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.

• Messrs Ali Match Industries Ltd And 3 Others vs Industrial Development1997 SCMR 943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08
  leave to defendbanking recoverytriable issuebank guaranteeexecution of decreerecovery of loans
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a recovery suit filed by the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan against the petitioners for Rs. 44,37,607.69. The trial court and the Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitioners' applications for leave to appear and defend the suit, concluding that the petitioners failed to raise a plausible or prima facie defense regarding the correctness of the bank's statement of accounts. The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that, under established legal principles, leave to defend should be granted if a defendant raises a triable issue, even if the defense appears vague or unsatisfactory, and that the lower courts erred by conducting a trial-like inquiry at the leave-to-defend stage. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the threshold for granting leave to defend required further consideration. The Court directed the petitioners to furnish a bank guarantee for the decretal amount within one month to the satisfaction of the trial court, failing which the leave would be rescinded, and ordered the suspension of the decree's execution upon compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Is a defendant entitled to leave to defend a suit if they raise a defense that constitutes a triable issue, even if the defense is considered vague or unsatisfactory?
  • Should a court grant leave to defend a suit on the condition of furnishing security or depositing the amount if the defense raised is not clearly plausible?
  • Does the stage of seeking leave to defend a suit require the court to conduct a full trial, or merely determine the existence of a bona fide triable issue?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Barkat Industrial Corporation Limited, Faisalabad through Sh. Abdus Salam, Director vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others1997 PTD 657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-16
  Income Tax OrdinanceConstitutional interpretationLeave to appealInterim reliefTax recovery suspensionAttorney-General notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the validity of specific taxation provisions. The core legal question involves the constitutionality and interpretation of Sections 80-C, 80-CC, and 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance. The Court, noting that leave to appeal had already been granted in several connected petitions raising identical legal questions, granted leave in the instant petition as well. Furthermore, recognizing that the matter necessitated the construction of constitutional provisions, the Court ordered that notice be issued to the Attorney-General of Pakistan pursuant to the relevant procedural rules. Regarding interim relief, the Court held that the recovery of the disputed tax would remain suspended during the pendency of the appeals, provided the petitioners furnish an undertaking to pay the tax as levied or leviable under the aforementioned sections, along with interest at a rate of 2% above the bank rate, should the appeals be ultimately dismissed. The Court also directed that the appeal be scheduled for an early hearing due to its impact on federal finances.

  Questions settled

  • Under what conditions may the recovery of tax be suspended during the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Is notice to the Attorney-General mandatory when a case involves the construction of the Constitution and the validity of statutory tax provisions?
  • Does the granting of leave to appeal in connected matters justify the grant of leave in a similar pending petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al Shams (Pvt.) Limited. vs Haji Muhammad Afzal And 3 Other1997 MLD 573 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ainy Builders and Company Hyderabad And 2 Others vs Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad Through Administrator_Mayoropponent1997 MLD 732 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-15Read full judgment →
• Meraj Din alias Maja vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1996 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Member (Colonies), Baord of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And Another vs Ghulam Ahmad1997 SCMR 624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-17
  state landproprietary rightsWell Sinking Schemeexcess areaallotmenttenancyBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court was filed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, against a Lahore High Court judgment that had directed the appellants to grant proprietary rights to the respondent for an excess area of land on the same terms as his main tenancy. The respondent was allotted 27 acres, 4 Kanals, and 6 Marlas of land under the Well Sinking Scheme, but held actual possession of 43 acres and 5 Marlas. The Board of Revenue had rejected his request to purchase the excess area because it exceeded the 10% limit prescribed by the policy instructions dated 22-1-1971. The Supreme Court held that a tenant can only claim proprietary rights as of right in respect of the area actually allotted under the scheme. Since the excess area exceeded the 10% policy threshold, the High Court's direction to grant proprietary rights for the excess area on the same terms as the main tenancy was unsustainable. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment to that extent, while clarifying that the respondent could apply to purchase the excess area under a subsequent government memorandum dated 30-5-1989.

  Questions settled

  • Can an allottee of State land claim proprietary rights over an excess area in their possession that was not part of the original allotment and exceeds the statutory or policy limits?
  • Whether policy instructions limiting the purchase of excess land to a specific percentage of the prescribed unit are binding on the allottee?
  • Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction direct the government to grant proprietary rights over unallotted excess land on the same terms as the main allotted tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Gul vs Station House Officer, Police Station Saddar, Karachi1997 P Cr. L J 1739 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-19Read full judgment →
• Mehrban Khan And Another vs Javaid Khan And 2 Other1997 SCMR 1092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-19
  leave to appealdouble murderacquittalconversion of sentenceculpable homicidecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the conviction of one accused from section 302 to section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, while acquitting the co-accused of double murder charges. The core legal questions involve the correctness of the High Court's reasoning in acquitting one respondent and altering the conviction of the other, and whether proper principles for the safe administration of criminal justice were applied. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to both the complainant and the convict to examine these aspects. The Court laid down that leave is warranted to thoroughly review High Court judgments involving acquvitals and the conversion of murder convictions to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting a co-accused charged with double murder?
