Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- M.A. Rashid Rana vs Secretary, Home, Government of Punjab And 181997 PLC (C.S.) 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of petitions filed by a police officer challenging decisions of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the seniority of other Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs). The petitioner contends that his seniority and promotion prospects were adversely affected by the Tribunal's orders, which granted retrospective seniority to respondents based on acts of gallantry, without impleading him as a necessary party. The respondents argue that the Tribunal's decisions are judgments in personam rather than judgments in rem, and thus not binding on the petitioner, suggesting he should pursue departmental remedies instead. The petitioner counters that because the government issued a notification specifically implementing the Tribunal's judgment to settle seniority, departmental remedies would be futile. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioner was a necessary party in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal and whether the impugned decisions constitute judgments in rem or in personam. The issue of limitation was left open for determination during the final hearing of the appeals.
Questions settled- Was it necessary to join the petitioner as a necessary party in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal?
- Are the decisions of the Service Tribunal regarding seniority judgments in rem or judgments in personam?
- M.A. Qayyum Siddiqui vs Messrs Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company1997 PLC 418 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
- M. Umar Farooq vs P.M.D.C. And Other1997 CLC 534 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, medical students, challenged detention orders issued by the Controller of Examination and the Principal of Nishtar Medical College, Multan, which prevented their promotion to higher professional classes following failures in previous examinations. The core legal question was whether medical students failing specific subjects are entitled to promotion and whether the rules governing detention and promotion are mandatory and binding. The Court held that the rules and regulations governing M.B.B.S. examinations are mandatory, binding, and carry the force of law. It affirmed that students, by purchasing the prospectus and enrolling, impliedly consent to these regulations, which are sacrosanct. Consequently, the Court ruled that educational institutions must strictly adhere to these uniform standards, and courts of equity cannot interfere with the established structure of medical education. Ultimately, the petitions were disposed of based on a voluntary undertaking by the Principal of Nishtar Medical College to recognize the academic positions of the petitioners as they stood under previous interim court orders, thereby resolving the immediate grievances without altering the established legal position on examination rules.
Questions settled- Are the rules and regulations governing M.B.B.S. examinations mandatory and binding on students?
- Does a student's admission to a medical college constitute implied consent to the rules and regulations contained in the prospectus?
- Can a court of equity interfere with the uniform standards and examination regulations established by medical institutions?
- Is a student entitled to promotion to a higher professional class if they have not passed all subjects of the previous class?
- M. Suleman & Co. Through Managing Partner vs Joint Official1997 CLC 260 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal against an order passed by the Company Bench in a company winding up proceeding. The core legal question was whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable against an order of a Company Bench passed after the winding up of a company has been ordered, or if the appeal lies directly to the Supreme Court. The Lahore High Court held that once a winding up order has been passed, any appeal against an order, decision, or judgment relating thereto lies to the Supreme Court of Pakistan under section 10 of the relevant ordinance, and therefore an Intra-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is not competent. The key principle laid down is that the forum for appeal in matters following a winding up order is exclusively the Supreme Court as per the statutory scheme.
Questions settled- Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against an order passed by a Company Bench after a winding up order has been issued?
- Where does an appeal lie against an order, decision or judgment passed when an order of winding up has already been directed?
- Does section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 bar an Intra-Court Appeal in winding up matters?
- M. Suleman & Co. Thourgh Managing Partner vs Joint Officials And Liqidator AnotherPTCL 1997 CL. 142 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M. Sirjees Nagi vs Zia-Ud-Din Ahmed Malik and 2 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court granting a status quo order in a service-related dispute. The petitioner contends that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, because the dispute pertained to the terms and conditions of service. Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that the respondent obtained the status quo order by suppressing the fact that a related petition for leave to appeal (C.P.L.A. No. 371 of 1995) was pending before the Supreme Court. Additionally, the petitioner argues that the High Court's status quo order conflicts with a prior order of the Supreme Court dated 26-3-1995. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contentions required examination. Pending the final adjudication, the Court suspended the High Court's status quo order and directed that if a Selection Board meeting is convened for promotions to BPS-21, all eligible candidates must be considered.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a service dispute concerning terms and conditions of service?
- Can a status quo order granted by the High Court be suspended by the Supreme Court pending appeal?
- Does the suppression of material facts regarding pending litigation in the Supreme Court invalidate a subsequent status quo order granted by the High Court?
- M. Safdar Awan vs Presiding Officer, Special Court Banking, Rawalpindi And 10 Other1997 CLC 295 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-26Read full judgment →
- M. Moazam Butt vs Razia Bibi and 4 others1997 PLD Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
- M. Izharul Haq And 3 Others vs Settleme1997 CLC 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
- M. Aslam Zaheer vs Ch. Shah Muhammad And Another1997 SCMR 1435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had quashed an order of the Additional Sessions Judge summoning the respondents to face trial under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint alleging that the respondents dishonestly removed machinery entrusted to a bonded warehouse without making payment and by using forged documents. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint, but the Additional Sessions Judge reversed this in revision and summoned the respondents. The High Court set aside the summoning order, holding that the dispute was covered by an arbitration clause and no criminal case would succeed. The core legal question is whether the existence of an arbitration clause bars criminal prosecution, and whether the High Court was justified in quashing the summoning order under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure without finding that the evidence failed to disclose an offence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that an arbitration clause does not bar criminal prosecution if the facts allege a criminal offence, and the High Court must examine whether the evidence discloses an offence before interfering with a summoning order.
