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.
- Progressive Papers Limited, 'Lahore and another vs Abdul Haque Awan1996 PLC 498 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1996-02-08Read full judgment →
- Professor Dr. Badshah Gul vs Professor Dr. Shafiq Ahmad and 19 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the determination of inter se seniority between Professors following the amalgamation of two teaching cadres, the Khyber Medical College and the Post Graduate Medical Institute. The core legal question was whether seniority should be determined based on the date of continuous regular appointment to the post or the date of grant of a higher grade (BPS-21). The Supreme Court held that the merger notification explicitly mandated that inter se seniority be determined on the basis of continuous regular appointment to the respective posts. The Court clarified that 'post' and 'grade' are distinct concepts; a higher grade granted for financial purposes does not constitute a promotion to a higher post and does not override seniority based on the post held. Consequently, the Court set aside the Service Tribunal's judgment, ruling that the government correctly corrected the seniority list to reflect the date of appointment to the post rather than the date of grade attainment, establishing that seniority is governed by the post held, not the grade.
Questions settled- Does the grant of a higher grade to a civil servant constitute a promotion to a higher post for the purpose of determining seniority?
- Can the government correct a mistake in a tentative seniority list before it attains finality?
- Is inter se seniority of civil servants holding the same post determined by the date of continuous regular appointment to the post or by the date of grant of a higher grade?
- Prof. Dr. Shahana Urooj Kazmi vs Vicechancellor, Karachi University, Campus, Karachi University, Karachi and 3 others1996 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
- Prof. Dr. M. Muneer Hassan vs The Chancellor, N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology_Governor of Sindh, Karachi and another1996 SCMR 1643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's Constitution petition against his removal from the post of Vice-Chancellor of N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology before the expiry of his four-year term. The appellant was appointed to hold office during the pleasure of the Chancellor. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, amendments were introduced via the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, which deemed employees of corporations established by provincial enactments to be civil servants and provided for the abatement of all pending suits, appeals, or applications relating to their terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court examined the effect of these statutory amendments and held that the appellant, as an officer of the University, fell within the definition of a civil servant under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, thereby causing the pending appeal to abate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the appellant to pursue his remedy before the Sindh Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether an employee holding office during the pleasure of the employer can have his appointment terminated before the expiry of the statutory term?
- Do pending appeals relating to the terms and conditions of service of a university employee abate upon the enactment of the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994?
- Is an officer of a university established by a provincial enactment deemed to be a civil servant under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Prof. Dr. Hayat Muhammad Awan and others vs Dr. Muhammad Ishaq1996 MLD 49 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
- Prof. Dr. Hayat Muhammad Awan And Others vs Dr. Muhammad Ishaq1996 MLD 49 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
- Prof Dr. Tariq Iqbal Bhutta vs Government of the Punjab and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 552 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
- Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press vs Jamil Ahmed and 24 others1996 MLD 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
- Postmaster General, AJK & FC Islamabad and 2 others vs Muhammad1996 SCMR 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the respondent's penalty of compulsory retirement to the stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. The core legal question concerned the scope and extent of the Service Tribunal's power to alter or modify quantum of punishment imposed by departmental authorities in service matters, and whether the Tribunal's decision in this case suffered from arbitrariness or lack of reasoning. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Service Tribunals are final forums of appeal on both questions of law and fact with the inherent power to uphold, set aside, or vary impugned orders, provided that any modification of punishment is supported by cogent reasons meeting standards of reasonableness. The Court laid down the principle that interference by the Supreme Court with a Tribunal's reduction of penalty is warranted only if the Tribunal's order lacks application of mind, suffers from arbitrariness, or fails to give reasonable justification.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunals have the power to alter or modify the quantum of punishment imposed by departmental authorities?
- What are the limitations on the Service Tribunal's power to interfere with factual conclusions and penalties in service appeals?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the Service Tribunal modifying a departmental penalty?