  • Did the High Court err in converting the conviction from section 302 to section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Were the principles enunciated by superior courts for the safe administration of criminal justice kept in view while convicting under section 304 Part I?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehran Motor Car Company Ltd. and others vs Daewoo Hong Kong1997 PLD Karachi 423 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mehr Ellahi vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• Mehr Din vs Mst. Gafuran Bibi And Another1997 CLC 1595 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ahmad And 12 Others vs Aziz And 2 Other1997CLC 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali alia, Booba vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 945 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Alam vs Station House Officer and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mehar Zulifqar Ali Babu And 3 Others vs Government of Punjab1997 SCMR 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-26
  local bodiestenure curtailmentcaretaker governmentnatural justiceaudi alteram partemcorruption allegationsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals against the Lahore High Court's judgments regarding the notification issued by the Governor of Punjab on August 15, 1993, curtailing the tenure of elected local bodies under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and appointing administrators. The core legal questions are whether the government possesses the power to abruptly curtail the tenure of all local councils in the province under section 26-A of the Ordinance, whether unproved allegations of corruption can justify such an action, and whether the principle of audi alteram partem was violated. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the power under section 26-A was meant for a limited temporary purpose to facilitate fair general elections and did not authorize the total abolition or premature termination of local bodies without due process. The Court ruled that mere allegations of corruption, absent formal proof or inquiry under section 159 of the Ordinance, cannot justify disenfranchising elected representatives. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment, declared the notification illegal, and ordered the restoration of the local councils to complete their term.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Government has the power under section 26-A of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 to permanently curtail or abolish the tenure of all local councils in the province?
  • Can unproven allegations of corruption serve as a valid legal basis to prematurely terminate the tenure of elected local council members without an inquiry under section 159 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the curtailment of a local body's tenure without affording an opportunity of hearing violate the principle of audi alteram partem?
  • Whether the power to suspend or dissolve local councils under section 159 can be exercised globally against the entire local government system through a blanket notification.
  Read full judgment →
• Meghraj Tusnial and another vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1997 PTD 966 · Gauhati High Court · 1996-06-27Read full judgment →
• Meera and Company vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 1787 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
• Meer Hassan And 2 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1663 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-03Read full judgment →
• Meenhwassayo alias Khamiso vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1485 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mazullah Khan vs The State and anothers1997 PLD Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-17
  bail applicationSection 337-F(v) PPCDamanTa'zirhurt by blunt meansSection 337-Y PPCSection 337-N PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from a bail petition filed by Mazullah Khan in a case registered under Section 337-D read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner hurled a stone at the complainant following an altercation over previous court testimony, while a co-accused struck him with an axe. The core legal questions before the High Court were the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, the primary statutory penalty applicable, and the criteria for granting bail in hurt cases where the primary penalty is Daman. The High Court observed that the specific seat and locale of the injury attributed to the petitioner was unspecified, placing the hurt under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the primary and mandatory punishment under Section 337-F(v) is Daman, whereas imprisonment as Ta'zir is discretionary, governed by Section 337-N(2). Consequently, pursuant to the scheme of Section 337-Y(2), bail was granted subject to bail bonds and the deposit of tentative Daman.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the primary punishment prescribed under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is mandatory Daman or discretionary imprisonment as Ta'zir?
  • Under what circumstances can Ta'zir imprisonment be awarded in hurt cases under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused charged with an offence under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be granted bail upon furnishing security or depositing the tentative amount of Daman under the principles of Section 337-Y(2)?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazullah And Others vs Abdur Rehman And Other1997 SCMR 1836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-06
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationfurther inquiryevidentiary valuedelayed statementpre-trial baildiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the grant of bail in a murder case arising from an F.I.R. registered in Peshawar. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing bail to one accused and cancelling the bail of another, while maintaining the bail of a third. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by appraising evidence in a manner that effectively determined culpability at the pre-trial stage and by failing to consider relevant factors for bail. The Court found that the delayed statement of the complainant, recorded nine to ten days post-occurrence, warranted further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, granting bail to the two appellants, and dismissed the petition seeking cancellation of the third accused's bail. The judgment reaffirms that at the bail stage, courts must avoid premature findings on guilt and must focus on whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused committed the offense, while considering statutory provisions regarding gender-based bail concessions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a significant delay warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to determine the culpability of an accused at the bail stage?