Questions settled- Does the existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement bar criminal prosecution if the facts alleged constitute a criminal offence?
- When can the High Court interfere in its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure with an order of a competent court summoning an accused?
- Whether the High Court is required to examine the material and evidence on record before setting aside a summoning order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge?
- M . Sirjees Nagi vs Zia-Ud-Din Ahmed Malik And 2 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging an interim status quo order passed by the High Court in a service dispute. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is barred in service matters relating to terms and conditions of service, whether a subsequent status quo order was obtained through the suppression of material facts regarding a pending petition before the Supreme Court, and whether the High Court's order conflicted with a prior order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions. Holding that the petitioner's contentions required detailed examination, the Court suspended the status quo order granted by the High Court and directed that if a meeting of the Selection Board is convened for promotion to BPS-21, all eligible candidates must be considered in that meeting. The key principle laid down is that interim orders conflicting with Supreme Court directions or obtained by suppressing material facts regarding pending litigation are subject to suspension, and eligible candidates must be fairly considered for promotion during pending proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is barred in disputes relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Does obtaining a status quo order by suppressing the fact of a pending petition before the Supreme Court warrant the suspension of such order?
- Can a High Court grant an interim order that is in direct conflict with a prior order passed by the Supreme Court?
- Lubna and anothers vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 186 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-18Read full judgment →
- Lt.-Gen. (Rtd.) Sabeeh Qamar-Uz-Zaman vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1765 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
- Lt.-Col. Sanaullah Raja vs Muhammad Shafi and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1527 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a revision petition against an order of the Shariat Court, which disposed of a reference by a District Magistrate and an application under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the custody of an accused person sought by the Anti-Narcotics Force. The core legal questions were whether a District Magistrate is competent to make a reference to the High Court under section 432, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the Shariat Court could use inherent powers under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to interfere with police investigation or extradition proceedings. Additionally, the Court addressed whether delay in filing a revision petition could be condoned without a formal application. The Court held that a District Magistrate lacks the authority to make a reference under section 432, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that inherent powers cannot be used to obstruct police investigation or statutory extradition processes. Furthermore, the Court ruled that delay may be condoned without a formal application if the record provides sufficient cause. The impugned order was set aside, and the District Magistrate was directed to hand over the accused to the relevant police authorities.
Questions settled- Can a District Magistrate make a reference to the High Court under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the court condone a delay in filing a revision petition in the absence of a formal application for condonation?
- Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to interfere with police investigation or extradition proceedings?
- Is a revision petition under section 25 of the Islamic Penal Laws Act 1974 competent only in cases of conviction or acquittal?
- Lt. Gen. (Retd.) K.M. Azhar Khan vs Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious1997 SCMR 1469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the jurisdiction of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board. The core legal question is whether the Chairman possesses exclusive jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, to determine the status of property when the dispute involves a claim of ownership by the Provincial Government rather than a claim that the property is evacuee trust property. The High Court had previously held that the Chairman maintained exclusive jurisdiction to decide the status of the property in question, thereby upholding an order of remand issued by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs. The Supreme Court, finding that the petitioner's argument regarding the scope of the Chairman's jurisdiction raised substantial points requiring deeper consideration, granted leave to appeal. The key principle established is that the scope of the Chairman's exclusive jurisdiction under the Act is contingent upon the nature of the dispute regarding the property's status.
Questions settled- Does the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, to determine the status of property where the dispute involves a claim of ownership by the Provincial Government?
- Is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board triggered only when the property in dispute is alleged to be evacuee trust property?
- Lt. Col. (Retd.) Ali Imam And Another vs Multan Development Authority1997 CLC 85 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
- Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 576 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
- Libab Khan vs The State1997 PLD Peshawar 54 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
- Liaquat And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-20Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1997 MLD 1667 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-28Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs Inam Ullah1997 MLD 2232 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs Additional District Judge, Narowal And 2 Other1997 SCMR 1122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, including the Family Court, Additional District Judge, and the Lahore High Court, which decreed the suit of respondent No. 3 for possession of five acres of land given as dower pursuant to a Nikahnama and Kabinnama. The core legal question was whether a Family Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and pass a decree for the recovery of immovable property given as dower. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that under Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, a Judge Family Court is fully competent to entertain and adjudicate a suit for the recovery of property given as dower to a wife at the time of marriage. The Court also affirmed that concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of the dower documents, resting on oral and documentary evidence without any misreading or non-reading, are unexceptionable. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a Judge Family Court have the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the recovery of immovable property given as dower to a wife?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of a Kabinnama and Nikahnama be interfered with when there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Liaqat Ali vs Municipal Corporation, Sargodha Through Administrator1997 PLC 488 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs Muhammad Aslam And 4 Other1997 SCMR 1281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the High Court. The petitioner's primary concern was that certain observations made by the High Court in its impugned order might prejudice the final decision of the pending appeal on its merits. The Supreme Court addressed this concern by clarifying the legal nature of bail proceedings. The Court held that any observations made by a court while deciding a bail application are strictly tentative in nature and are intended solely for the purpose of disposing of the bail matter. Consequently, such observations cannot and must not influence or affect the final adjudication of the appeal on its merits. The petition was disposed of with this clarification, ensuring that the trial or appellate court remains uninfluenced by the tentative findings recorded during the bail stage.
