Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Haji Muhammad Hayat Jamaldini vs Returning Officer/Additional1997 CLC 1182 · Election Tribunal · 1997-01-01Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Anwar And Others vs The State And Other1997 CLC 282 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
- Haji M. Ilyas And 2 Others vs Mir Habib Jan1997 MLD 551 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
- Haji Lal Muhammad Biri Works vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 107 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Khudai Nazar And Another vs Haji Abdul Bari1997 SCMR 1986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by tenant-petitioners against the dismissal of their rent appeals ex parte and the subsequent rejection of their application to set aside the ex parte judgment. The core legal questions addressed were whether the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) applies to rent proceedings and whether an Appellate Court under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, has the power to set aside an ex parte order and re-admit an appeal on showing sufficient cause. The Supreme Court held that while procedural provisions of the C.P.C. do not apply in terms unless explicitly incorporated, its underlying principles and the principles of natural justice apply where there is no statutory prohibition and where they advance the cause of justice. When an appellant is absent without negligence, the proper course is to dismiss for non-prosecution rather than decide on merits, and the court retains inherent authority to recall ex parte decisions upon sufficient cause. Finding that the petitioners established sufficient grounds for delay, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the appeals for fresh decision on merits.
Questions settled- Are the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to rent proceedings under rent laws where the Code does not explicitly apply in terms?
- Does a quasi-judicial court or appellate authority have the power to recall an ex parte judgment on principles of natural justice in the absence of an express statutory provision?
- Should an appellate court proceed to decide an appeal on merits or dismiss it for non-prosecution when an appellant fails to appear at the hearing?
- Haji Khan vs The State1997 MLD 1687 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
- Haji Kassam Through Legal Heirs vs Syed Rahim Shah1997 MLD 3240 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
- Haji Kamal Hussain vs Zuli Iqar Ali And Other1997 SCMR 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the decision of the Election Tribunal. The respondent No.1 was declared successful in the general elections for the National Assembly from Constituency NA-28, FATA-2, Kurram Agency held on 6-10-1993. The petitioner challenged the election through an election petition contending that respondent No.1 had not attained the mandatory age of 25 years on the relevant date. The Election Tribunal unseated respondent No.1 relying on a school certificate indicating his birth date as 15-4-1969. However, on appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the finding, placing reliance on an identity card showing the birth date as 1966 and the fact that respondent No.1 succeeded his father in 1987 and received a 'Lungi'. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court was justified in reversing the finding of the Election Tribunal based on the available record.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the finding of the Election Tribunal regarding the age of a candidate based on the available record?
- Does an identity card prevail over a school certificate for determining the age of a candidate in an election dispute?
- Haji Javed Ahmad and another vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 156 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns bail applications filed by the applicants, who were in continuous detention for over two and a half years, on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of their trial. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the protracted nature of the proceedings. The Court held that the delay in the trial was not solely attributable to the applicants. While some adjournments were sought by the defense, the trial remained immature for a significant period because the prosecution failed to produce the case property until September 1996, and the Court itself was vacant for a period. The Court affirmed that the right to bail under the third proviso is a statutory right, not merely discretionary, and can only be denied if the delay is occasioned by the accused's own acts or omissions. Finding the prosecution and the Court equally responsible for the delay, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the law intends to prevent indefinite incarceration of undertrial prisoners.
Questions settled- Is the right to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a mandatory statutory right or a discretionary power of the Court?
- Can bail be denied under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the delay in trial is attributable to the prosecution or the Court rather than the accused?
- Does the seeking of adjournments by the defense counsel automatically disqualify an accused from claiming the benefit of statutory delay for bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the trial remains immature due to the prosecution's failure to produce case property?
- Haji Gula Khan vs Special Officer, Income-Tax and others1997 PTD 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-14Read full judgment →
- Haji Gula Khan vs Special Officer, Income-Tax And OtherPTCL 1997 CL. 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-14Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulam Sabir Ansari vs The Returning Officer and others1997 PLD Supreme Court 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the Election Tribunal's order upholding the rejection of his nomination paper for a provincial assembly seat. The nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer due to incorrect asset disclosures and default on bank liabilities, a decision affirmed by the Election Tribunal and the High Court. The core legal questions involved the scope of asset disclosure under election laws, whether rejection can be based on grounds not raised before the Returning Officer, and whether the High Court was justified in upholding disqualification without specifying suppressed properties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the object and scope of relevant provisions of the electoral law, the alleged misreading of record, and the legality of the tribunals' and High Court's findings. As an interim measure, the Court permitted the petitioner to participate in the election subject to the final outcome of the appeal.
Questions settled- What is the object and scope of section 12(2)(iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Whether the rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner by the Returning Officer was founded on misreading of the material on record?
- Whether it was open to the Election Tribunal to dismiss the petitioner's appeal on a ground which was not urged or found favour with the Returning Officer?
- Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the petitioner was not an Ameen as he had not disclosed all his properties without naming any of the properties alleged to be suppressed?
- Whether the facts of the present case warrant interference by this Court?
- Haji Ghulam Ahmad Bilour vs Muhammad Khurshid Khan And 2 Other1997 MLD 3079 · Election Tribunal · 1997-03-07Read full judgment →
- Haji Fateh Khan and others vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1997 PLD Peshawar 24 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple regular first appeals and cross-objections arising out of Land Acquisition Award No. 213 of 1993 regarding land acquired for the remodeling of Narai Drain under the Mardan Scarp Project. The owners sought enhancement of compensation, while the Government and WAPDA challenged the enhanced rate and compulsory acquisition charges awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge. The Peshawar High Court addressed two primary questions: whether the market value of the land should be assessed as of the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 or the declaration under Section 6; and whether compulsory acquisition charges should be 15% or 25% under Section 23(2) when land is acquired for WAPDA. The Court held that under Section 23(1) of the Act, market value must strictly be determined as of the date of the Section 4 notification using the preceding one-year average, rather than the Section 6 declaration date. Furthermore, although WAPDA is a body corporate and constitutes a 'company' under Section 3(e), acquisition for WAPDA is deemed a public purpose under Section 13(3) of the WAPDA Act 1958; thus, compulsory acquisition charges were fixed at 15% rather than 25%.
Questions settled- Whether the market value of acquired land must be assessed as of the date of notification under Section 4(1) or declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Whether the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) constitutes a company under Section 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- What rate of compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 applies when land is acquired for a statutory body where the acquisition serves a public purpose?
- Haji Faqir Muhammad And Others vs Pir Muhammad And Another1997 SCMR 1811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil revision dismissed by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the appellate court's decree annulling a gift mutation of landed property. The respondent had executed a general power of attorney in favour of his son, petitioner No. 1, who subsequently utilized it to gift the disputed land to his own minor sons. The core legal question concerned whether an attorney holding a general power of attorney could gift the principal's property to his own close relatives or minor sons without explicit authorization and acting for the principal's benefit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that an agent must act strictly for the benefit of the principal and cannot transfer the principal's property to himself or his immediate family without the principal's explicit consent and knowledge. The key principles laid down are that a power of attorney does not confer unfettered powers to deal with property for personal benefit, transactions where an agent deals on his own account are voidable at the principal's option, and sentiments like love and affection required for a gift cannot be substituted or expressed by an attorney unless expressly authorized with specific identification of the donee.
Questions settled- Can the holder of a general power of attorney gift the principal's immovable property to his own minor sons or close relatives without explicit consent?
- Is an agent empowered to transfer the principal's property for his own personal benefit under a general power of attorney?
- Can an attorney express sentiments of love and affection on behalf of a donor to execute a valid gift?
- What are the essential legal obligations of an agent when dealing with the property of a principal under a power of attorney?
- Haji Dost Muhammad vs Rao Muhammad Khalid And Another1997 MLD 3232 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →
- Haji Bismillah Khan and others vs Abdul Zahir and others1997 P Cr. L J 1421 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
- Haji Alimuddin vs Shamsher Muhammad1997 MLD 2822 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-04Read full judgment →
- Haji alias Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1434 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-02Read full judgment →
- Haji Ahmad vs S.S.P., Rahimyar Khan and others1997 P Cr. L J 2069 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition concerns the refusal of the police to register a second FIR regarding a murder incident, despite the petitioner presenting a distinct, counter-version of the occurrence. The core legal question was whether the police are obligated to register a second FIR when a cross-version of the same incident exists. The Court held that the police cannot assume the role of a judicial officer by pre-judging the veracity of competing versions at the registration stage. Consequently, the Court directed the Station House Officer to register the second FIR based on the petitioner’s complaint. The ratio established is that where a counter-version discloses a cognizable offense, the police have no option but to register the case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that investigating both versions equitably is essential to prevent judicial anarchy and ensure a fair trial. Furthermore, the investigation must be conducted in accordance with the statutory timelines prescribed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, ensuring that the police do not engage in protracted, one-sided investigations.
Questions settled- Can the police refuse to register a second FIR when a counter-version of the same occurrence is presented?
- Does the police officer have the authority to determine the veracity of competing versions of an occurrence at the stage of registering an FIR?
- What is the legal obligation of the police when a complaint discloses a cognizable offense under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the registration of a second FIR necessary when the parties provide conflicting accounts of the time, place, and manner of a criminal occurrence?
- Haji Abdur Rehman Khan vs Returning Officer And 6 Other1997 CLC 1123 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-13Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdur Rafique vs Inayatullah and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1946 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Qadir vs Zafar Shaheen1997 PLD Lahore 549 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner challenged the trial court's refusal to extend the time for depositing one-third of the sale price of the suit land. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, regarding the deposit of sale price, are mandatory or directory in nature. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions are mandatory. The Court reasoned that Section 24 contains an affirmative command for the deposit, a proviso prohibiting the extension of time beyond thirty days from the filing of the suit, and a specific consequence—dismissal of the suit—for non-compliance. Relying on established principles of statutory interpretation, the Court determined that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure followed by a penalty for non-compliance, it is mandatory. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the trial court lacked the authority to extend the time beyond the statutory limit, and the failure to deposit the amount within the prescribed period necessitated the dismissal of the pre-emption suit.
Questions settled- Is the requirement to deposit one-third of the sale price under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, mandatory or directory?
- Does a court have the authority to extend the time for depositing the pre-emption money beyond the thirty-day limit prescribed by the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
- What is the legal consequence under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, if a plaintiff fails to deposit the required one-third of the sale price within the time fixed by the court?
- Haider Abbas vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment, Islamabad And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 114 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 818 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Muhammad Siddique Anwar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1128 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Khalid Irshad vs Ahmad Khan Wattoo And Other1997 SCMR 1124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a service dispute between two civil servants belonging to the Local Council Service concerning their inter se transfer and posting as Chief Officer, Zila Council. Respondent No. 1 challenged his transfer order through a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, which admitted the petition and granted an interim stay order in his favour. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the interim stay order. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that disputes relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, with the jurisdiction of other courts expressly barred under Article 212(2) of the Constitution. The Court set aside the interim stay order and observed that the High Court must first determine the question of its jurisdiction before passing any interim order, directing the High Court to preferably dispose of the writ petition within two months.