  • Can a High Court cancel bail granted by a lower court without considering the factors that initially weighed in favor of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar vs The State1997 MLD 1553 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Mehmood vs Basit And Another1997 SCMR 915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14
  post-arrest bailcancellation of bailpolice investigationcommon intentionleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order by the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, acting in furtherance of a common intention, caused a firearm injury to the complainant. The High Court had granted bail primarily because the police investigation found the respondent innocent and placed his name in Column No. 2 of the challan, noting he had not caused injury to the deceased. The petitioner argued that the police finding of innocence was not binding on the court. The Supreme Court held that it is primarily a constitutional court and will not interfere with bail orders granted by the High Court absent compelling reasons. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the criteria for cancelling bail are distinct from those for granting it. Finding that the police had based their conclusion of innocence on statements from numerous local residents, the Court refused to interfere, holding that bail once granted should not be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police finding of innocence binding on the court during bail proceedings?
  • What are the criteria for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a bail order granted by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ibnehassan Siddiqui and 2 others vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of processinherent jurisdictioncivil disputeprivate complaintcriminal litigationMagistrate's duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate. The dispute arose from a civil conflict between the parties regarding the management of agricultural lands and the custody of a minor child, which the respondent attempted to convert into criminal litigation by filing a private complaint alleging offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings initiated to exert pressure in a civil dispute, characterized by a vague complaint lacking essential particulars of time and place, constituted an abuse of the process of law. The Court held that the proceedings were an abuse of process, as the allegations were essentially civil in nature and the complaint failed to meet the requirements for framing a charge. The Court quashed the proceedings, reaffirming the principle that criminal courts should not be utilized to settle civil disputes or to harass parties, and that magistrates must exercise judicial scrutiny before issuing process in private complaints to ensure that a genuine criminal offence is disclosed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the dispute is essentially civil in nature?
  • Is a Magistrate required to scrutinize a private complaint for the existence of a criminal offence before issuing process under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to provide specific particulars of time and place in a complaint invalidate the subsequent criminal proceedings?
  • Under what circumstances can a Magistrate acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ahmad Qureshi vs Muhammad Ilyas Qureshi1997 CLC 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Abbas vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03
  post-arrest bailminorityQatl-e-AmdQisas and Diyatfurther inquiryTazirprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns a petitioner accused of Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether a minor accused of murder is entitled to bail when they are exempt from Qisas and potentially liable only to Diyat or Tazir, depending on their maturity. The court held that the petitioner, being 13 years old at the time of the offense, is a minor under the relevant statutory definition. Consequently, the petitioner is not liable to Qisas. The court further held that determining whether the petitioner possessed sufficient maturity to understand the consequences of their act—thereby attracting Tazir—is a question of fact requiring evidence at trial. As such, the case falls under the category of further inquiry pursuant to Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Because the petitioner is not subject to the prohibitory clause of Section 497, bail was granted. The court also clarified that police findings based solely on Qasam/Niyan without corroborating evidence cannot supersede eye-witness accounts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a minor accused of Qatl-e-Amd entitled to bail on the ground that they are not liable to Qisas?
  • Does the determination of whether a minor had sufficient maturity to understand the consequences of their act constitute a question of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can police investigation findings based solely on Qasam/Niyan override eye-witness accounts in a bail application?
  • Does the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to a minor who is not liable to Qisas for Qatl-e-Amd?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazdoor Union Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Karachi Through General Secretary vs Registrar of Trade Unions (Central Division), Karachi And 9 Others1997 PLC 311 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-16Read full judgment →
• Maula Dad Khan And Others vs The Provincial Government of the Punjab And Other1997 CLC 59 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-10Read full judgment →
• Matta Khan Through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Naseem Akhtar1997 CLC 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
• Matloob Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2081 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mataro And Another vs The State1997 MLD 260 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
• Master Shahzad vs The State1997 MLD 2605 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mass Nawaz vs Mst. Kai Pari1997 MLD 727 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-17Read full judgment →
• Masood Ur Rehman And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1245 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• Masood Rawat and another vs Mrs. Farhat Iqbal and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 318 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-07Read full judgment →
• Masood Mustafa vs The State1997 MLD 1882 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Masood Mukhtar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax_Wealth Tax, Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur _BWP,1997 PLC (C.S.) 923 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Masood Mukhtar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax_Wealth Tax, Ahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur1997 PLC (C. S.) 923 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mashal Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Chief Secretary, N.-1997 PLC (C.S.) 1155 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Masal Khan vs District Magistrate, Peshawar and 3 others1997 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-16
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderpublic orderwrit petition maintainabilityfundamental rightslibertymala fide detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order of preventive detention issued by the District Magistrate, Peshawar under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 against the petitioner's cousin. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a writ petition when a representation remedy exists, the definition and scope of 'public order', and whether past criminal acts or pending/decided substantive criminal cases can form the legal basis for preventive detention. The Peshawar High Court held that the constitutional petition is fully maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 as the alternative remedy of representation is not 'adequate' regarding personal liberty. The Court set aside the detention order, ruling that preventive detention cannot be used to punish past actions, nor can it be based on allegations forming the subject of substantive criminal trials where the accused has been released on bail, since an act must affect the public-at-large to prejudice 'public order'.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable against an order of preventive detention despite the availability of making a representation to the Provincial Government?
