Latest Judgments

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

• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. S. Qudira Anwar1997 PTD 2151 · Patna High Court · 1996-04-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Gayatridevi1997 PTD 1075 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Raja Vishwanath Pratap Singh1997 PTD 970 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Nawab Fazalyar Jung1997 PTD 559 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1992-09-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs M. Annai Jayabarathi and others1997 PTD 1224 · Madras High Court · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Janakraj Soni1997 PTD 1217 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-02-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Hira Lal Mehra1997 PTD 1878 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Biswajit Samonta1997 PTD 1069 · Patna High Court · 1996-06-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Wandoor Jupiter Chits (P.) Ltd. (In liquidation)1997 PTD 1319 · Kerala High Court · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Vindhya Metal Corporation and others1997 PTD 1951 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Urmila Ramesh, 32741997 PTD 1868 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-02-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd1997 PTD 1187 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-09-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Smt. Majjidunnisa Begum1997 PTD 2245 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Smt. Kaziamunnisa Begum and another1997 PTD 1366 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1992-08-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sint. R. Sharadamma1997 PTD 396 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. (Pvt.)1997 PTD 1201 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-09-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shama Magazine, .1997 PTD 464 · Delhi High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sh. Thakur Dass1997 PTD 1231 · Delhi High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Satyanarayana Saw Mills1997 PTD 389 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sakarlal Bala.Bhai & Co. Ltd. and others1997 PTD 1059 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-09-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Rehmat Khan1997 PTD 1238 · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-07-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Rathi Gum Industries1997 PTD 1350 · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-07-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Ratanchand Mehta1997 PTD 1516 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prakash Narain1997 PTD 1354 · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prakash Chand Dhadda, .1997 PTD 1263 · Rajasthan High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Paharpur Cooling Towers (Pvt.) Ltd1997 PTD 628 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Oxford University Press1996 PTD 1491 · Bombay High Court · 1995-12-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Nirbheram Daluram1997 PTD 1924 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Navnitlal Pochalal, .1997 PTD 1221 · Gujarat High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Narang Dairy Products1997 PTD 364 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Metallurgical Engineering1997 PTD 1503 · Patna High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Manoharlal Gupta & Co1997 PTD 261 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-01-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P.) Ltd1997 PTD 405 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd1997 PTD 516 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Kotagiri Industrial Cooperative Tea1997 PTD 1918 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Kilkotagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Co.1997 PTD 415 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-02-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Kharsawan Mineral Concern P. Ltd.1997 PTD 1334 · Patna High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Kandath Motors1997 PTD 2219 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs K.S. Venkatasubbiah Reddiar1997 PTD 1521 · Madras High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Jai Prakash Singh1997 PTD 469 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Indian Oxygen Ltd1997 PTD 219 · Supreme Court of India · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Gemini Pictures Circuit Private Ltd1997 PTD 245 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Geetha Bhavan Trust-S, .1997 PTD 1056 · Kerala High Court · 1994-11-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Garware Nylons Ltd., .1997 PTD 442 · Bombay High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Empire Estate1997 PTD 623 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Eastern Investments Ltd1997 PTD 724 · Calcutta High Court · 1993-08-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Duncan Brothers & Co. Ltd1997 PTD 430 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-02-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs City Mills Distributors (P.) Ltd.1997 PTD 400 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-02-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Bombay Pipe Traders1997 PTD 1328 · Bombay High Court · 1992-01-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing1997 PTD 390 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Barkate Saifiyah Society1997 PTD 561 · Gujarat High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs B.Posetty & Co., .1997 PTD 257 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-01-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs B. Posetty & Co1997 PTD 1527 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-11-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Arvindkumar Odhavji1997 PTD 508 · Bombay High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd1997 PTD 359 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-03-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltdfiltrone1997 PTD 2047 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-02-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax and others vs Chowgule & Co. Ltd.1997 PTD 221 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Transformers and Electricals Ltd1997 PTD 857 · Kerala High Court · 1994-11-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Smt. Kamla Devi Rathi1997 PTD 712 · Patna High Court · 1993-11-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. (and Vice Versa)1997 PTD 730 · Bombay High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Park Hotel (P.) Ltd.1997 PTD 658 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-01-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Pakistan Insurance Corporation and others1997 PTD 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-09
  income taxpreference sharesredemption of sharesdividend incomecapital investmentaccumulated profitstaxable income
  Summary & questions settled

  These six appeals by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Sindh High Court concerning whether the redemption value of fully paid-up preference shares, paid out of accumulated profits, constitutes taxable 'dividend' income in the hands of the assessees under the Income Tax Act 1922. The Revenue argued that the payment fell within the definition of 'dividend' under Section 2(6-A)(d) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the basic function of the Income Tax Act is to tax income, and capital taxation falls outside its scope. The Court observed that 'capital' signifies investment, whereas 'dividend' denotes a gain or return on that investment. Since the assessees received only the face value of their shares without any element of profit or gain, the transaction was a return of their original capital investment. The Court ruled that the definition of 'dividend' under the Act does not extend to the mere return of a shareholder's original capital, and dismissed the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the redemption of preference shares at their face value out of accumulated profits constitutes taxable 'dividend' income under Section 2(6-A)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1922?
  • Can a return of a shareholder's original capital investment be subjected to income tax under the Income Tax Act 1922 in the absence of any profit or gain?
  • How are the terms 'capital' and 'dividend' distinguished for the purposes of taxation under the Income Tax Act 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Malabar and Poineer Hosiery (P.) Ltd.1997 PTD 1512 · Kerala High Court · 1996-02-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Karam Chand Thapar and others1997 PTD 944 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-08-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kalinga Tubes Ltd1997 PTD 750 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-01-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Jyoti Ltd1997 PTD 594 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-02-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs G. Seshagiri Rao1997 PTD 697 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1992-09-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax and Wealth Tax And Another vs Muhammad Asif1997 PLC (C. S.) 93 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-10
  leave to appealservice tribunaldate of birthforged identity cardremoval from servicedisciplinary proceedingsdocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 15-2-1996, whereby the respondent's service appeal against his removal from service was accepted. The respondent, initially appointed as a Naib-Qasid and later as a Driver, faced disciplinary proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 on allegations of producing a forged identity card altering his date of birth from 1964 to 1969, and was consequently removed from service. Upon appeal, the Tribunal examined official documents including a school leaving certificate, a domicile certificate, and a birth register extract, all corroborating the 1969 date of birth, which documents had been produced at the instance of the petitioner's own counsel without objection. The Supreme Court held that no exception could be taken to the Tribunal's findings based on proper appreciation of documentary evidence, and since the factual controversy involved no question of public importance, leave to appeal was refused and the petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against a factual finding of the Service Tribunal that involves no question of public importance?
  • Can a party object to documentary evidence relied upon by a tribunal when such documents were produced at that party's own instance and inspected without objection?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal's appreciation of public documents regarding a civil servant's date of birth warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Gift Tax vs K. Mahesh and others1997 PTD 1277 · Madras High Court · 1996-02-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of 'Income-Tax vs Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.1997 PTD 1756 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• Col. (Retd.) Masood-Ul-Hassan, Managing Director, (De Jure) Small1997 PLC (C.S.) 327 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-16Read full judgment →
• Col. (Retd.) Masood-Ul-Hassan, Managing Director (De Jure) Small1997 PLC (C.S.) 327 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-16Read full judgment →
• Colony Textile Mills Limited, Multan Through Its Manager vs Muhammad1997 PLC 367 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Customs House vs Messrs Hira Farooq (Pvt.)1997 PTD 2353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-24
  leave to appealsales tax exemptionletters of creditretrospective taxationS.R.O. exemptioncustoms duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Collector of Customs against a High Court judgment that allowed the respondent's writ petition. The High Court had held that demanding sales tax on consignments, where letters of credit were opened prior to the withdrawal of a tax exemption notification, was without lawful authority. The respondent had opened fourteen letters of credit between February 1995 and February 1996, claiming exemption under S.R.O. No. 504(1)94. This exemption was subsequently withdrawn on April 4, 1996. Upon the arrival of the goods, the petitioners demanded sales tax, relying on Section 6 of the Sales Tax Act and Section 31-A of the Customs Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider this legal question, noting that similar questions had been admitted for consideration in a previous case, and ordered that this appeal be heard alongside those pending matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sales tax exemption can be withdrawn retrospectively to affect consignments for which letters of credit were opened prior to the withdrawal of the exemption notification?
  • Whether Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 applies to the recovery of sales tax under Section 6 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 where an exemption is withdrawn before the arrival of goods?
  Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority, Islamabad and others vs Union of Civil Aviation Employees and anothers1997 PLD Supreme Court 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-12
  fundamental rightsfreedom of associationtrade unioncollective bargainingindustrial relationsconstitutional petitionreasonable restrictionspublic order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the fundamental right of employees of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV) to form trade unions, despite being excluded from the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969. The core legal question was whether the statutory exclusion of these employees from the IRO, and the subsequent cancellation of their union registrations, violated the fundamental right to form associations under Article 17(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that while the legislature may exclude certain employees from the IRO, a total prohibition on forming and operating a union is unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the right to form a union is inherent under Article 17(1) and cannot be rendered meaningless by total denial. However, the Court clarified that while the right to form a union exists, the right to strike or engage in 'go-slow' tactics is not absolute and can be restricted in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, or public order. The Court directed that until a new legal framework is provided, these unions may function and negotiate, though they lack the statutory protections of the IRO.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of employees from the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, constitute a total denial of the fundamental right to form a union under Article 17(1) of the Constitution?
  • Can a trade union function and act as a collective bargaining agent in the absence of a specific statutory framework like the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
  • Is the cancellation of trade union registration by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978, violative of the fundamental right to form associations?
  • Does the right to form a union under Article 17(1) of the Constitution inherently include the right to strike or engage in 'go-slow' tactics?
  Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority, Islamabad and others vs Union of Civil Aviation Employees and another1997 PLC 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-12
  fundamental rightstrade unionfreedom of associationindustrial relationscollective bargainingconstitutional petitionreasonable restrictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the fundamental right of employees of the Civil Aviation Authority and the Pakistan Television Corporation to form trade unions, despite their exclusion from the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether such exclusion, coupled with regulatory restrictions or outright cancellation of union registration, violates Article 17(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that while the legislature may exclude specific categories of employees from the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, it cannot totally prohibit the formation of unions, as Article 17(1) guarantees this right. Regulations requiring prior permission for union formation are ultra vires. The Court ruled that unions can function independently of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, though they lack the statutory right to strike or engage in go-slow tactics without specific legislative backing. Consequently, the Court declared the cancellation of union registrations void and affirmed that the right to form unions is distinct from the right to strike, which remains subject to reasonable statutory restrictions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of employees from the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, constitute a violation of the fundamental right to form unions under Article 17(1) of the Constitution?
  • Can the right to form a trade union be subjected to a total prohibition by the state?
  • Are regulations requiring prior permission from an employer for the formation of a trade union ultra vires the Constitution?
  • Do trade unions possess an inherent right to strike or engage in go-slow tactics in the absence of statutory backing?
  Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority, Islamabad And Other vs Union of Civil Aviation Employees And Another1997 PLC 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-12
  freedom of associationtrade unionfundamental rightscollective bargaining agentIndustrial Relations OrdinanceCivil Aviation AuthorityPakistan Television Corporationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan disposes of a civil appeal and a Constitution petition involving the right of employees of the Civil Aviation Authority and the Pakistan Television Corporation to form and operate trade unions under Article 17(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions centered on whether the total exclusion of these employees from the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, and the cancellation of trade union registrations, violated their fundamental right of association, and whether unions could function independently without statutory backing or alternate frameworks. The Court held that while the Legislature could competently exclude certain establishments from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, total prohibition or denial of the right to form and operate a union is unconstitutional and violative of Article 17(1). However, rights such as strikes and go-slows are not inherent in Article 17(1) and require statutory backing. The Court established that employees retain the inherent right to form unions and act as collective bargaining agents, but administrative regulations lacking statutory force cannot impose unreasonable restrictions on such rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the exclusion of employees of statutory corporations from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 violates Article 17(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the right to form associations and unions under Article 17(1) of the Constitution carry with it the concomitant right to operate and function as a trade union?
  • Can administrative regulations framed without statutory force impose restrictions on the fundamental right to form a union under Article 17(1) of the Constitution?
  • Whether the right to strike and go-slow are guaranteed as fundamental rights under Article 17(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority Through Deputy Director (M) (Now Senior Works1997 PLC 642 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Cibageigy (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi vs Fida Hussain And Another1997 PLC 317 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-04Read full judgment →
• Choudhry Rasheed Ahmed vs Muhammad Akbar Samoon and 6 others1997 PLD Karachi 262 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-27Read full judgment →
• Chiragh and another vs The State1997 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-02-12Read full judgment →
• Chief Secretary to Govenment of N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 4 others vs Sayed Rehman, Research Officer (Stand), Veterinary Research Institute, Peshawar1997 PLC (C.S.) 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07
  advance incrementsservice tribunalequivalence of degreesM.Sc. (Hons.)M. PhilUniversity Grants Commissionleave to appeal refused
  Summary & questions settled

  The Chief Secretary to the Government of N.-W.F.P. and others sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent's appeal and restored two advance increments granted to him for possessing higher qualifications. The respondent, a Research Officer with an M.Sc. (Hons.) degree, was initially granted advance increments pursuant to a Finance Department Notification dated 24-8-1993, but these were later withdrawn, leading to his service appeal. The core legal question was whether an M.Sc. (Hons.) degree could be validly equated with an M. Phil for the purpose of granting advance increments based on the determination of the University Grants Commission's Equivalence Committee. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal reached the correct conclusion in relying on the Equivalence Committee's decision, which deemed M.Sc. (Hons.) equivalent to M. Phil. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the University Grants Commission is the competent forum for degree equivalence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the University Grants Commission is the competent forum to determine the equivalence of academic degrees for government employment benefits?
  • Can the government withdraw advance increments granted to an employee based on a validly recognized higher qualification?
  • Whether an M.Sc. (Hons.) degree can be equated with an M. Phil degree for the grant of advance increments?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Secretary to Govenment of N.-W.F.P., Peshawar And 4 Other vs Sayed Rehman, Research Officer (Stand), Veterinary Research Institute, Peshawar1997 PLC (C.S.) 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07
  service lawadvance incrementsequivalence of degreesUniversity Grants CommissionService Tribunalfinancial benefitsgovernment notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had ruled in favor of the respondent, a Research Officer, regarding his entitlement to advance increments. The respondent, possessing an M.Sc. (Hons.) degree, was initially granted advance increments based on a 1993 Finance Department Notification that provided such benefits to professionals holding specific higher qualifications, including M. Phil. degrees. The government subsequently withdrew these increments, prompting the respondent to appeal to the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the respondent's M.Sc. (Hons.) degree could be equated with an M. Phil. degree for the purpose of claiming these financial benefits. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the Equivalence Committee of the University Grants Commission is the competent authority to determine the equivalence of academic degrees. Consequently, the Court held that the respondent was entitled to the advance increments, as the Equivalence Committee had formally equated his M.Sc. (Hons.) degree with an M. Phil. degree for employment and benefit purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Equivalence Committee of the University Grants Commission the competent authority to determine the equivalence of academic degrees for government service benefits?
  • Can an M.Sc. (Hons.) degree be equated with an M. Phil. degree for the purpose of claiming advance increments under government service rules?
  • Does a Service Tribunal have the authority to uphold the grant of financial benefits based on an official equivalence determination by the University Grants Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Postmaster, Karachi City G.P.O. Pakistan Postal Services1997 PLC 399 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-09-02Read full judgment →
• Chief Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways, Headquarters, Lahore And Another vs Anjum Farooq And 6 Other1997 SCMR 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-04
  Limitation ActCondonation of delayTime-barred appealComputation of limitationCourt closureStatutory interpretationService matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the appointment of Station Masters in Pakistan Railways. The primary legal question concerned the computation of limitation for filing a petition for leave to appeal. Specifically, the Court examined whether the time spent obtaining a copy of the impugned judgment could be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act 1908, when the application for the copy was filed after the prescribed limitation period had already expired, despite the Court being closed on the final day of that period. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was time-barred. It established that Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 does not extend the prescribed limitation period but merely provides a procedural device to file on the day the Court reopens if the limitation expires on a holiday. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the time requisite for obtaining copies of a judgment can only be excluded under Section 12 if the application for those copies is made before the expiry of the primary limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 extend the prescribed period of limitation?
  • Can the time spent obtaining a copy of a judgment be excluded under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 if the application for the copy was made after the limitation period expired?
  • Is an appellant entitled to add the period of court closure to the limitation period to retroactively apply for copies of a judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Muhammad Saleem vs Fazal Ahmad And 2 Other1997 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-11
  Border Area Committeeurban agricultural landevacuee propertybona fide purchaserMartial Law Regulation No. 9allotment cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, with leave of the Court, challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition against the cancellation of an evacuee land allotment by the Border Area Committee. The core legal questions involved whether the Border Area Committee had jurisdiction to scrutinise and cancel allotments of urban agricultural land within the border belt, and whether a subsequent vendee was entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser for value under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Supreme Court held that the Border Area Committee possesses full jurisdiction under Martial Law Regulation No.9 to scrutinise all evacuee property within any border area, including urban agricultural land. Furthermore, the Court held that the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is not available where the transferee failed to act in good faith or where the vendor lacked valid title, and that such protection generally does not apply in settlement matters. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Border Area Committee have jurisdiction to scrutinise and cancel allotments of urban agricultural land situated within a border belt?
  • Can a transferee claim protection as a bona fide purchaser for value under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, when a finding of fact shows a lack of good faith?
  • Is the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, applicable in matters governed by evacuee and settlement laws where the vendor had no valid title?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Munawar Khan And Another vs Muhammad Hanif And Another1997 SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-10-31
  rent restrictionrestoration of possessioncompromise decreereconstruction of premiseslandlord and tenantconstitutional validityestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the restoration of possession of a shop following its reconstruction. The parties had previously entered into a compromise, recorded in a High Court order, whereby the tenants vacated the premises for reconstruction with the understanding that they would be re-inducted as tenants upon completion. The landlord subsequently failed to restore possession, leading the tenants to file an application under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge ordered the restoration of possession, a decision upheld by the High Court. The landlord challenged the constitutionality of the Rent Restriction Ordinance and argued that the application for restoration was time-barred. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the constitutional arguments were not raised in lower courts and lacked merit. Furthermore, the Court found that the landlord was bound by the terms of the compromise, having obtained possession of the property based on that undertaking, and could not resile from it. The petition for leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord who obtains possession of a property based on a compromise agreement to reconstruct and re-induct the tenant can subsequently resile from that agreement?
  • Is Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 unconstitutional for being violative of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a party raise constitutional challenges to a statute for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court if such points were not raised in the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Faiz Muhammad vs Mst. Farida Razi1997 MLD 2413 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-15Read full judgment →
• Chanderban and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1696 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical1997 SCMR 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-07
  medical college admissionlocus poenitentiaevested rightapprobate and reprobatecancellation of admissionleave to appealgross negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical College against a Lahore High Court decision granting a writ petition. The core legal question was whether admission granted to a student by medical college authorities, after receipt of fees and issuance of roll number, could subsequently be withdrawn on the grounds of an alleged computer mistake to accommodate another candidate without hearing the original student. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal. The Court held that once admission was duly granted, fees accepted, roll number issued, and the student commenced studies, a valuable vested right accrued in his favour. Applying the principles of locus poenitentiae and estoppel, the Court ruled that an authority cannot undo or rescind an order once it has taken legal effect and created rights in favour of an individual, nor can a student be penalized for the gross negligence or shifting stances of the selection authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Can an educational authority recall or cancel a student's admission after it has taken legal effect and created a vested right?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent an authority from withdrawing an order once valuable rights have accrued in favour of an individual?
  • Can medical college authorities disown an admission granted to a student on the ground of an administrative or computer mistake to accommodate another candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, P.O.F., Wah Cantt. vs Muzhar Shah1997 PLC (C.S.) 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-19
  move-overcivil servantService Tribunalaverage reportleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Chairman, P.O.F., Wah Cantt. filed a petition questioning the validity of the judgment passed by the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby move-over was granted to the respondent from B-16 to B-17 by treating an average report as a good report. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation and scope of the Notification dated 17-2-1991 regarding the eligibility criteria for move-over for civil servants based on their annual confidential reports. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the said notification, while declining to suspend the operation of the Service Tribunal's order, and directed that the appeal be fixed for an early hearing. The Court held that leave to appeal is warranted to interpret the specific notification governing move-over rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an average annual confidential report can be treated as a good report for the purpose of move-over for a civil servant?
  • What is the correct scope of the Notification dated 17-2-1991 regarding move-over from B-16 to B-17?
  • Can an average report be treated as adverse if it has not been specifically communicated to the civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, P.O.F., Wah Cantt vs Muzhar Shah1997 PLC (C.S.) 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-19
  civil servicemove-overperformance reportadverse remarksservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which granted a move-over from B-16 to B-17 to the respondent civil servant. The core legal question is whether an 'average' performance report, in the absence of any adverse remarks, satisfies the eligibility criteria for move-over under the Notification dated 17-2-1991, which requires at least one 'good' report within the preceding five years. The Service Tribunal, relying on established Supreme Court precedents, held that an 'average' report should be treated as 'generally good' for move-over purposes unless it has been specifically categorized as adverse and communicated as such to the civil servant. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further examine the scope and interpretation of the specific Notification governing move-over eligibility. While granting leave, the Court declined to suspend the operation of the Service Tribunal's order, allowing the respondent to retain the benefit of the move-over pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an 'average' performance report qualify as a 'good' report for the purpose of move-over eligibility for civil servants?
  • Can an 'average' report be treated as an adverse report if it has not been specifically conveyed as such to the civil servant?
  • What is the scope of the Notification dated 17-2-1991 regarding the criteria for move-over from B-16 to B-17?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman Azad Jammu & Kashmir Council Through Secretary Islamabad1997 MLD 2926 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-12
  condonation of delaylimitationextradition lawvoid judgmentknowledge of counselpublic importanceultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court order declaring the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Act, 1984, ultra vires. The appellant sought condonation of a 133-day delay in filing the appeal, arguing that the High Court judgment was void and involved matters of significant public importance. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the knowledge of counsel is imputed to the client; thus, a counsel's failure to timely inform the client of a judgment does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the Court determined that no legal anomaly existed requiring intervention, as the subsequent enactment of new extradition legislation rendered the High Court’s judgment practically moot and did not impede the administration of extradition proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that it would not engage in an academic exercise to set aside a judgment when the underlying legal issues had been effectively superseded by later statutory developments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the knowledge of a counsel regarding the announcement of a judgment constitute the knowledge of the client for the purposes of limitation?
  • Is the failure of a counsel to inform their client of a court decision a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
  • Will the court condone a significant delay in filing an appeal if the underlying legal issue has been rendered moot by subsequent legislation?
  • Can a party claim that a judgment is void to bypass the statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Chain Muhammad And Another vs Collector, Land Acquisition Ghazi1997 MLD 3192 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Waheed-Uz-Zaman vs Jamil and 8 others1997 P Cr. L J 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03
  quashing of FIRsecond FIRcancellation of FIRcivil disputeinheritance mutationfraud and misrepresentationabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to set aside a magistrate's order cancelling an FIR, and an interconnected writ petition challenging the registration of subsequent FIRs on the same facts. The core legal questions involved whether a magistrate's order cancelling an FIR should be set aside merely for being brief, and whether a second FIR can be registered on the same facts and circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that while a magistrate should pass a speaking order, an order concurring with a police report cannot be set aside under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on mere technical grounds unless sufficient material warrants conviction or the order is perverse, especially when the underlying dispute is civil in nature. The Court further held that a second or subsequent FIR on the same facts and circumstances is not permissible in law. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere with a police report cancellation order unless it is arbitrary or perverse, and subsequent FIRs based on identical facts are illegal and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second FIR be registered on the basis of the same facts and circumstances as an earlier registered FIR?
  • Whether an order of a Magistrate cancelling an FIR under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be interfered with under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on mere technical grounds?
  • Does every civil wrong or incorrect inheritance mutation automatically give rise to the commission of a criminal offence?
  • Does a Magistrate function as a criminal Court when concurring with a police report and cancelling a registered criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Saeed Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry1997 PLC (C.S.) 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-10
  leave to appealadverse remarksAnnual Confidential ReportACRbiasFederal Service Tribunalcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 16-7-1995, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period 1-1-1990 to 11-8-1990. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal was justified in maintaining adverse ACR remarks where the employee had produced material demonstrating potential personal bias on the part of the Reporting and Countersigning Officers, and where the employee's work performance during the exact same period had been explicitly commended by his superiors. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the allegations of personal grudge and bias, along with the contemporaneous commendation of the petitioner's performance and procedural delay in conveying the remarks, required detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that adverse remarks in an ACR may be subject to judicial scrutiny where credible evidence of bias or inconsistency with official commendations is presented.

  Questions settled

  • Whether adverse remarks in an ACR can be sustained when there is evidence of bias on the part of the reporting officer?
  • Is the Maintenance of adverse ACR remarks justified where the civil servant's performance during the same period was officially commended by superiors?
  • Does procedural delay in communicating adverse ACR remarks affect their legal validity?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Qurban Hussain vs Sardar Abdul Latif Khan Chaughtai And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 385 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ch. Munawar Khan And Another vs Raja Muhammad Gul1997 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-10-31
  ejectmentreconstructionrestoration of possessionrent restrictioncompromisefundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order and subsequent proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance where a tenant sought restoration of possession after reconstruction of the disputed shop pursuant to a High Court compromise order. The core legal questions involved whether the provisions of section 13(5-B) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance are violative of Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the tenant's application for restoration of possession was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that constitutional contentions not raised in lower forums cannot be entertained for the first time, that section 13(5-B) does not violate fundamental rights, and that a landlord who obtained possession via a compromise cannot resile from its terms. The Court established that a landlord bound by a compromise to reconstruct and restore possession cannot evade statutory duties, and that limitation objections regarding the filing of a restoration application before completion of construction must be substantiated by evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 13(5-B) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance is void as being inconsistent with Article 23 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Whether an application for restoration of possession under section 13(5-B) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance is barred if filed after the completion of reconstruction?
  • Can a landlord who obtained possession of a property through a compromise resile from the terms requiring restoration of possession to the tenant after reconstruction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Siddique and 4 others vs Director, Special Education1997 PLC (C.S.) 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-11
  pro forma promotionservice tribunalsenioritydepartmental promotion committeetransfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions filed against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which allowed a service appeal and declared respondent No. 7 entitled to pro forma promotion to the post of Audiologist (BS-17) from the date her case was deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee rather than a later date, along with consequential seniority. The core legal questions involved whether an employee whose promotion is deferred due to administrative deficiencies not attributable to them is entitled to pro forma promotion from the date the vacancy arose, and whether co-employees are precluded by their conduct from belatedly challenging a transfer and promotion after failing to object at the relevant time. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's judgment was just, fair, and free from illegality, affirming that a civil servant cannot be penalized by a delay caused by the deferment of their case when no fault lies with them, and that petitioners are barred by their acquiescence from raising belated objections. The key principle laid down is that a promotee is entitled to pro forma promotion from the date the post fell vacant and their case was considered, provided the delay in promotion was not caused by any fault of the employee.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to pro forma promotion from the date their case was deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee due to administrative deficiencies not attributable to them?
  • Does failure to timely challenge a transfer and subsequent promotion preclude co-employees from raising objections at a belated stage?
  • Whether an employee can be denied seniority from the date a vacancy becomes available when the delay in promotion is caused by official inefficiencies rather than the fault of the candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Siddique And 4 Other vs Director, Special Education1997 PLC (C.S.) 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-01
  pro forma promotionservice tribunaldepartmental promotion committeeseniorityacquiescencecivil serviceservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter arose from a challenge to an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which granted respondent No. 7 pro forma promotion to the post of Audiologist (BS-17) with effect from 23-7-1987, along with consequential seniority. The petitioners, fellow employees, contested the respondent's entitlement, arguing she was ineligible for transfer to the Special Education Wing and challenging her promotion date. The core legal question was whether a civil servant is entitled to pro forma promotion when their case is deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee due to administrative deficiencies not attributable to the employee, and whether the petitioners were precluded from challenging the respondent's status due to their prior acquiescence. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the respondent was entitled to promotion from the date the vacancy was available, as the delay was not her fault. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioners were precluded by their own conduct from challenging the respondent's transfer and promotion at such a belated stage, having failed to object when these events originally occurred.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to pro forma promotion from the date a vacancy was available if their promotion was deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee due to administrative deficiencies not attributable to them?
  • Does the doctrine of acquiescence preclude fellow employees from challenging a colleague's transfer and promotion after a significant lapse of time?
  • Can a civil servant be penalized for administrative delays in the processing of their promotion case?
  Read full judgment →