- Pooran Mal vs Commissioner, Hyderabad Division and 6 others1996 CLC 1884 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-28Read full judgment →
- Pir Muhammad Qureshi, Principal, Technical Training Institute, Wah1996 PLC (C.S.) 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an officer in the Pakistan Ordnance Factory, challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding his supersession for promotion. The petitioner had previously secured an order from the Tribunal expunging adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports (A.C.R.) for 1986 and 1987, which had originally deemed him 'not fit for promotion.' Despite this, the Tribunal subsequently dismissed his appeal concerning his supersession for promotion to BPS-20. The petitioner argued that the authorities failed to consider his corrected A.C.Rs and that a junior officer promoted in his stead lacked the mandatory NIPA course qualification. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, finding substance in the petitioner's contentions that the authorities relied on outdated, expunged remarks and that the junior respondent may have been unqualified for the promotion. The Court held that these issues required further judicial consideration to determine if the petitioner's supersession was legally justified in light of the corrected service record and the eligibility criteria of the promoted junior.
Questions settled- Can an officer be superseded for promotion based on adverse remarks that have been subsequently expunged?
- Is a promotion valid if the officer promoted in place of a senior lacks mandatory qualifications such as the NIPA course?
- Does the failure of authorities to consider corrected Annual Confidential Reports in promotion decisions constitute grounds for judicial review?
- Pir Muhammad Akhtar vs Chief Administrator Auqaf, Punjab and others1996 MLD 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-18Read full judgment →
- Pir Muhammad Akhtar vs Chief Administrator Auqaf, Punjab And Other1996 MLD 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-18Read full judgment →
- Pir Bakhsh vs Magistrate 1ST Class and others1996 P Cr. L J 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
- Phull Pir Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Philip Morris Products Inc. United States of America vs Deputy1996 PLD Karachi 122 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
- Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. vs The Excise and Taxation Officer, and others1996 CLC 977 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
- Pervez Iqbal and 2 others vs Provincial Transport Authority, Sindh1996 CLC 182 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by stage carriage permit holders challenging an order passed by the Provincial Transport Authority permitting contract carriages to halt at specified urban locations for picking up and setting down individual passengers. The core legal question was whether contract carriages could be granted halting points to operate in a manner akin to stage carriages under the governing regulatory framework. The Sindh High Court held that contract carriages and stage carriages are distinct statutory categories, and contract carriages cannot be permitted to pick up individual passengers or operate along fixed routes with designated stops like stage carriages. The Court ruled that the Provincial Transport Authority acted in excess of its statutory authority by issuing an order that converted the use of contract carriages into stage carriages in violation of the law, thereby adversely affecting bona fide stage carriage operators. The petition was accordingly allowed, and the impugned order was struck down.
Questions settled- Whether contract carriages can be granted halting points to pick up and set down individual passengers in the manner of stage carriages?
- What are the distinct statutory differences between a contract carriage and a stage carriage under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965?
- Does the availability of an alternate remedy bar the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 where an order is patently illegal and without lawful authority?
- Can the Provincial Transport Authority authorize contract carriage permit holders to operate outside the terms and conditions prescribed for contract carriages?
- Pervez Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1218 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz vs The State1996 MLD 1642 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-05-19Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz Iqbal, Etc vs SH. Zia-Ur-Rehman, Etc(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 67) · Board of Revenue · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
- Peri Employees' Union, Punjab, Lahore through President and General1996 PLC 586 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
- Pentagon Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax(PTCL 1996 FC. 66) · Bombay High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
- Pentagon Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax1996 PTD 569 · Bombay High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
- Peer Bakhsh and others vs Mst. Anwar Mai and others1996 SCMR 875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the decree-holder sought to correct clerical errors regarding rectangle and Killa numbers in both the plaint and the decree-sheet during execution proceedings. The executing court allowed the correction of these errors, a decision subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court. The petitioners challenged the executing court's jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the plaint after the finalization of the judgment and decree. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in Nazir Ahmad and 6 others v. Ghulam Mustafa (1995 SCMR 163), examined whether an executing court possesses the authority to rectify clerical mistakes in the plaint and decree-sheet. The Court held that the executing court acted within its jurisdiction in permitting the correction of clerical errors, noting that the present case was on stronger footing than the cited precedent because the decree-holder had explicitly applied for the amendment. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's order and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does an executing court have the jurisdiction to allow the correction of clerical errors in a plaint after the finalization of a judgment and decree?
- Can an executing court permit the rectification of a decree-sheet to correct clerical mistakes regarding land particulars?
- Pearl Continental Hotel through General Manager and 2 others vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others1996 PLC 485 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
- Pattoki Ice Factory vs Revenue Officer and others1996 CLC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the disconnection of an electricity supply by WAPDA. The appellant, a partnership firm, contested a demand for arrears relating to a factory unit allegedly transferred to other partners upon dissolution. The core legal question was whether the licensee could disconnect the electricity supply without serving the statutory notice mandated by Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The Court held that the disconnection was illegal and without lawful authority. It ruled that the service of a written notice of at least seven days is a mandatory condition precedent to the exercise of the power of disconnection under Section 24. The Court emphasized that such notice provisions must be strictly complied with, as they also facilitate the consumer's statutory right to appeal against the notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the disconnection, finding that the respondents failed to adhere to the imperative procedural requirements of the Electricity Act, 1910, as amended by the Electricity Act (Punjab) Amendment Ordinance, 1971.
Questions settled- Is the service of a notice under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910, a mandatory condition precedent to the disconnection of electricity supply?
- Can a licensee disconnect electricity supply based on an endorsement on a bill without issuing a separate statutory notice under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910?
- Does the failure to serve a notice under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910, deprive a consumer of their statutory right to appeal?
- Pathan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1066 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
- Parvez Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1556 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
- Parveen Begum and anothers vs Shah Jehan and another1996 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction based on an agreement to sell a plot, seeking to enforce the sale at a specific price and restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell creates a valid title or interest in property sufficient to support a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Court dismissed the suit, holding that an agreement to sell does not confer ownership or title upon the purchaser. The Court established that an agreement to sell merely creates a right to seek specific performance, not a proprietary interest. Furthermore, under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a suit for declaration is not maintainable where the plaintiff seeks to establish ownership based solely on an executory contract. Additionally, the Court held that while Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, allows a purchaser to use possession as a shield for defense, it cannot be used as a sword to assert title or claim permanent injunction against the rightful owner.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell create a valid title or interest in immovable property?
- Can a plaintiff maintain a suit for declaration of ownership based solely on an agreement to sell?
- Is a suit for permanent injunction maintainable by a purchaser who has not acquired legal title to the property?
- Can the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 be used as a sword to assert title?
- Parvaiz Akhtar and another vs Chief Conservator of Forests, Azad1996 PLC (C.S.) 210 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1995-08-31Read full judgment →
- Parke Davis & Company Ltd., Karachi vs Manzar Hussain1996 PLC 224 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-19Read full judgment →
- Papoo alias Abdul Karim vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 997 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
- Pan Ocean Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. and 4 others vs Faysal Islamic Bank1996 MLD 816 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
- Pan Ocean Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. And 4 Others vs Faysal Islamic Bank1996 MLD 816 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority through Chief1996 PLC 14 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-08-27Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation through Deputy Managing1996 P LC 563 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, Islamabad and another vs Riaz Ahmad and 6 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order directing the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation to fill Assistant Divisional Engineer posts according to specific promotion and recruitment quotas established by S.R.O. 1022(1)/76. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue such a directive, or whether the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the respondents, as employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, were civil servants. It further held that the dispute regarding the enforcement of promotion quotas and eligibility for appointment related to the terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the Court ruled that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition due to the constitutional bar imposed by Article 212. The principle laid down is that matters concerning the eligibility of a civil servant for promotion or appointment are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, and the High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction in such service-related disputes.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation considered civil servants under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate matters concerning the eligibility of a civil servant for promotion?
- Is the question of eligibility for promotion a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply to disputes regarding the enforcement of promotion quotas for civil servants?
- Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and another s vs Riaz1996 PLD Supreme Court 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment directing the Corporation to fill Assistant Divisional Engineer posts according to specific promotion and recruitment rules. The core legal questions were whether employees of the Corporation are civil servants and whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus regarding promotion quotas and eligibility, given the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Supreme Court held that the respondents, being transferred employees of the Corporation, remain civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and that disputes concerning eligibility for promotion relate to terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the High Court's jurisdiction was ousted by Article 212 in favor of the Service Tribunal. The appeal was accepted and the impugned High Court judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation are civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue directions regarding promotion quotas and eligibility of civil servants?
- Does a dispute regarding eligibility for promotion relate to the terms and conditions of service so as to attract the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Is the question of eligibility for promotion distinguishable from fitness or suitability regarding the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Pakistan T&T All Staff Union and another vs N.I.R.C. and others1996 SCMR 942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a long-standing industrial dispute concerning trade union representation and the holding of a referendum, which has been delayed for approximately fifteen years. The core legal question involves the proper execution of a High Court remand order dated 7-3-1989 directing the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) to determine the locus standi of a representative to appear for a union after recording evidence. By consent of all learned counsel appearing in the appeals, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter by directing a Full Bench of three members of the N.I.R.C. to hear and finally dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with the earlier remand order, fixing a specific date for hearing and mandating that the issue of locus standi be determined conclusively regardless of the representative's presence or absence, thereby preventing further dismissals for non-prosecution. The key principle laid down is that remand orders must be strictly complied with and time-sensitive industrial disputes such as union referendums ought to be expedited without procedural delays.
Questions settled- Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when a specific High Court remand order directs a decision on merits regarding locus standi?
- Can a question of locus standi be determined by the National Industrial Relations Commission in the absence of the representative whose standing is in question?
- Pakistan Steel Products, Etc. vs M/s. Indus Steel Pipes Ltd.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 283 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Products vs M/s. Indus Steel Pipes Limited1996 CLC 118 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit concerns a claim for the refund of Rs. 500,000 deposited as earnest money for a tender to purchase steel pipes. The plaintiff sought a declaration and injunction after the defendant forfeited the deposit, alleging a breach of contract. The core legal questions were whether a concluded contract existed between the parties and whether the defendant was legally entitled to forfeit the earnest money. The Court held that no binding contract was formed because the defendant failed to communicate an absolute and unqualified acceptance of the plaintiff's offer before the plaintiff revoked it. Relying on established principles of contract law, the Court emphasized that a proposal must be accepted unconditionally and communicated to the offeror to create a binding obligation. Furthermore, the Court held that even in cases of breach, a party cannot forfeit earnest money without proving actual loss sustained. As the defendant provided no evidence of loss, the forfeiture was deemed unlawful. Consequently, the Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for the return of the earnest money.
Questions settled- Does a binding contract exist if an offer is revoked before the communication of an absolute and unqualified acceptance?
- Can a party forfeit earnest money in the absence of proof of actual loss sustained due to an alleged breach of contract?
- Is a conditional acceptance of a tender sufficient to create a concluded and binding contract?
- Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi vs Hanzo1996 PLC 217 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Mills through General Manager (a & P), Karachi vs Muhammad Zahid1996 PLC 196 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation through General Manager (Law), Karachi vs Muhammad Azam Katper and another1996 PLC 262 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation through Deputy General Manager1996 PLC 129 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd.,Karachi and others vs Qazi1996 PLC 478 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited, Karachi through Chairman vs Ahmad Bux1996 PLC 230 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-20Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways vs Shaukat Ali Hamdani and others1996 PLC 595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns five consolidated appeals arising from disputes over wage deductions and pay fixation within Pakistan Railways. The core legal question was whether the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving disputed wage calculations, or if such matters must be exclusively pursued under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court held that the Authority is competent to determine wages as defined by the Act, which includes interpreting contracts, rules, or circulars to calculate the correct quantum of wages. However, the Court clarified that the Authority lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate matters involving potential wages, such as claims for promotion or wrongful reversion. The Court affirmed that where a worker is already promoted but the employer miscalculates the salary in violation of rules, the Authority has jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court upheld the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction where the department had previously interpreted pay rules in a manner that created discriminatory treatment, violating the principle of equality before the law.
Questions settled- Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, have jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding the correct quantum of wages?
- Can the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, adjudicate claims involving potential wages or entitlement to promotion?
- Is the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, competent to interpret employment contracts and pay rules to determine payable wages?
- Does the High Court have discretion to refuse interference under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when departmental action is discriminatory?
- Pakistan Railways and others vs Mst. Majeedan and others1996 CLC 733 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Postal Services Corporation through Superintendent Welfare, Islamabad vs Liaquat Ali, General Secretary and 3 others1996 PLC 105 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-08-27Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Post Offices vs Muhammad Akram1996 PLC 487 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-20Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Mineral Department Corp. vs Presiding Officer PB. Laour(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Services 166) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi vs Tajammul1996 PLC 283 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Syed Ali Raza Rizvi1996 CLC 627 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for the recovery of ticket refund and damages on account of mental torture, agony, and loss of business caused by the petitioner airline's negligence in inadvertently removing unutilised flight coupons. The petitioner failed to file a written statement despite service and appearance by counsel, leading the trial court to pass an ex parte decree following the submission of an affidavit in ex parte proof. The appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation and merits, prompting this revision. The Sindh High Court affirmed the lower court's decisions, holding that ex parte proceedings under Order IX Rule 11 CPC were valid where process was properly served on multiple defendants. The Court held that mental agony and shock can be proved by sworn assertions of the aggrieved party without needing accompanying physical injury, which merely affects quantum, not basic entitlement to damages. The revision application was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is physical injury required to substantiate a claim for damages arising from mental shock and agony?
- Can an ex parte decree be passed under Order IX Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against a defendant who fails to appear after service while other co-defendants are being served?
- Does the mere absence of a formal Vakalatnama invalidate court proceedings where the record explicitly reflects representation by counsel on scheduled dates?
- Can discretionary relief for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 be granted on a demonstrably false plea regarding service of process?
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman, Islamabad vs Maqbool Hussain, Reservation and Ticketing Officer, PIA, Lahore-1996 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment regarding the promotion of a Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) employee. The core legal questions concerned whether the service appeal was maintainable without exhausting departmental remedies, whether it was time-barred, and whether the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction over PIAC employees. The Supreme Court held that between 15-11-1984 and 2-11-1989, PIAC employees were deemed civil servants under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, by virtue of Ordinance LIII of 1984, thereby granting the Tribunal jurisdiction. Regarding limitation, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s discretion to condone delay, finding that the employer’s previous assurances to consider the respondent for promotion upon his return from foreign posting provided a valid basis for the delay in filing. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal’s direction to consider the respondent for promotion was proper, provided it adhered to the Corporation’s service regulations. The key principle established is that during the specified period, PIAC employees held the status of civil servants, and tribunals may exercise discretion to condone delays where specific departmental assurances have caused a legitimate postponement in seeking legal redress.
Questions settled- Were employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation considered civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, between 1984 and 1989?
- Can a Service Tribunal exercise discretion to condone a delay in filing an appeal if the employee was acting on assurances provided by the employer?
- Does the failure to exhaust departmental remedies render a service appeal non-maintainable if the record shows such remedies were in fact pursued?
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation - through Chairman, Islamabad vs Maqbool Hussain, Reservation and Ticketing Officer, PIA, Lahore1996 PLC (C.S.) 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 22-6-1993, which directed the appellant to consider the respondent for promotion from 1982. The core legal questions involved whether the service appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable without departmental remedies, whether it was barred by limitation, and whether the rule in Raziuddin's case barred the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that between 15-11-1984 and 2-11-1989, by virtue of statutory amendments adding subsection (3) to section 10 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act 1956, PIAC employees were deemed civil servants under the Service Tribunals Act 1973, making the appeal fully competent. The Court further held that the Tribunal exercised sound discretion in condoning the delay based on un-rebutted assertions regarding departmental assurances given to the employee while on foreign posting. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the direction for reconsideration of promotion subject to the Corporation's service regulations.
Questions settled- Whether the service appeal filed by the respondent before the Federal Service Tribunal was maintainable without exhausting departmental remedies?
- Whether the service appeal filed in 1987 regarding an action taken in 1982 was time-barred?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal was competent to grant relief to a PIAC employee in view of the rule in Raziuddin v. Chairman, PIAC?
- Did the employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation hold the status of civil servants between 15-11-1984 and 2-11-1989?
- Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited vs Oregan Industries (Pvt) Ltd Karachi1996 CLC 799 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Herald Workers' Union through General Secretary vs Sindh1996 SCMR 1827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that dismissed a petition filed by a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, deeming it incompetent. The core legal question was whether a CBA is legally authorized to file a petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance on behalf of workers to redress individual grievances. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the CBA is indeed competent to initiate such proceedings. The Court clarified that while Section 25-A and Section 34 of the Ordinance serve different purposes, Section 25-A(4) explicitly empowers the CBA to approach the Labour Court, provided the mandatory procedural requirements—specifically the service of a grievance notice—have been fulfilled by the workers. The principle established is that a CBA may represent workers in individual grievance matters under Section 25-A, provided the statutory conditions regarding notice and procedure are strictly satisfied, distinguishing this from the broader enforcement powers under Section 34.
Questions settled- Can a Collective Bargaining Agent file a petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance on behalf of workers?
- Does the right of a Collective Bargaining Agent to represent workers extend to individual grievances under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Is a grievance notice served by a Collective Bargaining Agent sufficient to satisfy the procedural requirements of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Pakistan Herald Limited vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Chairman, Panel-02, Companies-III, Karachi and another1996 PTD 186 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the High Court of Sindh challenged a notice issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 reopening the petitioner's tax assessment for the year 1984-85. The petitioner, a public limited company, had declared losses incurred under a management and profit-sharing agreement with another publisher. The tax department initially accepted these returns, but later issued a notice seeking to reopen the assessment on the ground that the underlying agreement violated Section 34-A of the Ordinance, claiming this constituted 'definite information'. The court examined whether an assessment consciously completed after full disclosure of material facts could be reopened under Section 65 absent any new evidence. The High Court held that where an assessee fully discloses all relevant facts without concealment, an assessing officer's subsequent re-interpretation of statutory provisions constitutes a mere change of opinion on the same material. Reopening an assessment under Section 65 requires fresh material or new factual information, not a change of legal view.
Questions settled- Can a finalized tax assessment be reopened under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 based on a mere change of opinion on existing legal provisions?
- What constitutes 'definite information' or valid grounds to initiate proceedings for an escaped assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
- Is an assessing officer permitted to reopen a past assessment without the discovery of fresh factual material when all relevant facts were disclosed in the original return?
- Pakistan Herald Limited vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Chairman, Panel-02, Companies-III, Karachi And Another,1996 P.C.T.L.R. 909 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Diary Products (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Labour Appellate1996 PLC 62 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-30Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority vs Commander (Retd.)1996 MLD 1499 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority vs Commander (R) M. A.1996 MLD 1499 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Burmah Shell vs District Judge and others1996 MLD 391 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Burmah Shell vs District Judge And Other1996 MLD 391 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
- Pak Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Muhammad Hameed1996 PLC 700 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
- Painda Khan vs Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, LahoreK.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 35 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- P vs Principle K.E.M.C. Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 334 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
- P vs 'R'K.L.R. 1996 Civil Case 464 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
- Orient Match Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Banking Tribunal Karachi And Another1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1220 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Orient Match Company (Pvt) Ltd vs Banking Tribunal for Karachi and Sukkur and others1996 CLC 1718 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
- Omair Ahmed Siddiqui vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1130 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
- Oil India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Taxs. J. C.1996 PTD 666 · Orissa High Court · 1994-11-14Read full judgment →
- Oil India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax(PTCL 1996 FC. 164) · Orissa High Court · 1994-11-14Read full judgment →
- Oakistan Atomic Energy Commissioner Karachi vs DR. M.S. Khalid.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 506 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
- N/A vs N/A1996 PLD SC 67 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, passed by the Sessions Judge, Larkana. The prosecution alleged that while in police custody, the appellant volunteered to produce an unlicensed gun and live cartridges from a heap of fodder lying in front of his house in a populated village. The legal question concerned the validity of the recovery in absence of independent public witnesses and whether the prosecution proved exclusive possession of the place of recovery. The High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the police violated the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Because the police knew beforehand of the search in an inhabited village, associating independent respectable mashirs was obligatory. The Court further noted that exclusive possession over the fodder lying in an open area in front of the house was not established, the evidence and recovery memos were stereotypical, and the appellant had already been acquitted in the main substantive case.
Questions settled- Is compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory when police have prior knowledge of the place to be searched in an inhabited locality?
- Can a conviction under the Arms Ordinance be sustained where recovery is effected from an open place outside a house without establishing exclusive possession of the accused?
- What is the evidentiary value of stereotyped recovery memos and testimony of police witnesses when independent public mashirs are omitted without explanation?
- Nuzhat Fatima vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 559 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-21Read full judgment →
- Nusrat Oil Mills vs Razzaq & Co.1996 MLD 1501 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
- Not vs Not1996 PTD (Trib.) 1117 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
- Noorus Sabah Begum alias Rahat and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1550 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-12Read full judgment →
- Nooruddin and 5 others vs Mst. Amiran Bibi and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside an appellate decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The dispute concerns an agreement dated 18-4-1977 regarding the sale of a shop, which involved a complex arrangement for payment and the simultaneous transfer of land. The trial court initially granted a decree for the refund of money, but the District Judge reversed this, granting specific performance. The High Court, in revision, concluded that the original agreement to sell had been rescinded and replaced by a subsequent 'exchange deed' regarding the land, invoking the doctrine of novation of contract. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that the subsequent agreement was merely a reiteration of the original terms rather than a substitution. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court correctly construed the subsequent agreement as a novation of the original contract, thereby extinguishing the rights under the initial agreement to sell.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent agreement regarding the transfer of land constitutes a novation of an original agreement to sell?
- Can a contract be considered rescinded if the subsequent agreement is merely a reiteration of the original terms?
- Does the doctrine of novation of contract extinguish rights under an original agreement?
- Noorman Shah and another vs M/s. Pak Hard Board Industries1996 PLC 56 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
- Noorani Enterprises vs Messrs Beg Enterprises Through (Recd.) Lt.Col.1996 MLD 1206 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Noorani Enterprises vs Beg Enterprises through (Retd.) Lt.Col. Anwar Jan1996 MLD 1206 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Noora vs The State1996 MLD 106 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-20Read full judgment →
- Noor Shah Rashid vs Superintending Engineer, Lower Chenab Canal1996 PLC (C.S.) 234 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
- Noor Shah Rashid SLB Divisional Clerk vs Superintending Engineer And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 32 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad. Noor vs Muhammad Azhar, Manager, Daily Jang, Quetta ,1996 PLC 510 · Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employees · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Sher Afzal and another1996 P Cr. L J 1181 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Nazar Muhammad1996 CLC 455 · Board of Revenue · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib and another1996 CLC 268 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence for murder. The petitioners, a father and son, were convicted by the trial court for the double murder of two women, with the son receiving the death penalty and the father receiving life imprisonment. The High Court maintained these convictions. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt through credible eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the recovery of incriminating items from the son at the scene. The Court dismissed the petition regarding the father, finding no infirmity in the lower courts' judgment. However, the Court granted leave to appeal regarding the son's death sentence. The ratio for granting leave is that the alleged motive was three years old with no intervening incidents, the immediate cause of the crime remained undisclosed, and the son may have been acting under the influence of his father, necessitating a review of the propriety of the capital sentence.
Questions settled- Does the lack of an immediate cause for a crime and the potential influence of a co-accused father constitute valid grounds to grant leave to appeal against a death sentence?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained where eyewitness testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of blood-stained items from the accused at the scene?
- Is it appropriate to maintain a sentence of life imprisonment for a co-accused when no incriminating recovery was made from them?
- Noor Muhammad alias Gogi vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1342 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-24Read full judgment →
- Noor Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 790 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the appellant acted in the legitimate exercise of the right of private defense, given that he and his father sustained serious injuries during the same incident, a fact suppressed by the prosecution in the First Information Report. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution's version was unreliable due to the suppression of material facts. The Court established that when two conflicting versions of an incident exist, the version favorable to the defense must be preferred if it aligns with the evidence and common sense. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the right of private defense, as defined under Sections 96 and 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, justifies the use of force, including causing death, when there is a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, and that such actions, taken in a state of panic, cannot be measured on a 'golden scale'.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused in the FIR cast doubt on the prosecution's version of the incident?
- When two conflicting versions of an incident are presented, which version should the court prefer?
- Can a person who acts in a state of panic while exercising the right of private defense be held to the same standard of conduct as one acting in calm circumstances?
- Does the right of private defense extend to causing death when there is a reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt?
- Noor Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 181 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate convicting the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of heroin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the recovery and identity of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding mandatory search procedures and a material discrepancy in the weight of the sample recorded in the police evidence versus the Chemical Examiner's report. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and an unexplained, major discrepancy between the ten grams of sample alleged to have been dispatched and the one gram actually received by the Chemical Examiner created a serious, reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that a material discrepancy in the weight of a chemical sample, when unsupported by clarifying evidence, creates a fatal doubt regarding the integrity of the prosecution case, entitling the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does a major discrepancy between the weight of the drug sample stated by police witnesses and the weight reported by the Chemical Examiner create a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal?
- Can a material discrepancy in the Chemical Examiner's report be dismissed as a mere clerical mistake without supporting evidence brought on record by the prosecution?
- Does the failure to associate independent witnesses from the public during recovery proceedings violate section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Noor Hussain vs Allah Ditta, And 13 Other(K.L.R 1996 Revenue Cases 153) · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-08-19Read full judgment →
- Noor Hussain vs Allah Ditta and 13 others1996 MLD 1102 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
- Noor Hussain vs Allah Ditta And 13 Other1996 MLD 1102 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
- Noor Elahi and 2 others vs Muhammad Sharif Khan Shinwari and 231996 SCMR 1661 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld an eviction order passed by the Controller of Rents. The petitioners, tenants of a hotel and restaurant, faced eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord on grounds of personal requirement and subletting under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether a clause in a written rent agreement, stipulating that the lease would not be extended and the landlord could initiate legal proceedings upon expiry, satisfies the statutory requirement of a two-year notice period mandated by the third proviso to section 17(4) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The Court observed that the landlord failed to serve a formal written notice two years prior to filing the ejectment application. Recognizing that the interpretation of whether contractual terms can substitute for statutory notice requirements is a significant legal issue requiring authoritative determination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve this specific question of law, while maintaining the status quo.
Questions settled- Does a clause in a rent agreement stating that a lease will not be extended and that the landlord may initiate legal proceedings upon expiry satisfy the two-year notice requirement under the third proviso to section 17(4) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Is a formal written notice mandatory under the third proviso to section 17(4) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, before a landlord can seek eviction on the ground of personal requirement for premises used as a hotel or restaurant?