  • Can past criminal acts or stale convictions from years prior form a valid legal basis for an order of preventive detention?
  • Whether an individual facing substantive criminal charges or already released on bail by a competent court can simultaneously be subjected to preventive detention for the same allegations?
  • What constitutes an activity prejudicial to 'public order' under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  Read full judgment →
• Marybong and Kyel Tea Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-1997 PTD 1956 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Marshall Sons & Co. India Ltd vs Income-Tax Officer1997 PTD 1293 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-11-27Read full judgment →
• Maroof Shah vs Mst. Tasleem Jan and others1997 PLD Peshawar 8 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-14
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadproof of talbscivil revisionpleadings and evidencediscrepancy in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Mansehra, which had reversed the trial court's dismissal of a pre-emption suit regarding 25 Kanals 17 Marlas of land and granted a decree for possession through pre-emption in favour of the pre-emptor. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad are independent legal requirements that must be separately proved, and whether material discrepancies between the pre-emptor's pleadings and oral evidence concerning the date of knowledge and demand of Talb-i-Muwathibat were fatal to the suit. The High Court held that under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, Talb-i-Muwathibat is a distinct, indispensable condition precedent that cannot be inferred merely from a written notice of Talb-i-Ishhad. Observing significant contradictions between the pre-emptor's pleadings and the testimony of his witnesses regarding when knowledge of the sale was acquired and when the demand was made, the court held that the pre-emptor had failed to establish Talb-i-Muwathibat. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the appellate decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad are independent statutory requirements that must be separately and individually proved in a pre-emption suit?
  • Can the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat be inferred or bypassed merely by producing a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad?
  • Whether material contradictions between the pleadings and oral evidence regarding the date of knowledge and making of Talb-i-Muwathibat render the pre-emption claim fatal?
  Read full judgment →
• Maroof And 3 Others vs Chulam Muhammad And 6 Other1997 CLC 809 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-11-05Read full judgment →
• Markazi Union Lambardaran, Punjab Province And 10 Others vs Board1997 CLC 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-12Read full judgment →
• Maratab Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-17
  post-arrest bailcriminal conspiracyfurther inquirymurderdelayed reporting
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from FIR No. 252 dated 17-7-1996 at Police Station Mochiwala, District Jhang. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not present at the spot of the murder and was only implicated for a prior criminal conspiracy allegedly witnessed by close relatives who failed to report it promptly, made out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that the role ascribed to the petitioner regarding the conspiracy lacked logical plausibility and that the unreported nature of the incident involving related witnesses brought the case within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the court accepted the application and granted bail to the petitioner subject to surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that delayed reporting of an alleged conspiracy by related witnesses, coupled with the absence of the accused from the scene of the crime, makes the matter one of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not present at the spot of the crime and implicated solely for conspiracy is entitled to post-arrest bail when the conspiracy witnesses are related and delayed in reporting?
  • Does the lack of immediate reporting of an alleged conspiracy by eyewitnesses make the case one of further inquiry under criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1803 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 834 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain vs Gulzar Khan And Another1997 MLD 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Elahi vs Province of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-10
  law reforms appealmaster and servantright of hearingnatural justicecompulsory retirementstatutory rulesdisciplinary actionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 against the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the termination of the appellant's services under Regulation No. 21(i) of the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1978. The core legal questions involved were whether an internal departmental appeal was barred under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 for a retirement order not amounting to a penalty, and whether an employee is entitled to an opportunity of being heard prior to retirement despite the absence of an express provision in the statute. The Lahore High Court held that the preliminary objection regarding maintainability failed because the rules only mandated appeals against penalty orders, whereas the appellant's retirement was non-disciplinary. On merits, the Court held that the principles of natural justice and the right to be heard must be read into every statute when an adverse action is taken against a person. The appeal was accordingly allowed, though relief was limited up to the date the appellant himself sought retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie under rule 13 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 against a retirement order passed under Regulation 21(i) of the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1978?
  • Must an employee be granted an opportunity of being heard before an order of retirement is passed against them, even if the relevant statute is silent on the matter?
  • Are the regulations framed under the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 considered statutory rules governing the service of its employees?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees whose service is regulated by statutory regulations framed under the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad and anothers vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-04
  private complaintbail applicationpre-arrest bailsummoning ordernon-bailable warrantsSection 91 Cr.P.C.police torture
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four bail applications filed by police officials accused in a private complaint of murder, following the death of a detainee. The core legal questions involved the validity of the trial court's summoning order and the proper procedure to be followed when the accused appear in court after being summoned. The High Court held that the trial court erred in treating the accused's appearance as a pre-arrest bail matter, noting that the existence of sufficient grounds to summon an accused does not equate to reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence. The Court established that once an accused appears in court pursuant to a process issued under Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the trial court is required to proceed under Section 91, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by directing the accused to execute bonds for their appearance. Additionally, while the trial court has discretion to issue non-bailable warrants, it is appropriate to issue summons or bailable warrants when the accused appears voluntarily.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to provide detailed reasons when issuing a summoning order under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a trial court treat an accused's appearance in court following a summons as a pre-arrest bail application?
  • What procedure must a trial court follow under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused appears in court pursuant to a process?
  • Does the existence of sufficient grounds to summon an accused in a private complaint equate to reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad Alias Kooli vs The State1997 MLD 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-13Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs The State1997 MLD 3090 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain, Naib-Tehsildar And 13 Other vs The Deputy1997 PLC (C. S.) 965 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain Jafri vs Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi And Other1997 CLC 1586 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad, Executive Engineer, Highway Division, Lahore vs Government of the Punjab Through Secretary, Communication And Works Department, Lahore And 3 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 241 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Province of Punjab And Other1997 MLD 481 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-19Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 850 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05
  pre-arrest bailabetmentrepugnant to injunctions of islamcriminal conspiracyfurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 302/149, 324/149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to an F.I.R. concerning murder and murderous assault following a land dispute. The core allegation against the petitioners was abetment under section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, although they were admittedly not present at the scene of the occurrence. The Lahore High Court considered that the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Federation of Pakistan v. Gul Hassan Khan had declared section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, which ruling was given effect by the Supreme Court in a subsequent review petition. The Court held that since section 109 had ceased to have effect, its application against the petitioners was unlawful, presenting reasonable grounds for further inquiry into their guilt. Consequently, the Lahore High Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 ceased to have effect after being declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the penal provision regarding abetment applied against the accused has ceased to be effective?
  • Does the absence of the accused at the scene of the occurrence coupled with an allegation of abetment under a defunct provision constitute grounds for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad And 6 Others vs Hamid Shah Gilani And Another1997 SCMR 1443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-11
  specific performancead interim injunctiondiscretion of trial courtagreement to sellbalance sale consideration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court modifying a trial court order regarding an ad interim injunction in a suit for specific performance. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was allotted a plot, and upon his demise, the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell their rights in the plot to respondent No. 1 for a total consideration. After receiving earnest money and handing over possession, disputes arose regarding compliance with payment terms, leading respondent No. 1 to file a suit for specific performance and obtain an ad interim injunction subject to depositing the balance sale consideration. The High Court modified this by allowing a surety bond instead of a cash deposit. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's discretion requiring a cash deposit for granting interim relief. The Supreme Court held that the trial Court's discretion in imposing the condition of depositing the balance amount was valid and not arbitrary, and thus the High Court erred in interfering with it. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the trial Court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court in granting an ad interim injunction subject to the deposit of the balance sale consideration?
  • Can a plaintiff obtain an interim injunction protecting possession in a suit for specific performance without depositing the remaining sale price when ordered by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansha and 7 others vs Illaqa Magistrate, Police Station Bahlak, District Faisalabad and 4 others1997 PLD Supreme Court 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-22
  police investigationdischarge of accusedMagistrate's powerscognizance of offencewrit jurisdictionfinal reportjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment setting aside an Illaqa Magistrate's order that had discharged accused persons based on a police report declaring them innocent. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is bound by a police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to interfere with such a discharge order. The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate is not merely a rubber stamp for police reports and is not bound by the police's opinion regarding the innocence of an accused. The Court affirmed that a Magistrate retains the authority to take cognizance of an offense despite a police report suggesting otherwise. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to declare the Magistrate's discharge order as being without lawful authority, noting that the investigation had been abruptly and improperly concluded. The principle established is that the Magistrate has the power to exercise judicial discretion upon receiving a police report, rather than being compelled to accept the police's findings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate bound by the findings of a police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate take cognizance of an offense even if the police report declares the accused innocent?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to set aside a Magistrate's order discharging an accused based on a police report?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansab Ali And Others vs Malik Muhammad Salam And 3 Other1997 SCMR 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-03
  leave to appealarbitration awarddecree sheetmemorandum of appealcivil revisionappealable order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed their Regular First Appeal and Civil Revision against an order setting aside an arbitration award. The core legal questions involved whether a decree sheet was mandatory for filing an appeal against an order refusing to make an arbitration award a rule of the court, and whether a civil revision was competent when an appeal lay against such an order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the applicability of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act 1940 required detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that an order refusing to make an award a rule of the court is appealable as an order under the Arbitration Act, and no decree is required to be drawn up in such circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decree sheet is required to be filed with the memorandum of appeal when challenging an order setting aside an arbitration award?
  • Is a civil revision competent against an order that is separately appealable under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • When is a decree required to be prepared under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Manoo And 2 Others vs Province of Sindh And 6 Other1997 MLD 2549 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mani & Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 500 · Kerala High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mandviwalla Mauser Plastic Industries Limited,Pechs, Karachi And 41997 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-15
  Banking TribunalModaraba companySchedule inclusionFederal Government notificationleave to appealrecovery of finance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Banking Tribunal. The respondents had filed recovery suits under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, after the Federal Government issued a notification under section 13 of the said Ordinance to include First, Second, and Third Prudential Modarabas in the Schedule below the Ordinance. The core legal questions involve whether a Modaraba company can be covered by the term 'a company specified in the Schedule' under section 2(a)(i) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, and whether the Federal Government was competent to incorporate Modarabas into the Schedule. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that an authoritative decision is necessary regarding the interpretation of 'company' in the Ordinance and the extent of the Federal Government's powers under section 13.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Modaraba company defined by clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Ordinance of 1980 can be covered by the words 'a company specified in the Schedule' appearing in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 2 of the Ordinance of 1984?
  • Whether the Federal Government was competent to incorporate in the Schedule below Ordinance of 1984 the First Prudential Modaraba, the Second Prudential Modaraba and the Third Prudential Modaraba?
  • Whether the word 'company' mentioned in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 2 of the Ordinance of 1984 was intended by the Legislature to be understood and interpreted in light of the preamble to said Ordinance and was to be influenced by the earlier sub-clauses of clause (a) of section 2 of the Ordinance of 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, WASA, Lahore vs Muhammad Hanif Ijaz1997 PLC 108 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-26Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, National Tubewell Construction Corporation1997 PLC 444 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Makarwal Collieries Limited, Pakistan Mineral1997 PLC 339 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-16Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Ittehad Chemicals Ltd., Kala Shah Kaku, District1997 MLD 798 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-17
  master and servantnatural justicetermination of serviceconstitutional petitionshow-cause noticepublic policystate-owned corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a judgment accepting a writ petition against the termination of the respondent's services as General Manager of Ittehad Chemicals Limited. The core legal question was whether the termination of an employee, in the absence of statutory service rules, could be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction when the termination was effected without a show-cause notice or an opportunity of being heard. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the termination order was invalid for failing to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Relying on the precedent of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C., the Court rejected the argument that the master-servant doctrine precluded constitutional relief in the absence of statutory rules. It affirmed that even where a contract allows termination without notice, such a clause does not apply when termination is based on alleged misconduct. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in state-controlled corporations, the power to terminate cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in violation of the principles of social and economic justice, as protected under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can the termination of an employee of a state-controlled corporation be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction if no statutory service rules exist?
  • Does a contractual clause permitting termination without notice apply when the termination is based on alleged misconduct?
  • Is a termination order passed without affording an opportunity of being heard valid under the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Managing Director (P) WAPDA and 4 others vs National Industrial1997 PLC (C.S.) 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
• Managing Director (P) WAPDA And 4 Other vs National Industrial1997 PLC (C.S.) 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
• Managing Committee, P.A.F. Model Inter College, Sargodha Through Chairman And 4 Others vs Malik Muhammad Pervaiz Akhtar1997 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-25
  civil servantservice tribunal jurisdictiontermination of servicenatural justicedefence servicesself-financing institutionvoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which reinstated a teacher terminated by the Managing Committee of the P.A.F. Model Inter College, Sargodha. The primary legal question was whether the respondent, employed by an institution managed by Pakistan Air Force officers but operating on a self-financing basis, constituted a "civil servant" under Section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, thus falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, by majority, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that the respondent’s post was connected with the affairs of the Federation and the defence of Pakistan, given the institution's administrative control by the Pakistan Air Force and the application of government-equivalent pay scales and benefits. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the termination proceedings were void ab initio because the respondent was condemned unheard, denied access to the inquiry report, and deprived of a final show-cause notice. The judgment reinforces that such employees are civil servants entitled to the protection of service laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does a teacher employed at a P.A.F. Model Inter College hold a civil post connected with the defence of Pakistan?
  • Is an employee of a self-financing educational institution managed by the Pakistan Air Force a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Are termination proceedings void ab initio if an employee is denied a copy of the inquiry report and a final show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Manager, Wahid Engineering Company vs Dil Muhammad Butt1997 PLC 343 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
• Malir Educational Society (Registered), Karachi vs The Board of Revenue, Government of Sindh, Hyderabad And 2 Other1997 MLD 1267 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Safdar Hussain vs Lutuf Ahmad Khan And Other1997 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-23
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantdefault in payment of rentnotice of attornmentconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition upholding concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and appellate authority ordering the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant. The core legal questions involved whether the absence of a formal notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance vitiates an ejectment order, and whether denial of the landlord-tenant relationship after having sufficient notice of transfer warrants ejectment without further proceedings. The Supreme Court held that where a tenant has clear and sufficient notice of the transfer of ownership, the lack of a formal statutory notice is immaterial, and a contumacious denial of the landlord-tenant relationship justifies an order of ejectment. The key principle laid down is that actual knowledge of ownership substitutes for formal statutory notice of attornment, and contumacious denial of the tenancy disentitles the tenant from demanding further evidentiary proceedings on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a formal notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance invalidates an ejectment order when the tenant has actual knowledge of the property transfer?
  • Does a tenant's denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant after having sufficient notice of ownership entitle the Rent Controller to order ejectment without recording further evidence?
  • Can a tenant who sets up a false or contumacious denial of tenancy claim the right to a determination on other issues on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Mumtaz Ali Khan vs Additional Deputy Commissioner1997 C LC 1634 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Yasin vs Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur' And 2 Other1997 CLC 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Sarwar And Others vs Town Committee, Chak Jhumra1997 CLC 485 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Saleheen And Others vs Arshad Siddiq And 2 Other1997 SCMR 1829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-02
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationplea of alibifurther inquirymurdercriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the grant of pre-arrest bail to two accused and the refusal to cancel the bail of two other co-accused in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in considering a plea of alibi at the bail stage and whether the grant of bail to the respondents was justified given the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not act unreasonably or perversely in its assessment. The Court clarified that there is no absolute legal prohibition against considering a plea of alibi during bail proceedings; rather, the court must examine whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is guilty of an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment. The Court affirmed that the trial judge retains full independence to evaluate evidence during the trial, irrespective of observations made during the bail stage. The petitions were dismissed, maintaining the bail granted to the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be considered by a court during bail proceedings?
  • Does the consideration of a plea of alibi at the bail stage bind the trial court's assessment of evidence during the trial?
  • Under what circumstances does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 794 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Nazir Awan vs Muhammad Aamer Baig and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• Malik Khan Baig vs Station House Officer, Police Station Nawan1997 P Cr. L J 864 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Khalid Mahmood vs Abdul Majid Butt And 4 Other1997 MLD 2921 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-24
  cancellation of allotmentnatural justiceaudi alteram partemestoppelwrit petitionMunicipal Committeeregularization of encroachment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arose from a land dispute in Dadyal where the High Court accepted a writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, restoring his allotment of a plot measuring over two marlas. Respondent No. 1 had been allotted the plot by the Chairman of the Municipal Committee Dadyal. Subsequently, the Chairman cancelled the allotment without issuing notice or affording a hearing to Respondent No. 1, citing an incorrect official report and procedural irregularities, and referred the matter to the Allotment Committee. The High Court set aside the cancellation as a violation of natural justice. On appeal, the appellant contended that the writ petition was premature since the matter was pending before the Allotment Committee, and that the relevant allotment rules were not in force. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an allotment creates a vested right that cannot be taken away without a hearing. Furthermore, the appellant was estopped from challenging the Municipal Committee's authority after having himself applied for regularization under the same scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vested right created by an allotment order be cancelled or revoked without providing the allottee a prior opportunity of hearing?
  • Does an order cancelling a valid allotment without hearing the affected party violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Is a writ petition premature when filed against an order cancelling an allotment, even if the matter is simultaneously referred for re-adjudication to an allotment committee?
  • Is a party who applied for land regularization before a municipal authority estopped from later challenging that authority's power to make such allotments?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Azizur Rehman vs I.C.I. Pakistan Limited,'Soda Ash Works Khewra, District Jhelum and another1997 PLC 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-11
  leave to appealquashment of charge-sheetnational industrial relations commissiontrade union victimisationlabour court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition filed against the order of a Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The petitioner, employed as a Timekeeper and serving as a union official, was issued a charge-sheet for alleged misappropriation and unauthorised absence. He approached the NIRC seeking quashment of the charge-sheet on the ground of victimisation for trade union activities. While the Chairman of the NIRC initially quashed the charge-sheet, a Full Bench of the NIRC allowed the employer's appeal and restored it, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the validity of the charge-sheet and whether it was motivated by trade union victimisation. The Supreme Court held that the Full Bench and the High Court committed no illegality, noting that the petitioner had already been removed from service and had challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court. The Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that questions regarding the correctness of the charge-sheet and allegations are properly to be adjudicated by the Labour Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a charge-sheet issued to an employee can be quashed on the ground of trade union victimisation?
  • Does the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court regarding an employee's removal affect the validity of a charge-sheet upheld by the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment upholding the decision of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission regarding the validity of a charge-sheet?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Azizur Rehman vs I.C.I. Pakistan Limited, Soda Ash Works Khewra, District Jhelum And Another,1997 PLC 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-11
  charge-sheetnational industrial relations commissionunfair labour practicetrade union activitiesconstitutional petitionleave to appealmisappropriation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition, which had challenged a Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) order setting aside the quashment of a charge-sheet issued against him for misappropriation and unauthorized absence. The core legal question was whether the charge-sheet issued by the employer was a result of victimization for trade union activities or for valid disciplinary reasons. The Supreme Court held that the majority view of the Full Bench of NIRC, finding the charge-sheet to be valid and unconnected to trade union activities, suffered from no illegality or lack of jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner had already been removed from service and had challenged that removal before the Labour Court, all factual controversies regarding the correctness and legality of the charge-sheet should be determined by the Labour Court. Leave to appeal was consequently refused, with the clarification that prior findings would not prejudice the Labour Court proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a charge-sheet issued by an employer can be quashed on the ground of victimization for trade union activities?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the jurisdiction to interfere with disciplinary proceedings at the charge-sheet stage?
  • Will observations made in constitutional proceedings prejudice a pending matter before the Labour Court regarding an employee's removal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Allah Bakhsh vs Thal Development Authority Through Member1997 CLC 1460 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Hussain vs Judge Family Court, Gujrat and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ali Qureshi vs Government of Punjab And 3 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 52 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-15Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmed And 2 Others vs Nazar Ali And 9 Other1997 MLD 2465 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad Lodhi vs Federation of Pakistan1997 MLD 2365 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Khan vs The State1997 SCMR 1537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-21
  criminal appealmurderrelated witnessessifting grain from chafffalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubtocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, by special leave of the Supreme Court, arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which partially allowed an appeal, acquitting one co-accused while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Mahboob Khan, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related and partisan eye-witnesses, the applicability of the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and whether the acquittal of certain co-accused entitles another co-accused to an acquittal on the same evidence. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship, that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistan where courts must sift grain from chaff, and that the acquittal of some co-accused does not automatically require the acquittal of others when individual participation is proven. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and partisan eye-witnesses can be relied upon without strong corroboration in a criminal trial?
  • Does the acquittal of certain co-accused automatically entitle the remaining accused to an acquittal on the same evidence?
  • Is the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applicable to criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  • What is the duty of the court when witnesses exaggerate the charges or attempt to rope in innocent persons along with the guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• Maharnai Yogeshwari Kumari vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 585 · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-07-21Read full judgment →
• Mahar Maqbool Ahmad, Manager,Auqaf, Rahimyar Khan vs Auqaf1997 PLC (C. S.) 639 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mahar Maqbool Ahmad, Manager, Auqaf, Rahimyar Khan vs Auqaf1997 PLC (C.S.) 639 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Bank Ltd vs Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 889 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-01-19Read full judgment →
• Madad Khan vs The State1997 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• M.S. Siddiqui vs Ghulam Muhammad Khan and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 218 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir vs Federation of Pakistan1997 MLD 2547 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-23Read full judgment →
• M.B. ABBASI/Accused vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 367 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
• M.A. Rashid Rana vs Secretary, Home, Government of Punjab And Other1997 SCMR 1347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-24
  civil petitionservice tribunalseniority disputenecessary partyjudgment in remjudgment in personamlimitation periodleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against decisions of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the seniority and promotion of Deputy Superintendents of Police. The office raised objections regarding considerable delays rendering the petitions time-barred by hundreds of days. The petitioner argued that he was a necessary party in the service appeal proceedings filed by the respondents, which resulted in retrospective confirmation of seniority adversely affecting his promotion prospects, and that departmental remedies would be futile as the impugned notification explicitly implemented the Service Tribunal's judgment. Conversely, the respondents contended that the Tribunal's decision was a judgment in personam rather than in rem, rendering the non-joinder immaterial and leaving departmental remedies open. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the petitioner was a necessary party in the Service Tribunal proceedings and whether the impugned decisions constitute judgments in rem or in personam, while leaving the question of limitation open for determination at the hearing of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether it was necessary to join the petitioner as a necessary party in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal?
  • Whether decisions of the Service Tribunal are judgments in rem or in personam?
  • Does a notification implementing a Service Tribunal's judgment render further departmental remedies redundant?
  Read full judgment →