Questions settled- Does the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain service matters of civil servants stand barred under Article 212(2) of the Constitution?
- Must the High Court determine the question of its jurisdiction before passing any interim order in a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Hafiz Gul Muhammad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1754 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
- Hafeez Ullah vs Muhammad Saleem1997 SCMR 904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the appellate judgment which reversed the Rent Controller's finding and established the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The core legal question concerns whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the Rent Controller's finding regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant in the absence of proof of service of notice under section 13-A and given the terms of the sale-deed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the appellate court's reversal was justified based on the material brought on record, and continued the stay order subject to deposit of rent.
Questions settled- Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Does the absence of proof of service of notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance negate the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Whether an ejectment application is competent when a co-sharer executes a sale-deed subsequent to the filing of the application?
- Habibur Rehman vs The State1997 MLD 2536 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Habib Ullah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
- Habib Sugar Mills Ltd., Nawabshah Through The Notified Manager Under1997 PLC 374 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-20Read full judgment →
- Habib Sugar Mills Ltd., Nawabshah Through The Notified Manager Under1997 PLC 309 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-05Read full judgment →
- Habib Shah vs The State1997 SCMR 1351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of bail applications by the High Court through a short order. The core legal question concerns the validity of a short order of bail dismissal where the detailed reasons were never recorded due to the trial judge ceasing to hold office before confirmation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the impugned short order must be set aside when reasons are not recorded owing to the cessation of office of the judge. The Court converted the petitions into appeals, allowed them, and remanded the cases back to the High Court for a fresh hearing of the bail applications and the issuance of reasoned detailed orders. The key principle laid down is that where a judicial officer fails to record reasons subsequent to a short order due to cessation of office, the matter warrants a remand for a de novo hearing.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of a short order dismissing bail when the detailed reasons are never recorded due to the judge ceasing to hold office?
- Can delay in filing petitions be condoned when the petitioner was awaiting unrecorded detailed reasons of a short order?
- When a High Court judge ceases to be in service before authoring reasons for a short order, how should the appellate court dispose of the matter?
- Habib Khan vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1854 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi Through Attorneys vs Nazir Ahmed1997 PLC 638 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd. (Foreign Exchange Branch) vs Dost Muhammad1997 PLD Karachi 331 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 260,546,345.69 and the sale of mortgaged properties against the defendant company and its directors/guarantors. The defendants sought unconditional leave to defend the suit, alleging that the claims were time-barred, promissory notes were without consideration, and guarantees were invalid due to management changes. The court examined whether the defendants raised substantial questions of fact or law warranting unconditional leave. Applying the principle established in Fine Textile Mills Ltd. v. Haji Umar, the court held that while a defendant is entitled to leave to defend if they disclose a plausible defense, the court retains discretion to impose conditions, such as furnishing security, if the defense appears vague or unsatisfactory. Finding the defendants' arguments regarding the invalidity of guarantees and time-bar insufficient to warrant unconditional leave, the court granted conditional leave to defend, provided the defendants deposited the entire claimed amount as security with the Nazir of the Court within sixty days. The judgment reaffirmed that a guarantor's personal liability remains binding despite resignation from the company's board.
Questions settled- Does a guarantor's resignation from the board of directors absolve them of personal liability under a continuing guarantee?
- Under what circumstances can a court grant conditional leave to defend a summary suit instead of unconditional leave?
- Is a suit for recovery barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a winding-up petition against the principal debtor is pending?
- Does the service of summons via publication, registered post, and bailiff constitute valid service under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules 1980?
- Habib Bank Limited, Karachi vs Nazir Khan1997 PLC 739 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs Muhammad Raza1997 MLD 833 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two cross-appeals arising from an order of the Rent Controller, Karachi South, which allowed an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant, Habib Bank Limited, on the ground that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises, while ruling against the landlord on the issue of default in rent payment. The core legal questions pertained to whether the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the property and whether the tenant had committed default in the payment of rent. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the building's value and utility were impaired or that its conditions were infringed. However, the Court held that the tenant committed a clear default in the payment of rent for the months of March, April, and May, 1987, as the alleged tender of rent through internal bank pay-slips into a closed account did not constitute a valid mode of payment under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Consequently, the High Court set aside the finding on the issue of impairment, reversed the negative finding on default, and upheld the ejectment order on the ground of default.
Questions settled- Whether internal bank pay-slips constitute a valid legal tender or mode of payment of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a landlord's appeal against adverse findings on specific issues remain maintainable when the ultimate order of ejectment has already been granted in their favor?
- What constitutes sufficient evidence to prove that a tenant has impaired the material value and utility of demised premises?
- Whether failure to tender rent within the statutory period due to a closed bank account amounts to a wilful default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Habib Bank Limited vs Ghulam Rasool And Another1997 MLD 820 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
- H. Amanullah Khan vs Sahibzada Tariqullah1997 MLD 612 · Election Tribunal · 1996-08-29Read full judgment →
- Guru Charan Singh vs Commissioner of Income-Tax S.J.C.1997 PTD 1213 · Orissa High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
- Gulzar and 3 others vs Fida Hussain Shah and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1663 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmad vs The State And 3 Other1997 MLD 1606 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-02Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmad vs Agriculture Engineer, Chakwal And 2 Others1997 PLC 605 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmad Khan vs The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan, Islamabad and 7 others1997 PLD Lahore 643 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from a challenge to the dismissal of an appeal by the Chief Election Commissioner regarding Senate election results for the North-West Frontier Province. The petitioner sought to declare the Commissioner's order, passed at Islamabad, as without lawful authority. The respondents challenged the Lahore High Court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that because the election occurred in Peshawar, only the High Court of the North-West Frontier Province had jurisdiction. The Court rejected this objection, holding that it possessed the necessary territorial jurisdiction. It established that under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, a High Court has jurisdiction to challenge an act performed within its territorial limits by a functionary exercising federal authority. Since the Chief Election Commissioner performs functions for the entire Federation and the impugned appellate order was passed at Islamabad, the Lahore High Court is competent to adjudicate the matter. The Court distinguished this case from Sandalbar Enterprises, emphasizing that the location of the appellate decision and the federal nature of the authority are determinative factors for jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to challenge an order passed by the Chief Election Commissioner at Islamabad if the underlying election occurred in another province?
- Does the principle established in Sandalbar Enterprises preclude a High Court from exercising jurisdiction over an order passed within its territory by a federal functionary?
- Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition against an order passed by a federal authority simply because the order was issued within the Court's territorial limits?
- Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd., Bahawalpur Through Intizar Ahmed, Manager1997 MLD 449 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-08Read full judgment →
- Gulfraz Raja vs Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation1997 PLC (C. S.) 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal challenging a seniority list before the expiration of the mandatory 90-day period required for the departmental representation to be decided. Consequently, the Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal as premature. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the Service Tribunal should have adjudicated the appeal on its merits, given that the cause of action matured during the pendency of the appeal proceedings. The core legal question is whether a Service Tribunal is justified in dismissing an appeal as premature when the statutory waiting period for departmental exhaustion expires while the appeal is already pending before the Tribunal. The Court suggests that in such instances, deciding the matter on merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds would better serve the ends of justice and avoid unnecessary, protracted litigation.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal as premature if the statutory waiting period for departmental representation expires while the appeal is pending?
- Is it appropriate for a Service Tribunal to decide an appeal on merits if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Gulab vs Mst. Zarina And Another1997 MLD 693 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-11Read full judgment →
- Gul Wali Khan vs Safdar Salim And 10 Other1997 MLD 3075 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner's pre-emption suit regarding the sale of land. The core legal question was whether the trial court committed a material irregularity by failing to issue separate findings on every framed issue, specifically regarding Talabs and market value, and whether the appellate court misread evidence. The High Court held that while Order 20, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandates findings on each issue, courts possess the discretion to consolidate issues for convenience, particularly when secondary issues become redundant due to the failure to establish the primary factum of sale. The court affirmed that in the absence of proof of the sale transaction, the secondary issues were rightly not prioritized. Furthermore, the court emphasized that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is limited and precludes interference with concurrent findings of fact unless they are arbitrary, fanciful, or based on no evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as no jurisdictional defect was demonstrated.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to discuss each issue separately constitute a material irregularity under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court consolidate multiple issues for decision if they are secondary to the primary factum of sale?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
- Gul Sarwar vs Muhammad Hanif And 6 Other1997 SCMR 1869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Sindh dismissing in limine the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the demolition and threatened eviction from premises in his possession. The petitioner had previously filed suits for permanent injunction and specific performance following a settlement agreement regarding compensation for vacating the premises, which were allegedly undermined by private respondents collaborating with the Karachi Building Control Authority to initiate demolition under the guise of dangerous building proceedings. The core legal questions concern whether the building authority's actions were mala fide at the instance of private parties, the scope of Section 14 of the Sind Building Control Ordinance 1979, and whether demolition terminates a tenant's tenancy or necessitates formal ejectment proceedings under the rent law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these matters, holding that arguable questions of law warranted detailed consideration and continuing the interim status quo order.
Questions settled- Whether respondent No.5's action is mala fide at the behest of respondents Nos. 1 to 4?
- What is the scope of section 14 of the Sind Building Control Ordinance 1979?
- Whether after demolition of the structure by the Authority under section 14, the tenancy of the tenant in possession will come to an end or whether the owner would have to file ejectment proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance?
- Gul Sambar Khan and another vs Damad Khan and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1261 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-07Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad vs Mst. Fahmida1997 MLD 691 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-22Read full judgment →
- Gul Khan vs The State1997 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the consistency of judicial appreciation of ocular testimony, specifically whether eye-witness accounts that were disbelieved and rejected with respect to co-accused who were subsequently acquitted can be legally relied upon to convict and sentence the remaining accused to death. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this contention regarding the credibility and differential treatment of ocular evidence against co-accused.
Questions settled- Can ocular evidence found unworthy of credence against acquitted co-accused be relied upon to convict another accused?
- Whether the conviction of an accused can be sustained solely on eye-witness testimony rejected for co-accused?
- Gul Janna T and 2 others vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1020 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
- Gul Hassan And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1679 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
- Gul Hassan And Another vs Karachi Transport Corporation Through Managing Director, Karachi And Another1997 MLD 858 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
- Grosvenor Casino Limited,Shahrah E Kamal Ataturk, Karachi vs Abdul1997 SCMR 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an execution application filed under Section 44-A of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 for the execution of a foreign money decree passed by the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, London. The respondent filed objections to the execution without depositing the decretal amount or furnishing security, prompting the appellant to seek dismissal of the objections under Order XXI Rule 23-A of the Civil Procedure Code 1908. The High Court's Division Bench held that Order XXI Rule 23-A was inapplicable to foreign decrees. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the requirement to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security applies to objections against foreign decrees executed under Section 44-A. The Court held that Section 44-A(3) is a substantive, special provision requiring the executing court to refuse execution if any exception under Section 13 is met. This substantive right cannot be curtailed by the procedural requirements of Order XXI Rule 23-A. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, establishing that the general procedural requirement of security does not apply to objections against foreign decrees.
Questions settled- Is Order XXI Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to the execution of a foreign decree under Section 44-A of the Code?
- Does a substantive provision of law, such as Section 44-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, override general procedural rules like Order XXI Rule 23-A of the Code?
- Can a judgment-debtor object to the execution of a foreign decree under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without depositing the decretal amount or furnishing security?
- Government of the Punjab Through Secretary Education And Another vs Rana Ghulam Sarwar Khan And 111 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which allowed the appeal of the respondents and directed the Provincial Government to grant them BPS-18 with effect from 1-9-1990. The core legal question concerned whether civil servants are entitled to promotion or the benefit of a higher grade from a back date when vacancies existed but departmental delays hindered timely promotions. The Supreme Court held that while a civil servant generally has no vested right to claim promotion from a back date simply due to the existence of a vacancy, interference with the Tribunal's order was unwarranted where the delay in processing promotions was entirely attributable to administrative tardiness within the Education Department rather than any fault of the employees. The key principle laid down is that administrative delay by departmental functionaries in completing promotion exercises should not prejudice the rightful advancement or financial upgradation of civil servants when vacancies are readily available.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have an inherent right to claim promotion from a back date merely because a vacancy existed on that date?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the Service Tribunal when promotion delays are caused entirely by departmental inaction?
- Government of the Punjab Through Secretary Education And Another S1997 SCMR 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had directed the Government to grant B.P.S.-19 status to the respondents effective from September 1, 1990. The dispute arose after the Provincial Government introduced a four-tier structure for college teachers in 1990, but the Education Department took two years to finalize appointments according to the new ratio. The respondents, whose promotions were delayed until 1992, argued they were entitled to the promotion from the date the notification was issued, as vacancies existed at that time. The Government contended that civil servants possess no inherent right to claim promotion from a back date, regardless of vacancy availability. The Supreme Court held that while the Government's general proposition regarding back-dated promotions is correct, the delay in this specific instance was solely attributable to administrative inefficiency within the Education Department in executing a straightforward task. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, upholding the order granting the respondents the benefit of the promotion from the date the vacancies became available.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have an inherent right to claim promotion from a back date simply because a vacancy existed at that time?
- Can a court or tribunal grant relief to civil servants for delayed promotions caused by administrative negligence in the department?
- Is the government's delay in implementing a promotion structure a valid ground for a service tribunal to order promotion from the date of the notification?
- Government of Sindh and others vs Suresh1997 PLD Karachi 351 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
- Government of Sindh And 2 Others vs Haji Abdul Rehman And 14 Other1997 MLD 2847 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
- Government of Punjab Through Chief Secretary vs Raja Muhammad1997 PLC (C. S.) 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Service Tribunal judgment directing the Provincial Selection Board to reconsider a civil servant's claim for out of turn promotion. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of Section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, specifically whether a civil servant is entitled to accelerated promotion for performing assigned duties with extraordinary results, or if such duties must fall outside the scope of normal employment. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Selection Board erred by rejecting the respondent's claim on the sole ground that the duties performed were part of his normal functions. The Court clarified that Section 8-A is specifically designed to reward extraordinary performance in the discharge of official duties. Consequently, the Board was directed to evaluate the quality and standard of the respondent's performance on its merits, considering the specific recommendations of his superiors, rather than summarily dismissing the claim based on the nature of the tasks. The petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order for reconsideration.
Questions settled- Does the performance of duties within the normal scope of employment preclude a civil servant from eligibility for out of turn promotion under Section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Is the Provincial Selection Board required to evaluate the quality and standard of a civil servant's performance on its merits when considering an application for out of turn promotion?
- Does Section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 require that a civil servant perform duties outside the scope of their normal employment to qualify for accelerated promotion?
- Government Of Pakistan, Through, Secretary Finance, Islamabad And Other vs Abdul MajeedPTCL 1997 CL. 35 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal by the Government of Pakistan against a High Court judgment regarding the confiscation of gold seized from the respondent. The central legal question was whether the repeal of Section 179-A of the Customs Act 1969, which mandated that adjudication orders be subject to the decisions of a Special Judge, deprived an accused of the benefit of that provision if the prosecution commenced while the section was still in force. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent’s right to have the adjudication order conform to the acquittal order was a vested right that accrued when the prosecution commenced under the then-existing Section 179-A. The Court affirmed that the subsequent repeal of a statutory provision does not retrospectively divest an individual of rights or protections that vested during the period the provision was operative. Consequently, adjudication proceedings must align with the final outcome of criminal proceedings initiated while the protective provision was active, ensuring consistency in legal outcomes.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of Section 179-A of the Customs Act 1969 affect the rights of an accused whose prosecution commenced while the section was in force?
- Must an adjudication order passed by customs authorities be in conformity with an acquittal order passed by a Special Judge under the Customs Act 1969?
- Does the right to have an adjudication order subject to the decision of a Special Judge constitute a vested right under the Customs Act 1969?
- Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad And Another vs M_S. Murree Brewery Co. Ltd., Rawalpindi1997 SCMR 1349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which had allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent company. The respondent had challenged an order by the Government of Pakistan rejecting an appeal against a tax assessment related to War Risks Insurance. The High Court had ruled in favor of the respondent, relying on the Supreme Court's previous decision in Messrs New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Enquiry Officer War Risks Insurance, which declared certain provisions of the War Risks Insurance Rules, 1971, ultra vires. The petitioner contends that the High Court misapplied this precedent, arguing that the assessment in the present case was based on Explanation-I (i.e) of Rule 7 of the War Risks Insurance Rules, 1971, rather than the specific provision (Explanation-I (iv)) that was struck down in the cited precedent. Finding that this contention requires detailed examination, the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal to determine whether the assessment provision in question remains valid and distinct from the provision previously declared ultra vires.
Questions settled- Whether the assessment provision under Explanation-I (i.e) of Rule 7 of the War Risks Insurance Rules, 1971, was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court in the case of Messrs New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd.?
- Does the invalidation of Explanation-I (iv) of Rule 7 of the War Risks Insurance Rules, 1971, automatically invalidate other sub-clauses within the same rule?
- Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control (Interior Division) Board, Islamabad vs Muhammad Yasin, Subinspector No.525L, WAPDA Anticorruption, Lahore and anothers1997 PLD Supreme Court 401 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from a petition filed by a police sub-inspector seeking inclusion in a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Bosnia Herzegovina, following an assurance given in connection with an earlier mission to Haiti. The Lahore High Court Single Bench partially allowed the writ petition, and an Intra-Court Appeal Bench directed the Federal Government to send the respondent abroad forthwith. The Government of Pakistan appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a civil servant has a vested right to claim deployment in a foreign United Nations mission and whether the High Court could issue a writ to enforce such a claim. The Supreme Court held that deputation abroad is a policy decision based on equity and justice, does not constitute a vested right of a civil servant, and cannot form the basis of a writ petition unless a statutory violation is shown. The Court set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition, establishing that constitutional jurisdiction should be exercised with restraint and cannot be used to convert the High Court into an appellate forum over administrative policy decisions.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim deputation or deployment on a United Nations mission abroad?
- Whether the High Court can interfere in administrative policy decisions regarding foreign deputations under its constitutional writ jurisdiction without proof of a statutory violation?
- Can a writ petition be maintained by a civil servant on the ground that declining foreign deployment results in a loss of foreign exchange for the government?
- Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Interior And Narcotics Control (Interior Division) Board, Islamabad vs Muhammad Yasin, Sub-Inspector No. 525-L And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 606 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Pakistan against an Intra-Court Appeal bench judgment of the Lahore High Court directing the federal government to send a police official (respondent) abroad on a United Nations Mission in Bosnia Herzegovina. The core legal question was whether a civil servant has a vested right to demand deployment on foreign United Nations Missions and whether constitutional writ jurisdiction can be invoked to enforce such deployment based on potential foreign exchange losses. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that deployment abroad is not a vested right of a civil servant under the relevant service laws and that the government's policy decision to restrict repeat deployments to provide equal opportunities to other eligible officials was based on equity and justice. The Court laid down the principle that constitutional writ jurisdiction is discretionary, must be exercised with restraint to aid the law rather than interfere with administrative policy, and cannot be invoked unless a clear statutory violation or abuse of power is established.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim deputation or deployment on foreign United Nations Missions?
- Whether the exclusion of civil servants who have already served on foreign United Nations missions from subsequent deployments violates fundamental rights?
- Can the High Court in constitutional writ jurisdiction direct the federal government to send a particular civil servant abroad on a foreign mission based on apprehended foreign exchange losses?
- Government of Pakistan Through Secretary Finance,Islamabad And 3 Others vs Abdul Majeed1997 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a constitutional petition filed in the High Court challenging the confiscation of seized gold following the respondent's acquittal by the Special Judge, Customs. The core legal question was whether the repeal of Section 179-A of the Customs Act 1969—which made customs adjudication orders subject to the decisions of the Special Judge—deprived an accused, whose prosecution commenced while the section was in force, of the benefit of an acquittal. The Supreme Court held that since the proceedings against the respondent initiated when Section 179-A was part of the statute, the subsequent repeal did not divest the respondent of the substantive right to have adjudication orders remain subject to the criminal court's acquittal, invoking principles analogous to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment that declared the conflicting adjudication orders without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of Section 179-A of the Customs Act 1969 affect pending proceedings or accrued rights where the prosecution commenced prior to its deletion?
- Whether an order of adjudication by customs authorities must remain subject to a criminal court's judgment of acquittal delivered in a case instituted when Section 179-A was operative?
- Can subsequent deletion of a statutory protection provision divest an accused of the benefit of an acquittal under the General Clauses Act?
- Government of Pakistan And Others vs Sarkar And Other1997 CLC 434 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
- Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary of Forest, Food and Agricultural1997 PLD Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-11-04Read full judgment →
- Government of N.W.F.P. and others vs Mst. Jamshed Bibi and anothers1997 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Peshawar High Court resolves a batch of regular first appeals (R.F.A. Nos. 27, 28, and 36 of 1994) arising from land acquisition proceedings in Mansehra. The Provincial Government had acquired land classified in the revenue record as 'Dhaka Darakhatan' for public offices and a circuit house, and the Collector awarded compensation at Rs. 21,253.60 per Kanal. Dissatisfied reference courts under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 adopted conflicting approaches, with one dismissing the objection petition and the other slightly enhancing the compensation. The core legal questions involved the proper criteria for determining land compensation versus market price, the evidentiary value of a Local Commissioner's report, and the relevance of a property's potentiality and location. The High Court held that compensation is distinct from and inherently higher than mere price, that reference courts must act neutrally like arbitrators, and that undisputed Local Commissioner reports and high-potential location features (such as proximity to highways, municipal limits, and commercial/residential buildings) cannot be ignored. The Court set aside the impugned judgments, dismissed the Government's appeal, accepted the landowners' appeals, and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000 per Kanal along with statutory charges and interest.
Questions settled- Is the amount to be paid to an owner under the land acquisition law considered a price or compensation, and are they legally distinct?
- Does a reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 act as an ordinary civil court bound by technicalities or more like an arbitrator?
- Can a court legally brush aside an undisputed report submitted by an appointed Local Commissioner regarding the value and potentiality of acquired land?
- To what extent are building site potentiality and location near highways and municipal limits relevant in determining fair compensation for acquired land?
- Government of N. W.F.P. Through Secretary And 3 Others vs Mejee Flour1997 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves a batch of ten petitions for leave to appeal directed against the Peshawar High Court's judgment, which accepted constitutional petitions filed by various flour mills against the Government of N.-W.F.P. The respondent flour mills sought No-Objection Certificates, completed construction, and installed machinery, but were subsequently denied wheat quotas under the pretext of a ban imposed by the Chief Minister, while quotas were selectively granted to other upcoming mills. The Government later issued a notification under section 3 of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs Control Act, 1958, to frustrate potential court orders. The core legal questions involved whether the refusal to grant wheat quota and the issuance of the restrictive notification violated the fundamental rights to equality before law and freedom of trade under Articles 25 and 18 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitions, holding that the Government's exercise of discretionary powers through pick and choose, discrimination among similarly placed business concerns, and lack of structured discretion rendered the official action arbitrary, irrational, and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that administrative discretion must be structured and exercised reasonably to ensure equitable distribution rather than discriminatory withholding of supplies.
Questions settled- Whether the refusal by government authorities to allocate a wheat quota to approved flour mills while selectively granting quotas to other similarly placed concerns amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
- Can the Government issue a notification under section 3 of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs Control Act, 1958, to withhold supplies of foodstuffs and frustrate judicial remedies against discriminatory administrative actions?
- Does unbridled and unstructured administrative discretion in the distribution of official quotas render executive actions arbitrary and subject to judicial review?
- Ghulam Sobia Bhatti vs Secretary, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore And 2 Other1997 MLD 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-03Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State And 6 Other1997 MLD 1329 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir vs Judge Family Court And Another1997 MLD 74 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir and another vs Syed Munawar Hussain Shah and 31997 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar And 2 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1872 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sajjad vs The State And Other1997 SCMR 1526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court, which declined to accept a compromise between the parties on the ground that the statements of the deceased's parents were made under undue influence and fear. The core legal question concerns the validity of a compromise effected under undue influence and whether interference by the Supreme Court is warranted in such circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the High Court regarding undue influence was not open to any exception, and thus refused to interfere with the impugned order, accordingly dismissing the petition with an observation that the petitioners may approach the High Court afresh to have the statements of the legal heirs recorded in court. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent or reasoned findings of lower courts regarding the invalidity of compromises vitiated by undue influence.
Questions settled- Whether a compromise affected under undue influence and fear is legally valid?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court finding that a compromise was not valid?
- Can legal heirs have their statements recorded afresh before the High Court if a previous compromise was set aside?
- Ghulam Rasool vs Zulfiqar Ali And 4 Other1997 MLD 1798 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Chief Editor, Daily Mashriq' and others1997 PLC 128 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Chief Editor, Daily ' Mashriq' And Others1997 PLC 128 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Administrator Municipal Committee, Mian Channu1997 MLD 793 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 967 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool And Others vs Sardar Ul Hassan And Another1997 SCMR 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the decision of the Senior Civil Judge, Mianwali, which had set aside a decree dated 18-3-1976 pursuant to an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. The core legal questions involve whether a court is legally bound to refer disputed signatures to a handwriting expert rather than comparing them itself, and whether the time spent in prosecuting a prior proceeding can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act when computing limitation for an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. The Supreme Court held that while it is advisable to send disputed signatures to an expert, a court possesses the inherent power to compare signatures itself without rendering its order legally infirm, and granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower court's finding regarding the timeliness of the Section 12(2) application under the Limitation Act accords with the law. The key principle laid down is that a court may competently compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures without an expert opinion.
Questions settled- Is a court legally mandated to refer a disputed signature to a handwriting expert, or can it compare the signature itself?
- Can the time spent prosecuting a previous proceeding be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C.?
- Does the failure to refer a disputed signature to a handwriting expert render the court's judgment legally infirm?
- Ghulam Nabi vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab Forest1997 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue, which set aside a 1984 land transfer order in favor of the petitioner. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the land transfer, the Forest Department's claim of ownership, and whether the Department’s appeal against the initial transfer was time-barred and procedurally defective. The Court held that the Forest Department failed to produce evidence of ownership or possession, while the revenue records confirmed the land belonged to the Thal Development Authority, which validly transferred it to the petitioner’s predecessor. Furthermore, the Court found the Department’s appeal was hopelessly time-barred, as the delay was not sufficiently explained, and the Department failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for litigation against the Government under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the original transfer order. The judgment establishes that government departments must strictly observe procedural laws and that pursuing a wrong legal forum does not justify condoning inordinate delays.
Questions settled- Does the pursuit of a review petition before a wrong forum constitute a valid ground for condoning the delay in filing an appeal?
- Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the naming of parties in suits by or against the Government applicable to appeals?
- Can a government department challenge a land transfer based on an alleged executive charge without producing evidence of ownership or a valid conveyance deed?
- Do subsequent entries in revenue records made during the pendency of a dispute affect the vested rights of a purchaser?
- Ghulam Nabi vs Central Board of Revenue through Chairman and 21997 PLD Quetta 22 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi Saleem Chishti vs The State And Another1997 MLD 2041 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr.L J 1559 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1997 SCMR 935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the concurrent conviction of the petitioner under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for alleged criminal misappropriation of scholarship funds received from the Zakat Department. The core legal question was whether returning the received funds to a department official, who subsequently misappropriated them and committed suicide, constituted criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation under the law. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner returned the full amount to the departmental official as evidenced by a valid receipt and there was no proof of any dishonest intention to cause wrongful gain or loss, no case of criminal misappropriation was made out. The Court laid down the principle that criminal breach of trust requires proof of entrustment and a dishonest intention or willful allowance of misappropriation, and the mere handing back of funds to an official without evidence of guilty intent does not satisfy the ingredients of section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Whether returning scholarship funds to a departmental official constitutes criminal misappropriation under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What constitutes dishonesty under Section 24 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases of alleged criminal breach of trust?
- Can a conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove dishonest intent or wrongful gain?
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Rawat and 3 others1997 PLD Karachi 622 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed a second appeal against an appellate court judgment, which the respondent challenged on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction, asserting the suit value exceeded the appellate court's authority. The core legal question was whether an appellate court's judgment is valid when it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, and whether an incompetent second appeal can be converted into a civil revision. The Court held that an order passed by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be validated by the parties' consent. Consequently, the Court exercised its judicial discretion to convert the incompetent second appeal into a civil revision. It set aside the impugned appellate judgment and directed the return of the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that while parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court lacking it, the High Court possesses the discretion to convert a non-maintainable second appeal into a civil revision to prevent a failure of justice, provided the legal requirements for revision are met.
Questions settled- Can parties confer pecuniary jurisdiction upon a court by consent?
- Is a judgment passed by an appellate court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction a nullity?
- Does the High Court have the discretion to convert an incompetent second appeal into a civil revision?
- Is the forum of appeal determined by the value of the original suit?
- Ghulam Mustafa Shah vs The State1997 MLD 2239 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza vs Commissioner of Income-Tax_Wealth Tax, Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur1997 PLC (C.S.) 925 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza vs Commissioner of Income-Tax_Wealth Tax, Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur _BWP,1997 PLC (C.S.) 925 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza Khanzada vs Government of Pakistan Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Population Welfare, Islamabad And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding his seniority placement in BS-16. The petitioner was originally appointed in the Family Planning Board, subsequently absorbed into the Population Planning Division in BS-14, and later appointed in BS-11 upon adjustment of surplus staff under an Office Order dated 11-4-1982. This order contained a specific note protecting the pay and seniority for promotion of adjusted employees as and when higher grade vacancies arose. After being promoted to BS-16 in 1993, the petitioner challenged his placement at Serial No. 197 in the seniority list, claiming seniority over respondents placed at Serial Nos. 163 to 188 based on the note appended to the adjustment order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Federal Service Tribunal's decision dismissing the petitioner's appeal was in accordance with the protective note appended to the Office Order dated 11-4-1982.
Questions settled- Whether the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the service appeal was in accordance with the protective note appended to the Office Order regarding seniority and promotion?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1997 MLD 1021 · Board of Revenue · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Province of Punjab Through Secretary To Government Of The Punjab, Colonies Department, Lahore And 2 Other1997 MLD 775 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Noor Muhammad And 4 Other1997 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a complainant in an anti-corruption case, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing his revision petition, which had challenged the trial court's dismissal of his application under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for permission to produce additional documents. The trial had been pending for sixteen years, and the application was filed only after the prosecution had closed its evidence and immediately before recording the statement of the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The trial court and the High Court both declined the request, noting that the documents would not assist without further evidence requiring a de novo trial. The Supreme Court held that the trial court was justified in disallowing the request and the High Court rightly refused to interfere, as no factual, legal, or jurisdictional infirmity existed in the impugned orders. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the principles regarding discretionary powers to summon additional evidence at a belated stage.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is justified in refusing an application for additional evidence filed at the close of the prosecution case after a prolonged delay?
- Can the High Court interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with the discretionary order of a trial court dismissing a belated application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings refusing permission to produce additional documents at a belated stage of the trial?
- Ghulam Muhammad Tiwana vs Secretary, Government of Punjab, Industries & Mineral Developmentdepartment And 8 Other1997 SCMR 1208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the grant of a prospecting licence for coal mining in Khushab, involving competing applications filed by several parties. The core legal question is the determination of the correct date and time of expiry of a previous licence held by M/s Badar Sons, which dictates the priority of subsequent applications under the 'first come first served' rule. The High Court had previously held that the previous licence expired at midnight on June 15, 1989, thereby prioritizing the application of Amir Akbar over that of the petitioner, Ghulam Muhammad Tiwana. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the previous licence had actually expired in 1987, which would render his earlier application of June 12, 1989, the first in time. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the previous licence had indeed expired in 1987 and whether the petitioner's application should consequently be treated as the first in the field. The Court suspended the operation of the High Court's judgment pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the 'first come first served' rule for granting prospecting licences apply based on the exact time of expiry of a previous licence?
- At what time does a prospecting licence legally expire for the purpose of determining the priority of new applications?
- Haji Muhammad Ayoob vs The State-1997 P Cr. L J 771 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →