consequently, the Court ruled that the service was improper, the limitation period did not commence, and the application for leave to defend was not time-barred. The impugned decree was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial.
Questions settled- Does the failure to attach a copy of the plaint to the summons in a summary suit constitute improper service?
- Can the limitation period for filing an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit commence if the defendant has not been served with a copy of the plaint?
- Is a decree passed in a summary suit sustainable if the defendant was not properly served with the plaint along with the summons?
- Abdul Karim vs Asadullah1998 CLC 974 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim and others vs The State and others1998 MLD 1180 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-02-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 349 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jalil vs Zulfiqar Ali and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 697 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jalil Khan vs State1998 MLD 202 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1423 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs The State and others1998 P Cr. L J 1126 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs Abdul Sattar1998 SCMR 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside an appellate court's decree for specific performance of an Iqrarnama (agreement) and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The core legal question was whether the document in question constituted a valid, enforceable agreement to sell or an unregistered mortgage deed, and whether the petitioner had successfully proven its execution given the respondent's allegations of fraud and lack of consideration. The Supreme Court held that the document, which stipulated that the land was mortgaged for five years and would be sold upon default of payment, was in fact a mortgage deed. As an unregistered mortgage deed, it was inadmissible in evidence. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving the conscious execution of the document by the respondent, particularly as the respondent's allegations of fraud were not effectively rebutted during cross-examination. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the suit was correctly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an agreement stipulating the transfer of property upon default of mortgage repayment constitutes a mortgage deed requiring registration?
- Is an unregistered mortgage deed admissible in evidence to support a claim for specific performance?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when the execution of a document is challenged on the grounds of fraud and lack of consideration?
- Abdul Jabbar and 4 others vs Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others1998 SCMR 722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against the petitioners. The core dispute involved a mutual settlement wherein the respondent, an agricultural tenant, agreed to surrender possession of land to the petitioners in exchange for retaining specific portions of the property and purchasing a part of it. The petitioners contested the suit, alleging the agreement was executed under coercion and lacked consideration, citing the political climate of 1973. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the Additional District Judge dismissed it on appeal. The High Court subsequently set aside the appellate judgment and restored the Trial Court's decree. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no infirmity in the conclusion that the agreement was voluntary, mediated by community elders, and acted upon by the parties. The Court affirmed that the respondent had a valid right to enforce the settlement following the restoration of the petitioners' land allotment, dismissing the petitioners' claims of coercion and lack of consideration.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a mutual settlement agreement on the grounds of coercion after having acted upon its terms?
- Does the restoration of a cancelled land allotment revive the right to enforce a prior settlement agreement regarding that land?
- Is a settlement agreement mediated by community elders and acted upon by the parties enforceable despite allegations of lack of consideration?
- Abdul Haq vs The State1998 MLD 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haq vs Ali Akbar and 12 others1998 CLC 129 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from a civil revision petition filed before the Peshawar High Court by a mortgagee challenging concurrent judgments of the lower courts which decreed a redemption suit filed by the mortgagors and set aside contradictory revenue court orders. The core legal question concerned whether the mortgagee had acquired a prescriptive title over the mortgaged property through the lapse of sixty years, and whether the revenue authorities acted without jurisdiction in ignoring a final civil court decree. The High Court held that decisions of a civil court of universal jurisdiction regarding title are final and binding, precluding revenue forums from holding otherwise. The Court further held that subsequent mutations, changes in parties, and the nature of the usufructuary mortgage constituted a novation of contract, and that under section 20(2) of the Limitation Act, the mortgagee's receipt of rent or produce amounted to a continuous acknowledgement of the debt, preventing limitation from running against the mortgagors. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a final decision of a civil court regarding title operate as binding upon revenue courts?
- Whether the receipt of rent or produce by a mortgagee in possession constitutes an acknowledgement of debt under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does a change in the parties and mortgage amount through subsequent mutations amount to a novation of contract?
- Can a usufructuary mortgage become time-barred after sixty years when produce is continuously received by the mortgagee?
- Abdul Haq and another vs State and another1998 MLD 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Abdul Qayyum and others1998 MLD 994 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Abdul Karim and 6 others1998 MLD 188 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid and others vs Chief Secretary, N.-W.F.P. And others1998 SCMR 2455 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a batch of civil appeals arising from two separate judgments of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, concerning the claims of civil servants who were adjusted or appointed on a temporary basis against the post of Subject Specialist in BPS-17 after previously serving as teachers in BPS-15. The core legal questions involved whether civil servants working on a higher post are entitled to the minimum salary of that grade despite lacking specific qualifications, and whether their claims for arrears of pay are subject to a three-year limitation period. The Supreme Court held that civil servants who continuously discharge duties on a higher post are entitled to the minimum pay of that post from the date of their appointment, and that their arrears of salary cannot be restricted or time-barred when they have continuously agitated the matter before departmental authorities and the tribunal. The Court laid down the principle that a person performing duties on a higher post is entitled to the corresponding pay scale, and continuous agitation of a rightful claim prevents the claim from becoming time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant appointed to a higher post is entitled to the minimum salary of that post from the date of appointment?
- Can a claim for arrears of salary for working on a higher post be restricted to a period of three years when the employee has continuously agitated the matter?
- Whether an employee lacking specific educational qualifications can be denied the salary of a higher post while continuously discharging duties against it?
- Abdul Hamid Ali and 5 others vs Land Acquisition Officer, Badin1998 PLD Karachi 50 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs State1998 MLD 2054 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed Khan vs Maqbool Ahmed Khakwani, Project Director, Project Implementation Cell (S&Te Wing), Ministry of Education, Isalamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Deputy Director (Tech.) in the National Technical Teachers Training College, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his service appeal. The petitioner's services were terminated upon the completion of a project, and his subsequent claim for pension and gratuity was rejected by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had only completed nine and a half years of service, falling short of the ten-year requirement. The Tribunal further held that it lacked the authority to condone the service gap, as that power rested with the competent authority under C.B.R. 371. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had indeed made a representation regarding pension and gratuity. The Court observed that government instructions allow for the condonation of a deficiency of six months or less in qualifying service. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits, specifically addressing the correct interpretation of government instructions regarding the condonation of service deficiencies.
Questions settled- Is a Service Tribunal empowered to exercise the authority of a departmental competent authority to condone a deficiency in qualifying service?
- Does a deficiency of six months or less in the qualifying service of a government servant stand condoned under government instructions?
- Can a service appeal be dismissed solely on the basis that the appellant failed to request the competent authority to condone a service gap?
- Abdul Hameed Khan vs Maqbool Ahmed Khakwani and 2 others1998 SCMR 2083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal regarding the termination of his employment following the conclusion of a project and his claim for pensionary benefits. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to pension and gratuity despite having rendered slightly less than the qualifying ten years of service, and whether the Service Tribunal could condone the deficiency. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that leave should be granted to consider the petitioner's entitlement to pension and whether the deficiency of six months in qualifying service stood condoned under government instructions. The key principle laid down is that while service tribunals are confined to adjudicating departmental orders under the relevant statute, questions regarding the interpretation of government instructions on condoning service gaps for pensionary benefits warrant further examination by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether an employee whose services are terminated upon the completion of a project is entitled to pensionary benefits despite falling short of the ten-year qualifying service?
- Can the Service Tribunal exercise the power of the competent authority to condone gaps in service for the grant of pension?
- Whether government instructions regarding the condonation of a deficiency in qualifying service were correctly interpreted by the Service Tribunal?
- Abdul Hameed Kausar vs Habib Bank Limited and others1998 PLD Lahore 453 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed Chaudhry vs Naseem Hussain ShahK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed Awan vs Tax Recovery Officer-04, Coys Zone, Income1998 PTD 874 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed Awan vs Tax Recovery Officer-04 Coys Zone Income1998 P.C.T.L.R. 440 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed and another vs The State1998 MLD 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed and 14 others vs Abdul Qayyum and 16 others1998 SCMR 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a revision petition, which in turn upheld the refusal of an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the Additional District Judge, Leyyah. The petitioners sought to produce certified copies of sale-deeds as additional evidence at the appellate stage to challenge the serial number in the Petition Writer's Register. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court and the High Court properly exercised their discretion in refusing to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage when the documents were not shown to be unavailable during the trial and previous prolonged litigation. The Supreme Court held that the courts below were fully justified in refusing the application, as the petitioners failed to show reasonable grounds for non-production during the trial and the relevant facts were already part of the record through earlier admissions and evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed that appellate courts are not bound to admit additional evidence where parties were conscious of the controversy and failed to exercise due diligence during the original trial.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is justified in refusing an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. when the documents were available during trial?
- Can a party produce additional evidence at the appellate stage without establishing reasonable grounds for its non-production during the original trial?
- Does the refusal to admit additional evidence by the lower courts warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction if no jurisdictional error is shown?
- Abdul Hakeem Khan and another vs The State and another1998 MLD 1147 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hafeez vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hafeez Siddiqi vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways H.Q., Lahore and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 1001 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-02-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 837 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Mst. Hameeda Bano1998 CLC 2070 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over a plot of land originally claimed by the respondent-plaintiff as a pre-independence purchase, which was later transferred as evacuee property to a third party and subsequently purchased by the appellant via a registered sale deed. The core legal question was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the title of property treated as evacuee property and whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. The High Court held that once land is declared evacuee property and a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) is issued, the civil court lacks jurisdiction to declare it non-evacuee, and that the plaintiff's suit filed decades later was barred by time. The court established the principle that questions of limitation must be taken cognizance of by courts, and suits challenging settled property transfers long after the issuance of a P.T.D. are untenable.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to declare a property as non-evacuee after a Permanent Transfer Deed has been issued by the settlement authorities?
- Is a suit for declaration and possession filed long after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed barred by limitation?
- Can a court take cognizance of the question of limitation suo motu based on the pleadings of the parties?
- Abdul Ghani Chaudhry vs Secretary, Establishment, Islamabad and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a service dispute where the appellant, an Income Tax Officer, sought restoration of his original seniority after his promotion to B-18. The appellant had been superseded by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on two occasions due to an indifferent service record. Although the appellant later successfully challenged and expunged adverse remarks from his 1983 Annual Confidential Report, the authorities refused to ante-date his promotion or restore his seniority. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal, noting the supersession was based on broader service record issues, not solely the expunged remarks. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, holding that seniority in a promoted post takes effect from the date of regular promotion. The Court established that a civil servant consciously superseded by a DPC cannot regain original seniority so long as the supersession order remains unchallenged and intact. Supersession is distinct from deferment or inadvertent omission; thus, the mere expunction of adverse remarks does not automatically invalidate a prior, validly recorded supersession based on an overall indifferent service record.
Questions settled- Does the expunction of adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report automatically entitle a civil servant to restoration of original seniority after a prior supersession?
- Can a civil servant regain original seniority after being consciously superseded by a Departmental Promotion Committee if the supersession order remains unchallenged?
- From what date does the seniority of a civil servant in a promoted post take effect under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Is a supersession by a Departmental Promotion Committee based on an indifferent service record equivalent to an inadvertent omission or deferment of promotion?
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 353 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Mir Muhammad and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 803 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Mir Muhammad And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 250 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffarabdul Rehman and others vs Asghar Ali and others1998 PLD Supreme Court 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These review petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from eviction proceedings under Section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, where landlords sought possession for reconstruction. The core legal questions involved the scope of Supreme Court review jurisdiction and whether a tenant's right under Section 13(5-B) to seek restored possession in a newly reconstructed building can be defeated or pre-empted at the eviction stage if the landlord alters the character of the building (e.g., from commercial to residential). Overruling earlier restrictive interpretations, the Supreme Court held that the cause of action under Section 13(5-B) arises only before the completion of the new building and its occupation by another person, not at the time of the eviction order. Moreover, the statutory use of the word "area" rather than "shop" or "residential premises" means a tenant's option cannot be pre-empted based solely on approved building plans. The Court allowed the review petitions, confirming the tenants' right to apply under Section 13(5-B) post-reconstruction.
Questions settled- What is the scope and standard for the Supreme Court of Pakistan to exercise its review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution?
- At what stage does a tenant's cause of action to seek possession under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 accrue?
- Can a landlord pre-empt or defeat a tenant's statutory option under Section 13(5-B) at the eviction stage by altering the nature or plan of the proposed building?
- Abdul Ghaffar vs Selection Committee through Director of Education (Colleges) Balochistan, Quetta And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Services Cases 120 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar Abdul Rehman And Other vs Asghar Ali And Other(K.L.R. 1998 SC 85) · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment disposes of five review petitions seeking review of an earlier judgment rendered by a five-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning ejectment of tenants on the ground of reconstruction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether a tenant's right to seek re-entry into a newly constructed building under Section 13(5-B) of the Ordinance is defeated if the landlord changes the character or type of the building upon reconstruction from commercial to residential or vice versa, and whether such determination can be made preemptively at the time of granting ejectment based on the approved building plan. The Court held that the previous view—restricting Section 13(5-B) strictly to buildings of the exact same type and character and deciding the issue prematurely based on the initial approved plan—overlooked vital statutory language, notably the use of 'area' rather than 'shop' or 'residential premises', and pre-empted the tenant's right which only accrues before the completion of the new building. The review petitions were accordingly allowed, holding that tenants retain the right to apply under Section 13(5-B) at the appropriate statutory stage regardless of initial plan deviations.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's conversion of a commercial building into a residential building upon reconstruction extinguish a tenant's right to seek re-entry under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a tenant's right to apply for possession of an area in a newly constructed building under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, be determined or pre-empted at the stage of passing an ejectment order based on the landlord's approved building plan?
- What are the precise grounds and scope for entertaining a review petition against a considered judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Does the statutory employment of the word 'area' instead of 'shop' or 'residential premises' in Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, restrict the tenant's right of re-entry to the exact same type and character of the old premises?
- Abdul Bari vs Malik Amir Jan and 4 others1998 PLD Supreme Court 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court order maintaining a trial court's decision to forfeit only 25% of the bail bond amounts after the accused absconded following the commission of twin murders. The core legal question was whether the lower courts exercised their discretion under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) properly by granting leniency to the sureties despite the gravity of the offense and the abscondence of the accused. The Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the lower courts' exercise of discretion was flawed. The Court emphasized that while sureties are not custodians, the forfeiture of bail bonds must be balanced against the need to maintain the administration of justice, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes where the sureties failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their inability to produce the accused. The Court ruled that in the absence of compelling circumstances or a established factual foundation for leniency, the forfeiture of the entire bond amount is appropriate to deter the abuse of the bail process and address the deteriorating law and order situation.
Questions settled- Is the forfeiture of the entire amount of a bail bond mandatory when an accused absconds after being released on bail?
- Does the absence of monetary gain for a surety automatically entitle them to leniency in the forfeiture of a bail bond under Section 514 Cr.P.C.?
- Can a court interfere with the discretionary order of a lower court regarding the forfeiture of bail bonds if the discretion was exercised without considering the gravity of the offense?
- Does a surety have a duty to ensure the attendance of an accused in court, and does failure to do so warrant the forfeiture of the bond?
- Abdul Baqui And 3 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 255 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Baqi and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 87 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of proceedings in respect of an F.I.R. under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The core legal question is whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under section 188, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on a police report or F.I.R. without a written complaint by the public servant concerned, notwithstanding the amendment making the offence cognizable. The court held that despite the offence under section 188 being made cognizable by the police, the absence of a corresponding amendment in section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 means a court cannot take cognizance except upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their superior. Consequently, the proceedings were declared invalid and quashed. The key principle laid down is that the statutory bar under section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prevails, requiring a written complaint for cognizance under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Can a court take cognizance of an offence under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on a police report without a written complaint?
- Does the making of an offence under section 188, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cognizable dispense with the requirement of a written complaint under section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are proceedings initiated on a police report for violation of an order under section 144 liable to be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Abdul Badshah and 9 others vs Abdur Rashid and 5 others1998 SCMR 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging an order passed by an Appellate Tribunal regarding building regulations. The core legal question concerned whether the Appellate Tribunal acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by deciding an appeal without providing the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, specifically regarding the interpretation of paragraph 11 of the N.-W.F.P. Building Regulation, 1985. The petitioners contended that their rights were adversely affected by this procedural omission. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the record supported the petitioners' claim that they were not afforded a proper hearing. The Advocate-General for N.-W.F.P. conceded that the matter required reconsideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Appellate Board for a fresh decision. The Court established the principle that an appellate authority must provide a fair opportunity of hearing to affected parties before adjudicating matters that impact their legal rights, ensuring compliance with due process and relevant regulations.
Questions settled- Does an appellate authority have a legal obligation to provide a hearing to the parties before deciding an appeal?
- Can an appellate order be set aside if it was passed without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard?
- Abdul Aziz vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others1998 PLC 50 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz and 6 others vs The Member Board of Revenue and 15 others1998 SCMR 1078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of limitation. The petitioners had previously sought to pre-empt the sale of land, but their claim was only partially successful based on revenue records. They subsequently alleged that the respondents committed fraud by altering revenue records to deprive them of their pre-emption rights. The core legal question was whether the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed in 1989, was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had knowledge of the alleged fraud as early as 1981, when the Additional Commissioner's order relied on the disputed revenue entries. Consequently, the limitation period of three years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 had expired well before the application was filed. The Court affirmed that observations made in previous appellate proceedings regarding the availability of a remedy do not extend statutory limitation periods. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an observation by an appellate court regarding the availability of a legal remedy serve to extend the statutory period of limitation for filing an application?
- When does the period of limitation commence for an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on alleged fraud?
- Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 governed by the three-year limitation period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Abdul Aziz vs The State1998 MLD 1057 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ahad and 3 others vs Secretary to Government of Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 661 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-07-30Read full judgment →
- Abbass Shroff and another vs Miss Farzana and 4 others1998 PTD 2884 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-02Read full judgment →
- Abbas Khan and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 714 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
- Abbas Baig vs The State1998 MLD 1604 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-28Read full judgment →
- Abbas Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 943 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-08Read full judgment →
- A.S. Glittre D/5 I/S Garonne and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 87 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
- A.M. Zainalabdeen Musliar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 1322 · Kerala High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
- A.K. Trading Corporation, Muzaffarabad through Chief Executive, Syed1998 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 7 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-17Read full judgment →
- A.B. of Pakistan Ltd. vs Mehran Oil Mills Ltd.1998 PLD Karachi 360 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
- A. Sivasailam vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1998 PTD 1466 · Madras High Court · 1996-08-14Read full judgment →
- A. M. Moosa vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1998 PTD 2300 · Kerala High Court · 1996-06-14Read full judgment →
- A vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Crimiiial Cases 263 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
- A & B Beverages Shama Labour Union, Karachi vs Sindh Labour Court1998 PLC 490 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal filed by the Punjab Road Transport Corporation against the decision of the Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, dated 16-7-1997, which accepted the respondents' grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether the respondents, working as Assistants in the Stores Wing, were entitled to the selection grade in BPS-15 pursuant to Notification FD-PC-II/1-87 dated 27-7-1987, and whether their grievance petition was barred by limitation. The Sindh High Court held that since assistants in different sections performed the same duties and the corporation adopted the notification, denying the selection grade to the respondents amounted to discriminatory treatment. The Court further held that unpaid dues during service constitute a cause of recurring nature, making the petition well within time. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the judgment of the Labour Court.
Questions settled- Whether the denial of a selection grade to employees performing duties identical to those in other wings receiving the grade constitutes discriminatory treatment?
- Does the non-payment of legitimate dues during service constitute a cause of recurring nature for the purpose of limitation?
- Whether a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is barred by limitation when based on a recurring cause of action?
- -II Shabbir Ahmad Chugtai vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, LG&RD Department, Lahore and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 667 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
- -I Khalid Siddique vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise1998 PLC (C.S.) 1496 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
- -I Arshad Mehmood vs The Secretary Education, Punjab, Lahore and 31998 PLC (C.S.) 944 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
- (Syed) Muhammad Arifeen vs (Syed) Alamdar Hussain through Legal1998 P.C.T.L.R. 625 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
- (M_S.) Wak Orient Power & Light Limited, through, Chief Executive vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Water and Power, through Its Secretary, Islamabad And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 745 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) Unigas Appliances vs Collector of Customs (Appeals) And1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1528 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1997-05-31Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Tripple Em (Pvt.) Limited through Managing Director vs The1998 P.C.T.L.R. 608 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) Jupiter Textile Mills, Ltd. vs The Director Hyderabad, Directorate,K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 30 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →