Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Qabool Shah vs Sub-Divisional Education Officer (Male), Primary, Swabi and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 654 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
• Qabool Shah vs Sub-Divisional Education Officer (Male) Primary, Swabi And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 654 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation through Managing Director and 31997 PLC 543 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-12-10Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation Through Managing Director And 31997 PLC 543 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-12-10Read full judgment →
• Punjab Employees' Social Security vs Khadim Hussain1997 PLC (C.S.) 290 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
• Punjab Agriculture (Bagh-E-Jinnah) vs The Registrar, Trade Union1997 PLC 579 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-21
  constitutional petitiontrade union registrationlachesmala fideRules of Businessprivate counsel engagementcivil servantsworkmenindustry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by the Superintendent of Bagh-e-Jinnah against orders registering respondents as trade unions and refusing to deregister them under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The petitioner contended that Bagh-e-Jinnah was not an industry and that its employees were civil servants rather than workers. The High Court dismissed the petition on preliminary grounds and merits. Preliminarily, the court held that the petition suffered from an unexplained delay of over two years (laches), lacked bona fides due to personal animus, and was incompetent because the Superintendent engaged private counsel without the mandatory permission of the Law Department under the Punjab Government Rules of Business 1974. On the merits, relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that low-paid employees performing manual, mechanical, or operational duties—such as drivers, electricians, fitters, malis, and tubewell operators—are workers/workmen under the Factories Act 1934 and Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, and are thus entitled to form trade unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public officer or government department engage a private counsel to conduct litigation without obtaining permission from the Law Department?
  • Whether government employees performing manual and operational functions are civil servants barred from forming trade unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Does an unexplained delay of over two years in challenging an administrative order regarding trade union registration render a constitutional petition liable to dismissal for laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Psic Workers' Union, Lahore Through General Secretary vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore And 3 Others1997 PLC 484 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Health Department vs Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari1997 PLD Supreme Court 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-27
  contempt proceedingsjudgment per incuriamterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of High Courtservice tribunalnullitypromotionvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from orders passed by the Lahore High Court in contempt proceedings initiated for the non-implementation of a judgment dated 29th April, 1989, delivered in a writ petition. The respondent civil servant had challenged service rules regarding promotion qualifications for medical college professors, and the High Court had ruled that Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) regulations prevailed over provincial service rules. The Supreme Court examined the validity of implementing such a judgment and whether a judgment rendered contrary to binding Supreme Court precedents and in a matter barred by Article 212 of the Constitution could be enforced through contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was rendered per incuriam and was without jurisdiction as the matter pertained to terms and conditions of civil servants falling exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, and that a judgment which is a nullity cannot be enforced via contempt proceedings. The appeal was accepted and the impugned orders were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judgment passed by a High Court in disregard of binding Supreme Court precedents is a judgment per incuriam?
  • Can a judgment or order that is a nullity in law be enforced through contempt of court proceedings?
  • Does the jurisdiction to determine terms and conditions of service of civil servants lie exclusively with the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Whether a civil servant has a vested right in the terms and conditions of a higher post before promotion to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through The Collector, Multan District, Multan And Another vs Mst. Khursheed Fatima And 5 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 694 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-15Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Health Department, Lahore vs Dr.1997 PLC (C.S.) 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15
  leave to appealservice rulespromotioncontempt of courtPakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Province of Punjab, sought leave to appeal against orders passed by the Lahore High Court in contempt proceedings arising from the non-implementation of a judgment dated 29-4-1989. The respondent had originally challenged service rules regarding qualifications for the post of Professor, and the High Court had previously declared the respondent eligible for promotion in accordance with Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations. During contempt proceedings, the High Court recorded undertakings by the Secretary SGA&I to consider the respondent's promotion under those regulations and disposed of the matter. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that this direction conflicted with a prior precedent of the Supreme Court establishing that the terms and conditions of civil servants are governed by civil servant acts and rules rather than independent medical council regulations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and stayed the operation of the impugned orders, holding that arguable questions regarding the binding effect of prior Supreme Court precedents on service matters required consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant are governed by Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations or by the applicable civil servants act and rules?
  • Can a High Court issue directions in contempt proceedings contrary to settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court?
  • Whether service rules framed by the provincial government prevail over external professional council regulations in matters of civil servant promotions?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab_Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vs Mst. Hajira Begum and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Director Housing and Physical Planning1997 PLD Lahore 441 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Collector, District Gujrat And 2 Others vs Muhammad Bashir And Another1997 MLD 806 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-10
  revision petitioncondonation of delaysufficient causeadmissibility of evidenceremandconcurrent findingsmiscarriage of justicelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding land ownership and possession. A preliminary issue arose concerning the condonation of delay in filing the revision petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the government department demonstrated "sufficient cause" for the delay, as the time was consumed by internal departmental deliberations and seeking legal advice, which constituted a bona fide effort. On the merits, the Court found that the trial court committed a material irregularity by admitting several documents into evidence "under objection" without ever determining the validity of those objections. This failure prevented the parties from knowing whether further evidence was required to prove the documents, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The key principle established is that trial courts must adjudicate objections to the admissibility of evidence at the time they are raised to ensure parties have the opportunity to properly prove their case, failing which a retrial may be necessary.

  Questions settled

  • Does the internal processing of legal advice by a government department constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is a trial court required to decide on objections to the admissibility of documents at the time they are raised?
  • Can a revision petition be remanded for a fresh trial if the lower court failed to adjudicate on objections regarding the admissibility of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Collector, Bahawalpur And Another vs Babu1997 MLD 2577 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Collector Bahawalpur, District, Bahawalpur And Others vs Col. Abdul Majeed And Other1997 SCMR 1692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-25
  land acquisitionmarket valuepotential valuecompulsory acquisition chargesappellate powersnon-appealing respondents
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of civil appeals arises from separate proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of land situated in village Hansra, Bahawalpur, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal questions involved whether a subsequent notification under section 4 was a mere corrigendum, whether the High Court was justified in granting relief to non-appealing respondents under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the proper determination of market value considering the potential value of the land rather than solely relying on one-year average sale prices. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the subsequent notification was an independent superseding notification rather than a corrigendum, confirmed that appellate courts possess wide amplitude under Order 41, Rule 33 C.P.C. and inherent powers to grant relief to non-appealing respondents to prevent contradictory orders and injustice, and held that one-year average sales cannot be the sole yardstick while assessing market value where land possesses high potential value due to its proximity to developed areas. The Court modified the compensation rate to a flat rate of Rs. 3,500 per Marla for the entire land while maintaining statutory charges and interest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 operates as a corrigendum or as an independent superseding notification?
  • Can an appellate court grant relief to respondents who have neither filed an appeal nor cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Is one year's average sale price of land preceding the notification under section 4 the sole permissible criterion for assessing market value under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Should the potential value and future use of acquired land be factored into the determination of its market value for compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Shah Muhammad Chaudhry1997 PLC (C.S.) 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-14
  service lawdeputationpromotionnotional promotionconfidential reportsservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had directed the provincial government to consider the respondent's promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. The respondent, while on deputation to Pakistan Steel Mills, was bypassed for promotion due to adverse remarks in his Confidential Reports, which were later expunged, and missing records. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to consideration for promotion while on deputation, in accordance with the provincial government's policy regarding officers on deputation. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the government failed to follow its own policy of informing the officer of his promotion eligibility and offering him the option to revert to his parent department. The Court held that the government had sufficient time to reconsider the respondent's case after the expunction of adverse remarks and the availability of missing records. Furthermore, the Court observed that granting the respondent notional promotion would not adversely affect his juniors, as he had since been absorbed into the service of Pakistan Steel Mills.

  Questions settled

  • Is a government servant on deputation entitled to be considered for promotion by their parent department?
  • Does the failure to expunge adverse remarks and consider a complete service record invalidate a promotion decision?
  • Can a government servant be granted notional promotion after they have been absorbed into the service of another organization?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab And Others vs Muhammad Rashid And Other1997 MLD 2568 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab And Other vs Shah Muhammad Chaudhry1997 PLC (C. S.) 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-14
  deputationnotional promotionexpunction of adverse remarkssenioritycivil serviceService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Province of Punjab against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had directed the petitioners to consider the respondent's promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. The respondent, while on deputation to the Pakistan Steel Mills, was bypassed for promotion on multiple occasions. He was initially superseded due to adverse remarks in his Confidential Report, which were subsequently expunged, and later deferred because of missing Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). The Service Tribunal accepted the respondent's appeal, noting that under the S&GAD Policy Letter dated 20-11-1982, an officer on deputation must be considered for promotion in turn and given an option to revert to the parent department. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that because the adverse remarks were expunged and the missing ACRs became available before the respondent's absorption into the Steel Mills, his case should have been reconsidered. Since the respondent had already been absorbed into another service, the promotion was purely notional and did not affect his juniors' seniority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant on deputation is entitled to be considered for promotion in turn and given an option to revert to their parent department upon clearance?
  • What is the effect of the expunction of adverse remarks and the subsequent availability of missing ACRs on a civil servant's deferred promotion case?
  • Is the non-joinder of junior officers fatal to a service appeal when the promotion sought from a back date is purely notional and does not affect their seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and another vs Sheikh Abdul Ghafoor & Co.1997 PLD Lahore 722 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-08Read full judgment →
• Progressive Financers vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 1836 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-02-20Read full judgment →
• Prof. Syed Sadiq Hussain Shah vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1837 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
• Prof. Shahid Hussain vs Government of the Punjab Through Secretary, Education Department, LahoreAnd 3 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 308 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Prof. Shahid Hussain vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore and 3 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 308 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shafiq Khan vs Vice Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur And 4 Other1997 CLC 591 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-02Read full judgment →
• Printing Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Muhammad1997 PLC 350 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-05Read full judgment →
• Principal, Quaid E Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur And Another vs Nasim Ahmad And Another1997 SCMR 583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-19
  medical educationexamination eligibilityacademic regulationsstudent rightsinterpretation of statutesFirst Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed an Intra-Court Appeal filed by a medical student against his expulsion from Quaid-i-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur. The student had been debarred from studies after failing to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. examination within four attempts. The core legal question was whether examinations for which a student was ineligible due to a shortage of required lectures counted towards the four-chance limit prescribed by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council regulations. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the four-chance limit only commences once a student becomes eligible to sit for the examination, which requires the completion of the requisite number of lectures and practicals. Since the respondent had not met the attendance criteria for the first three examinations, those attempts could not be counted against him. Consequently, the Court held that the student was entitled to avail of the remaining three chances, dismissing the college's appeal and confirming the student's right to continue his medical education.

  Questions settled

  • Does an examination for which a student is ineligible due to a shortage of lectures count as a 'chance' under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council regulations?
  • When does the four-chance limit for clearing the First Professional M.B.,B.S. examination commence for a medical student?
  • Is a student entitled to continue medical education if they have not exhausted four eligible attempts at the First Professional M.B.,B.S. examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Prime Commercial Bank Limited, Aiwan-E-Iqbaltax, Complex, Egerton1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Prime Commercial Bank And Other vs Assistant Commissioner Of IncomePTCL 1997 CL. 29 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Prima Realty vs Union of India and others1997 PTD 1399 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-11-18Read full judgment →
• Premier Paper Mills Ltd. vs N. W.F.P. Textbook Board1997 CLC 1288 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-25
  writ of mandamusconstitutional jurisdictiontender noticecontractual obligationslegal rightstatutory dutypending adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court through a writ petition seeking directions to the respondent, the N.W.F.P. Textbook Board, to amend a tender notice, invite fresh tenders from both importers and local manufacturers on specific terms, equalize security deposits, open all tenders simultaneously, and delete certain conditions from the tender inquiry form. The core legal questions involved whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce contractual obligations, compel a public body to alter tender conditions as desired by a bidder, or enforce a tender notice of the petitioner's own choice in the absence of a clear legal right and a corresponding statutory duty. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce contractual obligations or dictate the performance of executive functions where the petitioner lacks a clear legal right and the respondent is not bound by any statutory duty to act in the manner suggested. Furthermore, the Court noted that another writ petition involving the same subject-matter was already pending adjudication, rendering the second petition not legally maintainable. The key principle laid down is that the issuance of a writ of mandamus requires a clear legal right in the petitioner and a manifestly defined statutory or public duty imposed upon the respondent, and it cannot be invoked to enforce contractual terms or dictate administrative choices.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ of mandamus be issued to enforce contractual obligations or compel a party to alter tender conditions according to a bidder's wishes?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when another writ petition in respect of the same subject-matter is already pending adjudication in the court?
  • What are the essential prerequisites regarding legal rights and statutory duties for the issuance of a writ of mandamus?
  Read full judgment →
• Prakash Trading Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 251 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-02-20Read full judgment →
• Port Qasim Authority, Karachi vs Alghurair Group of Companies and 3 otherss1997 PLD Karachi 636 · Sindh High Court
  Arbitration Act 1940stay of suitarbitration clauseperformance bondbank guaranteefrustration of contractinterim injunctioncondition precedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Sindh High Court arose from a Single Judge's consolidated order rejecting the appellant Port Qasim Authority's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to stay the suit and refer the matter to arbitration, while granting an interim injunction restraining the encashment of a performance bond. The respondents had sued for cancellation of an agreement to build/operate container berths and cancellation of the performance bond on grounds of frustration and non-fulfilment of condition precedent. The High Court held that the broadly worded arbitration clause covering disputes 'arising out of or in connection with the agreement' extended to questions regarding the enforceability, effectiveness, or frustration of the agreement. Frustration does not extinguish the contract or defeat the arbitration clause. However, regarding the performance bond, the Court affirmed the injunction, distinguishing conditional performance guarantees from unconditional mobilisation guarantees, holding that a performance bond enforceable upon breach cannot be encashed without prima facie proof of breach. The appeal was thus partly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an arbitration clause covering disputes 'arising out of or in connection with' an agreement is broad enough to confer jurisdiction on arbitrators to determine issues regarding the enforceability or non-fulfilment of conditions precedent of the agreement?
  • Whether the frustration or impossibility of performance of a contract extinguishes the operation of its arbitration clause?
  • Whether a performance bond requiring breach of contract before encashment can be encashed unconditionally without prima facie evidence of breach?
  Read full judgment →
• Poothundu Plantations (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Agricultural Income Tax1997 PTD 1390 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Pirzadah Muhammad Yusuf Qureshi through Chief Secretary and 5 others1997 CLC 201 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Pir Siddik Muhammad Shah vs Dr. Syed Shah Nawaz Shah And 2 Other1997 MLD 943 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Qureshi vs Chairman, Pof Board, Wah Cantt. And 51997 SCMR 1452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-07
  leave to appealservice matteradverse remarksAnnual Confidential ReportsupersessionpromotionFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an officer in the Pakistan Ordnance Factory, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal regarding his supersession for promotion. The petitioner had previously challenged adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports (A.C.R.) for 1986 and 1987, which were initially expunged by the Tribunal. Despite this, the petitioner was superseded for promotion to BPS-20 by his juniors. Although the Tribunal initially directed his promotion, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to implead the promoted incumbents. Upon remand, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that authorities failed to consider his corrected A.C.Rs. and that a promoted junior lacked the requisite N.I.P.A. course qualification. The Supreme Court found substance in these contentions, noting that the petitioner's promotion consideration was based on outdated, adverse remarks rather than his corrected records. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the authorities erred in ignoring the corrected A.C.Rs. and the qualification requirements for the promoted juniors.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of authorities to consider corrected Annual Confidential Reports when determining promotion eligibility constitute a valid ground for judicial review?
  • Can an officer be superseded for promotion based on adverse remarks that have been subsequently expunged?
  • Whether the lack of mandatory training qualifications, such as the N.I.P.A. course, renders a promotion of a junior officer legally challengeable?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Jan and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1646 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-04-15
  murderdelay in FIRinterested witnessescontradictory evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the complainant's father following an altercation. The core legal questions involve whether unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report and recording eye-witness statements renders the prosecution case doubtful, and whether contradictions between ocular and medical testimony vitiate the conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions among witnesses, unexplained delays in the First Information Report and police statements, lack of independent corroboration for interested witnesses, deficiencies in medical evidence, and unproved motive. The court laid down the principle that in the presence of contradictory evidence, unexplained procedural delays, and unreliable testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration, it is unsafe to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions between ocular accounts and medical evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Does a failure by the prosecution to examine key medical witnesses and original medical records create fatal flaws in proving the cause of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh And Others vs Muhammad Rafi1997 CLC 861 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Phoenix Security Service Labour Union Registered and C.B.A. under1997 PLC 228 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-10Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Zafar Butt vs Muhammad Hanif1997 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-04
  ejectment applicationlandlord-tenant relationshiprent controller jurisdictiondisputed titlecivil court jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an Additional Rent Controller's order directing the petitioner to approach a civil court to determine property title in an ejectment matter. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller and the High Court erred in refusing to adjudicate an ejectment application when the respondent disputed the petitioner's title to the property. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit because the petitioner failed to produce material before the Rent Controller establishing a landlord-tenant relationship between the original owner and the respondent. Consequently, the petitioner, having stepped into the shoes of the original owner, could not substantiate his status as landlord. The Court affirmed that while the High Court's specific direction for the petitioner to seek a title determination in civil court was uncalled for, the Rent Controller was justified in declining jurisdiction over the ejectment application. The principle laid down is that in the absence of established evidence of a landlord-tenant relationship, a Rent Controller cannot entertain an ejectment application, and the claimant must instead pursue remedies for possession in a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller entertain an ejectment application when the landlord-tenant relationship is not established?
  • Is a Rent Controller competent to adjudicate a dispute regarding the title of a property?
  • What is the appropriate forum for a claimant to seek possession when the landlord-tenant relationship is denied by the occupant?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Iqbal And Others vs Sh. Ziaurrehman And Other1997 MLD 2595 · Board of Revenue · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ali Shaikh and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1988 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-23
  post-arrest bailEhtesab Ordinancewrongful lossjurisdiction of High Courtdocumentary evidenceadministrative decisioncorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns bail applications filed by an Administrator of a Municipal Committee and a former Minister of Local Government, accused of causing wrongful loss to the government by awarding a contract at a lower bid than the official rate, under sections 420 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to grant bail while a reference regarding the matter was pending before the Ehtesab Commission. The Court held that it possessed jurisdiction because the Ehtesab Commission had not yet taken formal cognizance of the matter. On the merits, the Court granted bail, observing that the prosecution's evidence was entirely documentary, precluding any risk of tampering. Furthermore, the Court noted that the beneficiary of the contract had already been granted bail and that the applicants’ actions appeared to be administrative decisions made within the scope of their duties, thus warranting further inquiry. The principle established is that pending a formal reference to the Ehtesab Bench, the High Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court retain jurisdiction to grant bail when a reference has been made to the Ehtesab Commission but cognizance has not yet been taken?
  • Does a reference made to the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner under the Ehtesab Ordinance 1996 constitute the taking of cognizance by the Ehtesab Bench?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case rests entirely on documentary evidence already in the possession of the state?
  • Does the fact that a co-accused beneficiary has been granted bail entitle other accused persons to bail in the same case?
  Read full judgment →
• Peoples Unity of Habib Bank Employees, Rawalpindi Through Chairman1997 PLC 149 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-12-26Read full judgment →
• Peoples Unity of Habib Bank Employees, Rawalpindi through Chairman1997 PLC 149 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1993-12-26Read full judgment →
• Patasho vs The State1997 MLD 1689 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Pankaj Guuarilal Gupta vs Collector of Customs, Calcutta1997 P.C.T.L.R. 300 · Calcutta High Court · 1994-09-08Read full judgment →
• Panel 20 Companies And Another vs Pakistan Herald Ltd. Through Director, Finance And Corporate Affairs1997 SCMR 1256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-08
  income taxreopening of assessmentdefinite informationchange of opinionset-off of lossessubsidiary companyconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that allowed Constitution petitions filed by the respondent, invalidating a notice issued under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance. The respondent company had entered into an agreement with another company, Matri Publications, to manage an Urdu newspaper, bearing all losses and sharing profits, and had fully disclosed these facts in its returns. Over multiple assessment years, Matri's losses claimed by the respondent were subjected to various proceedings and ultimately allowed. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 65 to reopen past assessments based solely on the non-application of section 34-A of the Ordinance, introduced by the Finance Act of 1980. The core legal question is whether the discovery that a provision of law was ignored or not applied constitutes 'definite information' under section 65 to warrant reopening a completed assessment. The Supreme Court held that since the respondent was not a listed company owning the entire share capital of a subsidiary, section 34-A was entirely inapplicable, and its mere non-application did not constitute definite information. Reopening an assessment based on a realization that a provision was ignored, without any concealment of facts, amounts merely to a change of opinion, which cannot sustain proceedings under section 65. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the discovery that a provision of law was ignored or not applied during a previous assessment amount to 'definite information' under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance?
  • Can an assessment be reopened under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance based solely on a change of opinion or different interpretation of law?
  • Does the non-application of an irrelevant statutory provision constitute valid grounds for reopening a completed tax assessment?
  • Does a mere change of opinion by the assessing authorities regarding the validity of an agreement constitute definite information for the purposes of section 65?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union Through Its1997 PLC 81 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-10-29Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Through Secretary, Works Division, Islamabad And 2 Others vs Raja Mansabdar Khan1997 MLD 545 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Trade Union and others vs N.I.R.C.1997 PLC 192 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-26Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Trade Union And Other vs N. I. R. C.1997 PLC 192 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-26Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Swedish Institute of Technology Garment Production Unit1997 MLD 2034 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills through Incharge Law, Karachi and 4 others vs Shah1997 PLC 208 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-22Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Through Incharge Law, Karachi And 4 Other vs Shah1997 PLC 208 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-22Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Through, General Manager (a&P), Karachi vs S. Zafar Ejaz1997 PLC 353 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Through General Manager (a&P), Karachi vs Wahid Hussain Burni And 2 Others1997 PLC 162 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-21Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation through General Manager (a&P), Karachi vs S. Zafar Ejaz1997 PLC 353 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Through General Manager (a&P), Karachi vs Arshad Ahmed And Another1997 PLC 388 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. Through D.G.M. And Incharge Law vs Syed Mazhar Hussain And 12 Others1997 PLC 378 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-16Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Private) Limited Through Incharge1997 PLC 116 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Private) Limited through In charge1997 PLC 116 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Fabricating Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Masood Ahmed1997 PLC 359 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan SIEMEN's Union Through General Secretary, Karachi vs Registrar1997 PLC 50 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Siemen's Union through General Secretary, Karachi vs Registrar1997 PLC 50 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Service Limited vs Collectoral, Central Excise & Sales Tax, LahorePTCL 1997 CL. 197 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1997-05-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Through General Manger vs Ghulam Rasul1997 SCMR 1581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-28
  service appealdepartmental inquiryappellate powers of Service Tribunalcompulsory retirementback benefitsunauthorized absencereinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment concerning the removal of a Pakistan Railways employee. The respondent remained absent from duty without leave from 1979 to 1983. Following a medical assessment, he reported for duty in 1984 but was subsequently removed from service. Although the removal order was later withdrawn, he was not reinstated and faced a second inquiry, leading to a final removal in 1990. The Tribunal set aside the removal, converting it to compulsory retirement, and ordered back benefits. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal had the authority to modify departmental penalties and whether the respondent was entitled to salary for periods of unauthorized absence. The Supreme Court held that under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the Tribunal possesses wide appellate powers to confirm, vary, or modify departmental orders, provided the decision is reasonable and not arbitrary. The Court upheld the conversion of the penalty but modified the salary award, ruling that the respondent was entitled to pay only for the period he was prevented from working, not for the period of his initial unauthorized absence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the power to modify or vary a penalty imposed by a departmental authority?
  • Can a civil servant claim salary for a period during which they were absent from duty without leave?
  • Are the appellate powers of the Service Tribunal under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, limited to questions of law only?
  • Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court interfere with an order passed by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Through General Manager_Personnel, Lahore And Another vs S. Irshad Hussain1997 PLC 506 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-08-11Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Through General Manager, Pakistan Railways vs Ghulam Rasul1997 PLC (C.S.) 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-28
  service appealquantum of punishmentpowers of service tribunalunauthorized absenceback benefitscompulsory retirementmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by Pakistan Railways challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal that partially accepted a respondent-employee's service appeal, converted his punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement, and directed payment of salary for certain periods. The respondent had remained absent from duty without leave for a prolonged period, following which he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, removed from service, and later had that removal order withdrawn before being subjected to a de novo inquiry and a second removal order. The core legal questions involved the scope of the Service Tribunal's appellate powers under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to alter departmental punishments, and the legality of awarding salary for periods of unauthorized absence versus periods where the employee was prevented from working. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal possesses wide appellate powers on both questions of law and fact, including the power to modify penalties provided its reasons satisfy standards of reasonableness. However, the Court held that the Tribunal erred in awarding salary for the period of unauthorized absence without leave. The appeal was partly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the power to alter or modify a penalty imposed by a departmental authority after a disciplinary inquiry?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal award salary to a civil servant for a period of unauthorized absence from duty without leave?
  • What is the scope of appellate powers of the Service Tribunal under section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • What are the limitations on the Supreme Court when reviewing a judgment of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Through G.M., Lahore And Another vs Zafarullah, Assistant Electrical Engineer And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Through G.M., Lahore And Another vs Zafarullah, Assistant Electrical Engineer And Other1997 SCMR 1730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servicemove-overacting chargecurrent chargeregular appointmentservice tribunalbasic pay scale
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves thirteen civil appeals concerning the entitlement of civil servants working on 'acting charge' or 'current charge' basis to 'move-over' to the next higher Basic Pay Scale (BPS). The core legal question is whether a civil servant holding a post on an acting or current charge basis qualifies as a 'regular member' of the service, cadre, or post, which is a mandatory prerequisite for move-over under the Finance Division's Office Memorandum dated 1-1-1986. The Supreme Court held that appointments on acting or current charge basis are merely temporary, stop-gap arrangements intended for short durations and do not constitute regular appointments. Consequently, such appointees do not meet the essential criteria of being a 'regular member' of the service required for move-over. The Court further ruled that the failure of the department to challenge previous tribunal orders granting move-over in other cases does not constitute discriminatory treatment. The principle laid down is that acting or current charge appointments, by definition and under Rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, confer no right to regular promotion or seniority, thereby precluding eligibility for move-over.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant working on an acting or current charge basis considered a regular member of the service for the purpose of move-over?
  • Does an appointment on an acting or current charge basis confer a vested right for regular promotion?
  • Can a failure by the department to challenge previous tribunal orders in isolated cases be cited as discriminatory treatment by other employees?
  • Does an acting charge appointment amount to an appointment by promotion on a regular basis for the purpose of seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Through Divisional Superintendent, Karachi vs Nazir1997 PLC 468 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-10-20Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux and others vs Ghulam Rasool and others1997 PLD Karachi 113 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways And 5 Others vs Haji Malik Din Through Legal Heirs1997 CLC 1785 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
• Pakistan PEOPLES's Workers' Union Northern Areas Government1997 PLC 10 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1996-06-10Read full judgment →
• Pakistan People's Workers' Union Northern Areas Government1997 PLC 10 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1996-06-10Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Paperback Corporation vs Federation of Pakistan1997 CLC 1929 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Oil Fields Khaur, District Attock vs Muhammad Aslam And Other1997 MLD 1805 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Karachi vs Abdul Majid1997 PLC 566 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-08-26Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Kuwait Investment Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Ferro Alloys1997 MLD 2244 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Flour Mills Association (N.W.F.P. Branch) through Authorised1997 PLD Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd vs M/s. Terni, S.P.A. Itally Through1997 CLC 634 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Chest Foundation And Others vs Government of Pakistan1997 CLC 1379 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-04
  public interest litigationright to lifeconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictioncigarette advertisingpublic healthelectronic media
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by health organizations seeking to ban cigarette advertisements on Pakistan Television (PTV) and Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC). The core legal questions concerned whether such advertisements violate constitutional protections regarding life and health, whether PTV and PBC are amenable to writ jurisdiction, and whether the court could issue a ban in the absence of specific legislation. The Court held that cigarette advertisements on electronic media promote smoking, which is scientifically proven to be hazardous to health, thereby violating Article 4(2)(a) of the Constitution, which prohibits actions detrimental to life or body without legal authority. The Court directed PTV and PBC to cease such advertisements, allowing a limited exception for sponsored sports events. The key principles laid down include that the right to life under Article 9 and the protection of law under Article 4 encompass the right to a healthy environment free from avoidable health hazards. Furthermore, public interest litigation permits a liberal interpretation of 'aggrieved person' to protect public health, and constitutional provisions are self-executing, empowering courts to issue directions to prevent threats to fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether cigarette advertisements on electronic media violate the constitutional right to life and protection of law?
  • Are the Pakistan Television Corporation and Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation 'persons' amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a High Court issue directions to ban cigarette advertisements in the absence of specific statutory prohibition based on constitutional provisions?
  • Does public interest litigation allow organizations to maintain a constitutional petition for the protection of public health?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. vs Tariq Brother1997 CLC 761 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29
  closure of evidenceOrder XVII Rule 3adjournmentremand of suitrefund of court feedecision on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant's suit for recovery by the trial court. The trial court closed the plaintiff's evidence and dismissed the suit under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on a date following an adjournment caused by the Presiding Officer's absence on leave. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the penal provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 could be lawfully invoked to close evidence when the preceding adjournment was not made at the instance or request of the defaulting party. The Lahore High Court held that Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be invoked unless time was granted specifically at the request of the defaulting party. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, remanded the suit for decision on merits, and issued a court-fee refund certificate pursuant to Section 13 of the Court Fees Act 1870.

  Questions settled

  • Can the provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked against a party when the previous adjournment was not granted at its specific request?
  • Does the closure of evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when a case is adjourned due to the Presiding Officer being on leave?
  • Is an appellant entitled to a refund certificate for court fees under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act 1870 when a suit is remanded without a final determination of the parties' rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Through D.G. H.Q., Islamabad AndAnother vs Nasiruddin1997 SCMR 1303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-07
  move-overannual confidential reportsgenerally goodservice lawcivil servantPBC rulesadverse remarks
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed the respondent’s move-over from Scale-7 to Scale-8 within the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC). The core legal question was whether the respondent, who possessed a mix of 'Good' and 'Average' Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), satisfied the 'generally good' criteria required for a move-over under PBC rules. The petitioners argued that 'generally good' necessitated consistently 'Good' reports. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Tribunal correctly applied the law. The Court affirmed that the expression 'generally good' does not mandate strictly 'Good' reports. Relying on established precedents, the Court laid down the principle that in the absence of adverse remarks, 'Average' reports are sufficient to satisfy the 'generally good' requirement for move-over purposes. An 'Average' report cannot be treated as adverse unless specifically communicated as such to the civil servant. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to the move-over, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement of 'generally good' Annual Confidential Reports for a move-over mandate that an employee must possess only 'Good' reports?
  • Can 'Average' Annual Confidential Reports be treated as adverse remarks in the absence of specific communication to the civil servant?
  • Is a mix of 'Good' and 'Average' Annual Confidential Reports sufficient to satisfy the 'generally good' criteria for a move-over?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Through D.-G., H.Q., Islamabad AndAnother vs Nasiruddin1997 PLC (C.S.) 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-07
  move-overAnnual Confidential Reportsservice lawgenerally goodPakistan Broadcasting Corporationservice tribunalcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment regarding the denial of 'move-over' from Scale-7 to Scale-8 for a Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation employee. The core legal question was whether an employee possessing a mix of 'Average' and 'Good' Annual Confidential Reports satisfies the 'generally Good' requirement for move-over eligibility under the relevant service rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision to grant the move-over. The Court held that the expression 'generally Good' does not necessitate strictly 'Good' technical ratings. In the absence of adverse reports, 'Average' reports are not inherently adverse and, when combined with 'Good' reports, satisfy the 'generally Good' criteria. This interpretation aligns with established precedents, specifically Muhammad Anwar v. Secretary, Establishment Division, which clarifies that 'Average' reports are acceptable for move-over purposes provided they have not been formally communicated as adverse. The decision emphasizes that 'generally Good' permits a flexible assessment of an employee's service record rather than a rigid adherence to a specific grading.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'generally Good' in service move-over criteria require strictly 'Good' Annual Confidential Reports?
  • Can 'Average' Annual Confidential Reports be treated as 'generally Good' for the purpose of move-over eligibility?
  • Is an 'Average' Annual Confidential Report considered an adverse report if it has not been formally communicated as such?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation through D.-G., H.Q., Islamabad and another vs Nasiruddin1997 PLC (C.S.) 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-07
  move-overannual confidential reportsgenerally goodservice tribunalpakistan broadcasting corporationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which accepted the respondent employee's appeal and granted him move-over from Scale-7 to Scale-8 under the rules of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an employee with mixed 'Average' and 'Good' Annual Confidential Reports satisfies the requirement of being 'generally Good' for the purpose of entitlement to move-over to Scale-8. Upholding the Tribunal's decision, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any specific adverse remarks communicated to the employee, mixed reports containing both 'Average' and 'Good' ratings must be construed as 'generally Good' for move-over eligibility. The Court reaffirmed the established principle that an 'Average' report cannot be treated as adverse unless specifically so designated and conveyed, thereby dismissing the petition and refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee with mixed average and good annual confidential reports is entitled to move-over to a higher scale under the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation rules?
  • Can an average annual confidential report be treated as an adverse report without being specifically so treated and conveyed to the employee?
  • What is the legal connotation of the expression 'generally good' in relation to the criteria for grant of move-over?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Through Secretary, Islamabad1997 CLC 1604 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-05Read full judgment →
• Pak Libya Holding Company (Private), Limited vs Messrs Ferro Alloys1997 MLD 759 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-24Read full judgment →
• P.N.S.C. Afloat Officers' Association Through President vs The Registrar1997 PLC 167 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
• Owais Akhtar vs Karachi Building Control Authority Through Chief1997 MLD 2579 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
• Orix Leasing Pakistan Ltd. vs Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd.1997 PLD Lahore 443 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-22
  winding uparbitration agreementstay of legal proceedingscompanies ordinanceexclusive jurisdictioninability to pay debts
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous matter before the Lahore High Court addressed whether an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 can be moved to stay winding-up proceedings initiated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The respondents sought to stay the compulsory winding-up petitions by invoking arbitration agreements. The core legal question was whether winding-up proceedings constitute a matter agreed to be referred to arbitration and whether such proceedings can be stayed under section 34. The Court held that winding-up proceedings cannot be stayed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, because winding-up falls under the special statutory jurisdiction of the High Court, cannot be adjudicated by an arbitrator, and does not constitute a proceeding to enforce a claim arising under an agreement or a suit for recovery. The key principle laid down is that the exclusive statutory jurisdiction to wind up a company vests solely in the Court and cannot be subjected to arbitration or stayed under the Arbitration Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 be used to stay winding-up proceedings under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Whether winding-up proceedings amount to a matter that can be referred to arbitration?
  • Does an arbitrator have the power to order the winding up of a company?
  • Are winding-up petitions considered proceedings to enforce a claim arising under an agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 1883 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-01-21Read full judgment →
• Omary Juma Sali vs The State1997 MLD 1162 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Obedullah And 2 Others vs Inspector General, Frontier Corps., Quetta1997 SCMR 1833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-24
  smugglingbanaspati gheecustoms auctionredemption fineconstitutional petitionimpracticable relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dismissing the petitioners' constitutional petition. The petitioners were intercepted while transporting Banaspati Ghee with the intention of smuggling it out of Pakistan, leading to the seizure of the goods by Kharan Rifles and subsequent confiscation by the Deputy Collector Customs. Upon appeal, the Collector Appeals granted the petitioners an option of redeeming the goods upon payment of a redemption fine, which the petitioners deposited. However, prior to the appellate decision, the perishable goods had already been auctioned by the department and the proceeds deposited in the Government Treasury. The core legal question was whether the original goods could be restored to the petitioners or whether the constitutional petition was rightly dismissed when physical restoration became impracticable. The Supreme Court held that since the goods had already been lawfully disposed of by auction before the remedy was sought, physical restoration was impossible and no implementation directions could be issued in a vacuum. The Court refused leave to appeal while noting the necessity for transparency and fair market value in departmental auctions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court issue directions for the physical restoration of goods that have already been lawfully auctioned as perishable items during the pendency of proceedings?
  • Whether a constitutional petition seeking the return of seized goods becomes infructuous when the goods are no longer available with the respondents?
  • What is the obligation of customs authorities regarding transparency and obtaining fair market value during the auction of seized perishable commodities?
  Read full judgment →
• Obaidullah and anothers vs Habibullah and others1997 PLD Supreme Court 835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-25
  specific performancecontract of personal serviceSpecific Relief Actpublic appointmentfundamental rightsfreedom of professioninjunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which had set aside concurrent judgments decreeing the petitioners' suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners claimed employment in the Public Health Engineering Department based on an agreement wherein their father transferred land to the department in exchange for such jobs. The core legal question was whether a contract of employment or personal service in consideration of land transfer could be specifically enforced and protected by injunction, and whether making appointments without public advertisement violates constitutional rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and permanent injunctions cannot be granted to interfere with public duties or prevent the breach of such non-enforceable contracts under Section 56. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that making public appointments without advertising vacancies through the press violates Article 18 of the Constitution regarding freedom of profession and equal opportunity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract of personal service or employment be specifically enforced under section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Whether a permanent injunction can be granted to prevent the breach of a contract of employment that is not specifically enforceable?
  • Does the making of initial or regular appointments to public posts without publicly advertising vacancies violate Article 18 of the Constitution?
  • Is an agreement to provide government employment in exchange for land legally enforceable by the courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Oam Perkash vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi Through President1997 PLC 629 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-09-29Read full judgment →
• O.S. Molasses Corporation through Riaz Ahmad Lali, Resident Director, Lahore vs Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1997 PLD Lahore 546 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• N/A vs N/A1997 PTD (Trib.) 612 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
• N/A vs Not1997 PLD Karachi 230 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-09Read full judgment →
• N/A vs Mirza Nasir Baig And Other1997 CLC 719 · Election Tribunal · 1995-03-26
  election petitionverification of documentsloan defaulterdisqualification of candidateguarantorreturned candidateNational Assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This election petition challenged the election of the returned candidate for a National Assembly seat from Constituency No. 118 (Multan/Lodhran-5) held on October 6, 1993, on various grounds including loan default, filing a false affidavit, alleged theft of pledged stock, and pending references. The core legal questions concerned whether documents annexed to an election petition were properly verified in accordance with mandatory statutory requirements, and whether the respondent was disqualified from contesting elections as a loan defaulter or due to criminal allegations. The Election Tribunal held that the election petition was liable to be dismissed for failure to separately verify each annexed document as mandated by the relevant statute. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that holding less than 51 percent shares in a defaulting company did not disqualify a person from contesting elections, that a guarantor is not a principal debtor, and that mere registration of an FIR or pendency of a reference does not render a candidate dishonest or disqualify them from contesting elections. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether each document annexed to an election petition is required to be separately verified under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Does holding less than 51 percent shares in a company that is a loan defaulter disqualify a person from contesting elections?
  • Can a guarantor be treated as a principal debtor for the purpose of loan default disqualification?
  • Does the mere registration of an FIR against a candidate constitute a ground to hold him dishonest and disqualify him from contesting elections?
  Read full judgment →