Questions settled- Do observations made by a court while granting bail affect the final decision of an appeal on merits?
- Are findings recorded in a bail order binding on the court deciding the main appeal?
- Liaqat Ali And 8 Others vs Municipal Corporation, Mirpur And 5 Other1997 CLC 692 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These cross-appeals arise from a judgment of the High Court concerning the allotment of a plot in Mirpur. The appellants in the first appeal challenged an order of the Municipal Corporation creating and allotting a new plot over land previously allotted to them. The High Court partly accepted the writ petition, declaring the Mayor's regularisation order void for lack of mandatory procedure, while leaving open disputed questions of fact regarding territorial jurisdiction. Both private parties appealed. The Supreme Court addressed a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the non-joinder of a necessary party, specifically the Chairman/Mayor of the Municipal Corporation who independently exercised statutory power to regularise encroachments. The Court held that where a public functionary exercises an exclusive statutory power independently of the corporation, that functionary must be expressly impleaded as a respondent in the constitutional petition, and impleading the corporate body alone is insufficient. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the objection, dismissed the writ petition for want of a properly constituted party, allowed the appeal of the subsequent transferee, and dismissed the competing appeal.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition properly constituted when the public functionary whose order is challenged is not impleaded as a party?
- Does the impleading of a municipal corporation suffice when the impugned order was passed by its Chairman under an exclusive statutory power?
- Whether the Chairman of a Municipal Corporation acting under independent statutory powers is considered a distinct person under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Latifullah and anothers vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 940 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-11Read full judgment →
- Lal Shah And Others vs Statethrough Colonization Officer, Cholistan1997 MLD 2629 · Board of Revenue · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
- Lal Muhammad And Others, vs Suhail Akhtar And Other1997 SCMR 1358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind which accepted a constitution petition and declared an order of the Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, to be without lawful authority. The core legal question involved whether the trial court validly exercised jurisdiction under section 151 and Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to order the restoration of possession for alleged violation of a status quo order, given the factual controversy surrounding actual possession at the time of instituting the suit. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding possession and the scope of the orders required detailed examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court's interference under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was warranted based on the evidence on record.
Questions settled- Whether possession can be restored under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 upon the alleged violation of a status quo order?
- Can a High Court interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 with a revisional order regarding possession when factual controversies exist?
- Whether an order under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 properly encompasses a direction to restore possession to a party?
- Lal Din Alias Lalu And Another vs Supreme Appellate Court, Lahore And 31997 SCMR 1176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon an application for adjournment and extension of a stay order filed by the petitioner Lal Din alias Lalu, who was awarded the death penalty. The core legal question concerns the adjournment of the proceedings due to the serious illness and hospitalization of the petitioner's counsel, alongside the continuation of the interim stay against the execution of the death sentence. The Court held that in the interest of justice and due to unavoidable circumstances, the case should be adjourned, and the stay of execution extended conditionally. The key principle laid down is that interim relief such as a stay of execution in capital cases may be extended pending adjournment, subject to strict compliance with directives to produce the legal representatives of the deceased on the next date of hearing.
Questions settled- Can an adjournment be granted on the ground of the petitioner's counsel's serious illness and hospitalization?
- Whether a stay order against the execution of a death penalty can be extended pending an adjourned hearing?
- Is the continuation of a stay of execution in a capital case dependent on producing the legal representatives of the deceased?
- Laiq and another vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 281 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-16Read full judgment →
- Lahore Development Authority vs Muhammad Rashid1997 SCMR 1224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Lahore Development Authority (LDA), sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing its civil revision petition as time-barred. The dispute arose when the LDA acquired land from the respondents for a public graveyard, promising them 30% exempted plots in the M.A. Jauhar Town Scheme as part of the acquisition terms and award. Five years later, the LDA attempted to resile from this commitment, offering plots in a different scheme instead. The respondents successfully sued for declaration and injunction, with the trial and appellate courts holding that the LDA was bound by its representations. The LDA's revision petition before the High Court was filed late and returned for objections, but was re-filed after a delay of nearly a year. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal, holding that the LDA's explanation of administrative misplacement of files and ignorance of the revised limitation law constituted gross negligence. On the merits, the Court affirmed that the LDA could not unilaterally resile from its solemn commitments after the landowners had acted upon them.
Questions settled- Whether administrative misplacement of files within a public authority constitutes a sufficient ground for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Can a public authority unilaterally resile from a specific commitment or representation regarding land exemption after the landowners have acted upon it and the acquisition award has been finalized?
- Does ignorance of a change in the law prescribing a limitation period for filing a revision petition serve as a valid excuse to condone an inordinate delay?
- Lahore Development Authority Through Director General And Another1997 CLC 1674 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-16Read full judgment →
- Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry Through Secretary vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region (North Zone), Lahore And Another1997 PLC 295 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-12Read full judgment →
- Laherchand Dhanji vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, .1997 PTD 717 · Bombay High Court · 1994-11-09Read full judgment →
- Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 529 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
- Kuldeep Industrial Corporation vs Income-Tax Officer and others1997 PTD 1542 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-12-10Read full judgment →
- Kishore Kumar vs Abdul Sattar1997 MLD 2103 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
- Khwaj Din And Another vs Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement1997 MLD 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Mrs. Zakiya Mushtaq Ahmad And 7 Other1997 MLD 920 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-17Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Dost Muhammad1997 CLC 1995 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-10Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad and others vs Station House Officer, Sharaqpur1997 P Cr. L J 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad And 2 Others vs Muhammad Sham And 22 Other1997 CLC 1859 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
- Khush Akhtar Subhani And 21 Others vs Government of the Punjab1997 CLC 1991 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
- Khurshid-Ul-Hassan. vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through ChiefSecretary, Aj&K, Muzaffarabad And Another1997 PLC (C.S) 468 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
- Khurshid-Ul-Hassan vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Aj&K, Muzaffarabad and another1997 PLC (C.S.) 468 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Public Service Commission to recommend his appointment as an Assistant Commissioner against vacant seats reserved for specific districts where no suitable candidates qualified. The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the 1972 circular governing the quota system was not a valid Government Order because it was not issued in the name of the President and was pre-constitutional. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir examined whether the circular remained effective. The Court held that the form of a Government Order is not material; rather, the substance of the authority is what matters. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Section 51 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, existing laws and notifications continue in force unless repealed. The Court established that where no suitable candidate is available for a district-specific quota, the Public Service Commission must recommend the most suitable candidate on the basis of open merit, ensuring that posts do not remain vacant. The appeal was allowed.
Questions settled- Does a government circular issued without explicitly stating it is in the name of the President lose its validity as a government order?
- Does the repeal of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Act, 1970, render pre-constitutional circulars and notifications ineffective?
- Is the Public Service Commission obligated to fill vacant reserved quota posts with meritorious candidates from other districts if no suitable candidate exists in the designated district?
- Khurram Pervaiz Opal vs University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore Through Vice Chancellor And 2 Other1997 SCMR 1466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
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 and subsequent Intra-Court Appeal seeking admission to the Bachelor Degree Course for the session 1992-93 at the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, against a reserved category seat for children of University employees. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's father having resigned from University service disqualified the petitioner under the prospectus conditions requiring continuous service and no resignation. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner's father had tendered his resignation which was duly accepted, the petitioner failed to meet the mandatory eligibility criteria laid down in the prospectus. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and dismissed the petition, establishing that fulfillment of strict prospectus conditions regarding continuous employment without resignation is mandatory for claiming reserved seats.
Questions settled- Whether the child of a university employee who resigned from service is eligible for admission against reserved employee quota seats under the prospectus conditions?
- Does the resignation of a university employee break the continuous service requirement stipulated in the university prospectus for employee children categories?
- Khudai Dad alias Mama and others vs The State and others1997 PLD Quetta 69 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a batch of criminal appeals filed before the Balochistan High Court, questioning whether the Court possesses appellate jurisdiction under Section 45 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995, where appellants were convicted under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, rather than by Special Courts established under the Ordinance. The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction in these cases. It determined that the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, was not impliedly repealed by the Ordinance, as both statutes can coexist. The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be assumed by consent or convenience. It laid down a four-fold test for invoking Section 45 jurisdiction: the case must be registered under the Ordinance, investigated by the competent agency, tried by a Special Court established under Section 43, and the conviction must be recorded under the Ordinance. Since the appellants were tried under the 1979 Order, their appeals were deemed not entertainable by the High Court, and the files were returned for presentation before the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995, impliedly repeal the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- What are the criteria for the High Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction under Section 45 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995?
- Does a decision of the Federal Shariat Court returning an appeal for want of jurisdiction have a binding effect on the High Court under Article 203-GG of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a High Court assume appellate jurisdiction over a case tried by a court that lacked jurisdiction, simply because the trial court acted without authority?
- Khuda Bux Khoso vs Government of Sindh And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 400 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bux alias Khudo and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 917 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-09Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1997 SCMR 1383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the transfer of a criminal case pending before a Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner sought the transfer on grounds of alleged bias, asserting that the complainant was related to the trial Magistrate and that the Magistrate's conduct caused apprehension that the case would not be decided impartially. The High Court rejected the application because the allegations were routinely made and unsupported by an affidavit from the counsel representing the petitioner before the trial court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's order, finding no infirmity in the exercise of its discretion on merits, and noted that the petitioner had lost contact with his counsel, leaving the current status of the trial unknown. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a criminal case be transferred under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on general allegations of bias without supporting material such as an affidavit from the trial counsel?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's discretionary refusal to transfer a criminal case when valid and sound reasons are provided by the High Court?
- Is an unsubstantiated claim of relationship between the complainant and the trial Magistrate sufficient ground to warrant the transfer of a criminal trial?
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali1997 SCMR 561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed a writ of quo warranto filed by a voter against a Member of the National Assembly. The petitioner alleged the respondent was disqualified from contesting the election due to an outstanding bank loan. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly held that the constitutional petition was barred by Article 225 of the Constitution and whether the remedy of quo warranto was appropriately refused as a matter of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that Article 225 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, mandates that election challenges must be brought exclusively through election petitions before the designated tribunal, not via constitutional petitions. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that quo warranto is a discretionary relief. Allowing such petitions long after an election would invite instability, as any voter could challenge a member's qualification years later, leading to far-reaching and adverse consequences for parliamentary proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does Article 225 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 bar a constitutional petition challenging an election on the grounds of disqualification?
- Is the remedy of quo warranto regarding an election result a matter of absolute right or judicial discretion?
- Can an election to a House or Provincial Assembly be challenged outside of an election petition presented to the designated tribunal?
- Khuda Bakhsh And 4 Others vs Dr. Peer Muhammad Khan And Another "'1997CLC1114 , · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
- Khiali Khan vs Haji Nazir and 4 others1997 PLD Supreme Court 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a writ petition in limine, which had challenged the revival of a land sale mutation. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercising its discretionary constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199, ought to grant relief to a petitioner seeking to set aside orders when the petitioner himself was a party to the conscious contravention of law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the discretionary writ jurisdiction is meant to foster justice and right a wrong, and will not be invoked to aid a party who was himself responsible for the illegal transaction or whose conduct makes it inequitable to grant relief. The key principle laid down is that extraordinary writ jurisdiction can be refused to a petitioner whose own conduct involves acquiescence or participation in the impugned transaction, and even a void order need not be struck down if doing so would result in injustice or circumvent statutory principles.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can refuse discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution to a petitioner who was himself a party to the contravention of law?
- Should a void order be struck down by a constitutional court regardless of the consequences and the petitioner's conduct?
- Is a petitioner estopped by acquiescence and conduct from challenging a transaction they themselves entered into?
- Khawaja Javed Iqbal And Others vs Mst. Nadira Begum And Other1997 MLD 2440 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
- Khastoor Chand vs The State1997 MLD 2497 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
- Khasta Khan And Others vs The State1997 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from the dismissal of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 440 of 1992 by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, for non-prosecution, which was filed by the petitioners for the quashment of proceedings in case F.I.R. No. 251/87 registered under sections 447 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the criminal miscellaneous application for non-prosecution due to the continuous absence of the petitioners and their counsel. The Supreme Court held that there was no legal bar to the dismissal of a criminal miscellaneous application for non-prosecution when the petitioners failed to enter an appearance on multiple consecutive dates of hearing. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that courts possess the inherent power to dismiss criminal miscellaneous applications for non-prosecution in the face of persistent default and unjustified absence by the moving party.
Questions settled- Can a criminal miscellaneous application be dismissed for non-prosecution by the High Court?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's dismissal of a quashment petition due to persistent non-appearance?
- Khani Zaman And Another vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Azad1997 CLC 707 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition against the cancellation of an allotment of evacuee land. The appellants, claiming status as 'local destitutes,' were allotted land previously held by their father, who owned significant property. The core legal questions involved whether the Custodian could condone delay in a review petition and whether the appellants constituted a separate 'family' from their father to qualify as 'destitutes' under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation (Amendment) Act, 1974. The Supreme Court held that the Custodian’s decision to condone delay in a review petition is a matter of discretion and generally immune from interference in writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the term 'family' is not static and must be interpreted according to the specific statute's intent. The appellants failed to prove they were a separate family or lacked adequate income, as required by law. The Court affirmed that unlawful possession does not entitle one to allotment, and the Custodian correctly exercised his powers to cancel an allotment made in violation of statutory conditions.
Questions settled- Can the Custodian's decision to condone delay in a review petition be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the mere fact of being married and having children automatically constitute a separate 'family' under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation (Amendment) Act, 1974?
- Is a person in possession of evacuee land entitled to allotment if they do not meet the statutory criteria for 'destitutes'?
- Does the Custodian have the power to set aside an allotment order that violates the law under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957?
- Khan Zaman vs The State And Another1997 MLD 2073 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs Hameedurrehman And 5 Other1997 MLD 485 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad Niazi vs M/s. Habib Bank Ltd., Assistant Vicepresident1997 MLD 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a mandatory injunction for the release of a commercial vehicle impounded by a bank's recovery officer due to alleged default in loan repayments. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having defaulted on hire-purchase payments, was entitled to the immediate release of the vehicle via an interim mandatory injunction. The Court held that while the bank had a contractual right under the Hire Purchase Agreement to seize the vehicle upon default, the court must balance the bank's financial interests against the petitioner's potential for irreparable loss. The Court refused to grant the injunction as a matter of course, noting that the petitioner failed to establish a strong prima facie case of regular payment. However, to prevent the deterioration of the asset and mitigate losses for both parties, the Court ordered the conditional release of the vehicle, requiring the petitioner to pay arrears and provide security for the remaining outstanding balance, emphasizing that banks should prioritize financial recovery over vindictive asset seizure.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can a court grant a mandatory injunction at the initial stage of a constitutional petition?
- Does a bank have the right to seize a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement in the event of default?
- Is a token of payment sufficient proof of regular installment payments in a banking transaction?
- Should a bank's power to impound a vehicle be exercised for the purpose of securing financial interest or as a punitive measure?
- Khan Muhammad And Others vs Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue,Punjab And Other1997 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from consolidation proceedings where the petitioners challenged the redistribution of their land, specifically the allocation of 27 Kanals of their land to respondents in exchange for 18 Kanals. The petitioners had initially filed appeals against the consolidation scheme, which were dismissed due to procedural defaults and limitation issues, as the affected parties were not timely impleaded. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition in limine, noting that the petitioners had received more land in higher quality classes than their actual entitlement. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether the consolidation authorities erred in their allotment and whether the High Court's dismissal was justified. The Court held that the consolidation authorities acted correctly, as the petitioners were adequately accommodated and received land exceeding their entitlement in superior classes. The Court affirmed the principle that consolidation proceedings do not guarantee the retention of specific original plots, as the primary objective is the efficient reorganization of holdings, provided the landowner's overall entitlement is respected and adjusted according to land quality.
Questions settled- Does the law of consolidation guarantee that a landowner will retain their original specific plots of land?
- Can a consolidation authority adjust the area of land allotted to a landowner based on the quality of the land?
- Is a consolidation scheme valid if it accommodates a landowner with more area in higher quality classes than their original entitlement?
- Khaliq Mahmood And Another vs The Registrar of Trade Unions And Others1997 PLC 231 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
- Khalilur Rehman vs Engineer Iqbal Zafar Jhagra And 4 Other1997 CLC 174, · Election Tribunal · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
- Khalifo Haji Muhammad Hanif Through L. Rs. vs Khalifo Haji Ghulam1997 MLD 1294 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an oral contract of sale concerning a 0.50 share in a rice mill. The core legal questions involved whether an oral contract for the sale of immovable property can be specifically enforced based on contemporaneous documentary acknowledgements, and whether the plaintiff proved the contract and part-performance by making substantial payments. The court held that oral contracts of sale are valid and enforceable when supported by clear, unambiguous corroborative documentary evidence such as signed receipts and chits, and that the plaintiff successfully proved the agreement and payment of a substantial portion of the sale consideration. The court established the principle that the absence of a written contract does not bar a suit for specific performance if the terms and execution are proved with reasonable certainty through reliable oral and documentary evidence, and that the discretionary relief of specific performance should not be withheld unless the plaintiff's conduct justifies it.
Questions settled- Whether an oral contract for the sale of immovable property can be specifically enforced under the law?
- Does the absence of a formal written agreement bar a suit for specific performance when supported by contemporaneous receipts and chits?
- On what judicial principles must a court exercise its discretion under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act when granting or refusing specific performance?
- Whether payments proven through receipts and acknowledged by the defendant constitute valid part-performance of a contract of sale?
- Khalif Dad vs Muhammad Gul And 2 Other1997 CLC 1684 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-11Read full judgment →
- Khalid Yusuf Khan vs Government of Pakistan And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the refusal of the Income Tax Department to allow him to resume duty. The petitioner, a civil servant, had remained absent from duty for over five years, citing medical grounds for his stay in the United Kingdom following the expiry of his sanctioned leave. The core legal question was whether the petitioner ceased to be a government servant automatically under Fundamental Rule 18 due to his continuous absence exceeding five years, and whether this cessation required a prior inquiry or notice. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. The Court ruled that under Fundamental Rule 18, a civil servant who remains absent from duty for a continuous period of five years, unless otherwise determined by the competent authority, ceases to be in government employment by operation of law. The Court affirmed that this rule does not necessitate a formal inquiry or prior notice, as the cessation is automatic upon the expiry of the statutory period.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant cease to be in government employment automatically after five years of continuous absence under Fundamental Rule 18?
- Is a formal inquiry or notice required before a civil servant ceases to be in government employment due to five years of continuous absence under Fundamental Rule 18?
- Does Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to the cessation of government employment due to unauthorized absence?
- Khalid Yousuf Malik vs The State1997 MLD 1728 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-25Read full judgment →
- Khalid Rauf Mir vs Abdul Majeed And Another1997 CLC 1830 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court setting aside the appellate order of the District Judge and restoring the Rent Controller's dismissal of an ejectment application. The appellant-landlord sought to evict the respondent-tenant from two commercial shops for personal business use. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that the landlord's requirement was not in good faith and that he had previously vacated another premises in the vicinity. The District Judge reversed this finding, but the High Court restored the Rent Controller's order in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, a landlord who has vacated a previous building without sufficient cause is disentitled from seeking ejectment on grounds of personal need. The Court further held that the High Court rightly interfered in writ jurisdiction as the District Judge's appellate order failed to consider the statutory requirement of 'good faith' and suffered from legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord who has previously vacated a building without sufficient cause is legally entitled to seek the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal need under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act?
- Does the term 'building' under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act include a rented building previously vacated by the landlord?
- When can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by an appellate tribunal in the exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Is the bare statement of a landlord regarding personal requirement sufficient to prove bona fides without considering attending circumstances and the requirement of good faith?
- Khalid Pervaiz Butt vs Manager (Operation) Power WAPDA And Others.1997 PLC (C.S.) 348 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
- Khalid Pervaiz Butt vs General Manager (Operation) Power WAPDA1997 PLC (C.S.) 348 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
- Khalid Nadeem vs Government of N. W.F.P. Through Collector, Dera Ismail1997 SCMR 1189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Khalid Nadeem against the dismissal of his suit, appeal, and revision petition by the lower courts, wherein he sought a declaration regarding a public service vacancy and challenged the appointment of a respondent. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, being the nephew of a retired civil servant, had a legal right to be appointed in his place under government rules or policy. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner had no lawful claim to the post because the applicable rules only permit the appointment of children of civil servants who die during service, whereas the petitioner's uncle had merely retired on medical grounds. The key principle laid down is that compassionate appointment rules strictly apply according to their precise terms regarding familial relation and the manner of termination of service, and a third party without a valid claim lacks locus standi to challenge another's appointment.
Questions settled- Does a nephew of a civil servant retired on medical grounds have a right to appointment under Rule 10(4) of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1989?
- Whether the provisions for appointing children of a deceased civil servant apply to a civil servant who retired on medical grounds?
- Does a person who never applied for a post and has no lawful claim possess the locus standi to challenge the appointment of another respondent?
- Khalid Murtaza vs The State1997 MLD 2564 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-26Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 736 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood vs Government of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 958 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-16Read full judgment →
- Khalid Khan vs The State1997 SCMR 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the appellant, Khalid Khan, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while altering his death sentence to imprisonment for life for the murder of Abdur Razzak. The core legal question involved the reliability of ocular testimony and whether the acquittal of a co-accused on the basis of a police investigator's opinion affords a ground to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the acquittal of the co-accused was based on erroneous and unjust reasoning, and upon an independent assessment, found the eye-witnesses to be entirely dependable and confidence-inspiring. The key principle laid down is that the opinion of an investigating officer regarding the innocence of an accused, unsupported by evidence produced in court, has no evidentiary value and cannot be used to discredit reliable ocular testimony or serve as a ground to benefit a co-accused.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal of a co-accused based on the opinion of an investigating officer can be used to benefit the remaining appellant?
- Does the rejection of a police investigator's opinion regarding innocence affect the credibility of consistent eye-witness accounts?
- Whether recovery of a weapon different from the one attributed in the ocular account adversely affects the prosecution's case when no crime empties are recovered?
- Khalid Javed vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1389 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-11Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hussain And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
- Khalid Aziz vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment1997 PLC (C.S.) 783 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-09Read full judgment →
- Khaista Khan vs Indus Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Hyderabad1997 PLC 377 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
- Khairullah vs Sultan Muhammad And Another1997 SCMR 906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the dismissal of his pre-emption suit. The suit, filed under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, was dismissed because the petitioner failed to make the necessary demands of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad. The petitioner argued that the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, which mandates the making of Talabs, was not extended to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) and thus the requirement did not apply. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that under general Muslim Law, which governs pre-emption in areas where the statutory Act is not extended, the requirement of making Talabs remains a sine qua non for enforcing a pre-emption right. Furthermore, since the petitioner failed to allege the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in his plaint, he could not be allowed to lead evidence on it. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement of making Talabs is essential for exercising the right of pre-emption in areas governed by general Muslim Law where the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 has not been extended?
- Can a pre-emptor be allowed to lead evidence or prove the factum of Talb-e-Muwathibat if there is no mention or allusion to it in the plaint?
- Does an order of the Supreme Court simply granting leave to appeal lay down a binding rule of law?
- Khair Muhammad vs Government of Sindh Through Deputy1997 MLD 2745 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1714 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs Jamal Hussain And 2 Other1997 MLD 2952 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-15Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain Qaiser, Advocate/Member, Punjab Bar Council, Gujrat vs The President, Bar Association, Gujrat And 5 Other1997 MLD 156 · Punjab Bar Council · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
- Khadim Husain And Others vs Mst. Fazlan Bibi And Other1997 MLD 411 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
- Kh. Noorul Qadir Darabu vs Ejaz Ahmed and others1997 PLD Karachi 501 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an interim order passed by the Controller of Rent, directing the petitioner-tenant to deposit arrears and future rent. The core legal question revolves around the maintainability of a constitutional petition against an interim rent order where the statute bars appeals from interim orders, and whether the Rent Controller is bound to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant prior to passing a rent deposit order. The Sindh High Court held that invoking constitutional jurisdiction to challenge interlocutory orders of a Rent Controller, particularly where the statute expressly bars appeals against interim orders to prevent piecemeal litigation, is not maintainable and defeats the legislative intent of expeditious disposal. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interim rent order passed by a Rent Controller?
- Does Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act bar appeals against interim orders?
- Should a Rent Controller determine the relationship of landlord and tenant before passing a rent deposit order?
- Kh. Ghulam Qadir And Another vs Muhammad Sharif And 18 Other1997 CLC 487 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-18Read full judgment →
- Kh. Amar Habib And Another vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government1997 MLD 2924 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-23Read full judgment →
- Keshew A. Kawata vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Karachi Through Chairman1997 PLC 532 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
- Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 1855 · Kerala High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
- Kerala Financial Corporation and others vs Commissioner of Income1997 P D 663 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
- Kashmir Mining and Development Works, Muzaffarabad vs Azad1997 CLC 1771 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which challenged the issuance of a marble prospecting licence to respondent No. 6. The appellant contended that the Licensing Committee was improperly constituted, arguing it functioned under rules from the Regulation of Mines and Oil Fields and Mineral Development (Federal Control) Act, 1948, rather than the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Mines Act, 1977. Additionally, the appellant questioned the respondent's eligibility regarding state subject declarations. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had not challenged the Committee's constitution in the original writ petition and had previously accepted the Committee's authority by obtaining other licences through it. The Court held that the appellant’s attempt to challenge the Committee's jurisdiction only after being denied a specific licence constituted a policy of 'hide and seek.' Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal, establishing the principle that a party failing to approach the Court with clean hands is not entitled to discretionary relief under the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner challenge the constitution of a statutory committee in appeal if the point was not raised in the original writ petition?
- Is a party entitled to discretionary relief under Constitutional jurisdiction if they have previously accepted the authority of the body they are now challenging?
- Does the principle of 'clean hands' apply to petitioners seeking relief under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974?
- Karim Bakhsh vs Zulfiqar And 4 Other1997 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The core legal question involved whether the procedure for a joint trial or separate trials of a challan case and a private complaint applies where there are no distinct sets of accused or conflicting versions. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the rule in Nur Elahi's case requiring a specific order of trial applies when the accused and the allegations in both the police report and the private complaint are substantially the same, noting prior jurisprudence that distinguishes Nur Elahi where facts do not disclose separate versions or distinct sets of accused.
Questions settled- Does the rule in Nur Elahi's case requiring a complaint case to be tried first apply invariably where the accused and allegations in both the police report and the private complaint are the same?
- Is a separate trial necessary when there are neither two sets of accused nor conflicting versions arising from the police challan and a private complaint?
- Karim Bakhsh vs Muhammad Bakhsh1997 CLC 316 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh vs Controller of Examination And Other1997 CLC 1524 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-29Read full judgment →
- Karamat Ali vs Nasir-Ud-Din Sheikh, Postmaster-General, Southern1997 PLC 725 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-05Read full judgment →
- Karamat Ali And 6 Others vs Hakim Ghulam Hussain1997 SCMR 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning land ownership. The petitioners challenged the respondent's superior right of pre-emption, arguing that the revenue estate where the respondent held land had been bifurcated, meaning the respondent no longer owned land in the same revenue estate as the suit property. The petitioners sought to introduce additional evidence and amend their written statement to support this claim, but these applications were dismissed by the trial and appellate courts. The Lahore High Court upheld these dismissals, leading to the present petition. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts properly exercised their discretion in refusing the late-stage applications for amendment and additional evidence. The Court held that in pre-emption matters, delayed applications for additional evidence or amendments to pleadings are rarely permitted. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the granting of such permissions is a discretionary power of the court, and if exercised legally, it is not subject to interference in revision or appeal. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the refusal to allow late-stage amendments to a written statement in a pre-emption suit a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
- Can a court's discretionary decision to deny the production of additional evidence be interfered with if exercised in accordance with the law?
- Are delayed applications for additional evidence or amendments to pleadings generally permitted in pre-emption matters?
- Karam Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1717 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
- Karam Hussain And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →