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.
- Messrs Hotel Holiday Inn (Changed and Known as Karachi Marriott1996 PLC 626 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs Haye Sons Sugar Mills Limited, Jetha Bhutta, Khanpur through General Manager vs Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur and another1996 PLC 321 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs Hasan Taj & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Commissioner, Sindh1996 PLC 415 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 64 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 challenges an order of the Sindh Labour Court dismissing an appeal regarding social security contributions. The core legal questions concern whether the Commissioner of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution has the legal authority to decide applications and complaints under section 57 of the Ordinance, and whether an establishment remains liable to pay social security contributions once notified, notwithstanding a change in name, ownership, or identity. The Sindh High Court held that the Commissioner is legally competent to adjudicate complaints under the Ordinance, either as the chief executive or through valid delegation by the Governing Body and applicable regulations, and that liability once attached to an establishment via notification continues irrespective of subsequent changes in ownership or name. The court laid down the principle that the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is beneficial legislation to be construed liberally to advance its remedial objects, and that an establishment's statutory liability for contributions persists as long as the establishment itself remains operative.
Questions settled- Whether the Commissioner of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution has the power to decide applications and complaints under section 57 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Does an establishment cease to be liable for social security contributions upon a change of its name or ownership if a valid notification under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 already exists?
- Can the Governing Body of a social security institution delegate its statutory powers and functions to the Commissioner or other subordinate officers?
- Is the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to be construed as a beneficial or remedial legislation for the working classes?
- Moqueem Hassan vs Member Judicial-III/ Notified Officer, Board of2025 LHC 5722 · Lahore High Court · 2025-09-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Gulzar & Companys vs The Town Committee And Other1996 MLD 370 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Galaxy Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd. Company, Karachi vs Dr.1996 MLD 229 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs Flying Board Paper Products Ltd. vs Messrs Lab. Aids1996 MLD 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Flying Board and Paper Products vs Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others1996 PLD Lahore 718 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses a batch of constitutional petitions challenging the imposition of regulatory duty on imported goods via Notification No. 1050(I)/95 dated 29-10-1995, and the withdrawal of sales tax exemptions through notifications dated 4-4-1996. The core legal questions involve the validity of imposing regulatory duty during the currency of earlier exemption-granting notifications, the applicability of such duties to goods contracted or imported prior to the notifications, and the retrospective withdrawal of sales tax exemptions. The Court held that regulatory duty is essentially an additional customs charge and cannot be claimed if an exemption-granting notification is still holding the field, until expressly rescinded. Furthermore, the regulatory duty notification cannot apply to goods that had already entered the territorial waters of Pakistan before its issuance, though mere conclusion of contracts or opening of letters of credit does not exempt importers due to section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969. Regarding sales tax, the Court held that in the absence of a provision parallel to section 31-A in the Sales Tax Act, accrued vested rights on concluded contracts or imports cannot be retrospectively destroyed by executive withdrawal of exemptions. The key principles established relate to the nature of regulatory duty as customs duty, the impact of section 31-A on vested rights for customs, and the protection of vested rights against retrospective executive withdrawal of sales tax concessions.
Questions settled- Whether regulatory duty levied under section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 constitutes a customs duty subject to exemptions granted under section 19 of the said Act?
- Does the mere conclusion of a contract or opening of a letter of credit exempt an importer from the payment of regulatory duty in view of section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Can the Federal Government retrospectively withdraw sales tax exemptions to affect concluded contracts and goods already imported in the absence of a provision equivalent to section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969?
- At what point does an imported good become chargeable to customs and regulatory duty under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Messrs Fauji Sugar Mills, District Hyderabad vs Hafeezuddin1996 PLC 238 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Diamond Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan And Other1996 MLD 654 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Banking1996 PLD Lahore 672 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Full Bench judgment addresses 607 constitutional petitions challenging the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. The core questions concerned the maintainability of constitutional petitions during pending Banking Tribunal proceedings, the appealability of Tribunal judgments, and the constitutionality of sections 6 and 9 of the Ordinance. The Court held that petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution are maintainable where a Tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or where the law is ultra vires. It was decided that Section 4, Section 6(6) as amended by Act VII of 1990, and the first proviso to Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, are unconstitutional, as they erode judicial independence and violate Articles 2A, 4, 8, 25, and 175 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Banking Tribunals constituted thereunder were declared illegal, and pending cases were ordered to be transferred to Banking Courts established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979.
Questions settled- Is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, maintainable during the pendency of proceedings before a Banking Tribunal constituted under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984?
- Can the judgment and decree of a Banking Tribunal be assailed by filing a Constitutional petition notwithstanding that it is appealable before the High Court under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984?
- Are sections 6 and 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, discriminatory and ultra vires the Constitution?
- Is Section 4 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, providing for the establishment of Banking Tribunals, ultra vires the Constitution?
- Is the condition of depositing the decretal amount under Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, an unreasonable restriction on the right of appeal?
- Messrs Capital Farms, Islamabad vs National Development Finance1996 PLD Lahore 99 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal before the Lahore High Court arose from execution proceedings where a third-party objector, claiming under an agreement to sell, challenged a banking court decree and subsequent auction of mortgaged property. The core legal questions involved whether a stranger to a suit can challenge a decree by way of appeal, the effect of an agreement to sell against a prior registered mortgage, and whether a party who acquiesces in auction proceedings can subsequently challenge the underlying decree. The Court held that a stranger may file an appeal with leave of the court if adversely affected, but leave will be refused where the appellant lacks a present interest, has acquiesced in the proceedings by participating in the auction, and where an innocent third-party auction-purchaser's rights have intervened. The key principles laid down include that an agreement to sell creates no ownership interest until a sale deed or decree for specific performance is executed, a mortgage certified under section 127 of the Companies Ordinance creates a valid first charge, and a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate by participating in an auction and later challenging the decree.
Questions settled- Can a person who is not a party to a suit file an appeal against an adverse judgment and decree?
- Does an agreement to sell create an actionable right or interest in immovable property prior to the execution of a sale-deed or specific performance decree?
- Whether a prior registered mortgage or charge takes precedence over a subsequent agreement to sell?
- Can a party that participates in execution auction proceedings subsequently challenge the validity of the underlying decree?
- Messrs Azhar Asia Shipping Agency and another vs Ghaffar1996 PLD Supreme Court 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an admiralty suit wherein a compromise decree was passed under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners subsequently filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the compromise decree, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. They contended that their former counsel had entered into the compromise without authority and after new counsel had been engaged. The core legal questions were whether engaging additional counsel automatically revokes a previous counsel's authority, and whether a compromise entered into by an authorized counsel and signed by a representative binds the principal. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the Section 12(2) application, holding that the engagement of additional counsel does not automatically revoke the authority of previously appointed counsel. Furthermore, as the Vakalatnama explicitly authorized compromise, the vessel's captain signed the application, and subsequent counsel raised no objection during execution proceedings, fraud was ruled out. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Does the engagement of new counsel in a case automatically operate as a revocation of the authority of previously engaged counsel?
- Can a compromise decree be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for fraud where the Vakalatnama expressly authorized the counsel to compromise and representatives signed the application?
- Whether a compromise entered into by a counsel on behalf of a party within the scope of their written authority binds that party?
- Messrs Avari Towers Hotel, Karachi vs Shah Nawaz and 7 others1996 PLC 304 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Al-Hamza Ship Breaking Company and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance & Economic Affairs (Revenue Division), Islamabad and others1996 PTD 347 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-11Read full judgment →
- Meraj Din, Etc vs Chief Engineer, EtcK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 64 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
- Member (Judiciali), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others vs Waryam1996 SCMR 1510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the resumption of state land allotted to a Lambardar. The respondent, a Lambardar, was allotted land under a government policy, but revenue authorities ordered the resumption of the land on the ground that the respondent failed to take possession in terms of section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and that his documents showing possession were not genuine. The High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition and set aside the resumption orders. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court was right in setting aside the orders given that possession had not been taken under section 10(4). The Supreme Court held that since the respondent failed to take possession in accordance with the Act, there was no valid grant in his favor, and the High Court erred in deeming the land allotted under a subsequent departmental memo without prior examination by the competent authority. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority to examine the case for allotment under the policy memo while maintaining status quo.
Questions settled- Does a person acquire any right or title in allotted state land without taking physical possession with the permission of the Collector pursuant to section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
- Can the High Court directly deem state land to be allotted under a departmental policy memo without requiring the competent authority to examine the case first?
- Are temporary cultivation conditions applicable to tenancies granted under the 1971 Government Policy for Lambardars?
- Mehtab Khan vs The State1996 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal and confirming his death sentence for a murder committed in 1985, following a conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge-Swabi under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the reliability and sufficiency of a dying declaration made by the deceased, particularly regarding identification at night and whether the absence of specific testimony from the examining lady doctor regarding the reading-over of the statement vitiated its evidentiary value. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration was straightforward, truthful, properly recorded, and fully corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, and that identity was unquestionable as the accused was a co-villager known to the deceased. The petition was dismissed on merits; however, applying the principle laid down in Eid Muhammad v. The State regarding the Amnesty Order of 1988, the Court commuted the petitioner's death sentence to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be safely based on a dying declaration alone when corroborated by medical evidence and when the accused is a known co-villager?
- Does the failure of a medical doctor to explicitly depose that a dying declaration was read over to the deceased render the dying declaration doubtful?
- Whether the sentence of death awarded before December 7, 1988, but not yet confirmed by the High Court, qualifies for commutation to life imprisonment under the Amnesty Order of 1988?
- Mehraj Din vs Ward Ali1996 MLD 747 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
- Mehjabeen vs Government of the Punjab And Other(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service 136) · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
- Mehinwal Khan vs Khuda Bakhsh Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 322 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
- Mehinwal Khan vs Khuda Bakhsh EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-27Read full judgment →
- Mehinwal Khan vs Khuda Bakhsh and others1996 MLD 252 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
- Mehinwal Khan vs Khuda Bakhsh Aid Other1996 MLD 252 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
- Mehdi Hassan vs Ahmed Ali1996 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mehdi Hasan vs Sindh Labour Court No. 1, Karachi and another1996 PLC 242 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mehboob-Ur-Rehman vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge, Karak, alongside a connected criminal revision filed by the complainant for sentence enhancement. The prosecution case rested primarily on the sole ocular testimony of the deceased's mother, supported by medical evidence and an alleged motive of loan repayment. The Peshawar High Court examined the contradictions between the First Information Report, the ocular testimony, the site plan, and the medical evidence regarding the manner of the assault, the positioning of the parties, and the post-incident transport of the body. The Court held that irreconcilable contradictions and material improvements in the sole eye-witness's testimony shattered her credibility and rendered the prosecution's version highly doubtful, while the alleged motive remained unproved. Emphasizing that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the sentence enhancement revision as infructuous, laying down that false implications and material discrepancies in a sole witness's account warrant total rejection of the ocular testimony.
Questions settled- Whether material contradictions between the First Information Report, ocular testimony, and medical evidence are sufficient to discard the testimony of a sole eye-witness?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive weaken its case?
- Whether the prosecution must succeed on the strength of its own case regardless of the weakness of the defence?
- What is the effect of false implications of co-accused on the credibility of an eye-witness in a murder trial?
- Mehboob Iqbal vs The State1996 SCMR 1910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Attock, for the offence of sodomy under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following their acquittal of charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed their appeal, leading to the present petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court observed significant weaknesses in the prosecution's case, including a two-day delay in lodging the First Information Report, the failure of the victim's father to corroborate the victim's claim of narrating the incident to him, and the fact that the prosecution's own eye-witnesses, examined as court witnesses, did not support the case. Additionally, the Court noted material discrepancies in the victim's testimony and a delay in medical examination. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants.
Questions settled- Does a delay of two days in lodging an FIR, coupled with material discrepancies in the victim's testimony, undermine the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's eye-witnesses fail to support the case and are instead examined as court witnesses?
- Is the testimony of a victim sufficient for conviction if it lacks corroboration and is contradicted by other evidence?
- Mehboob Ali vs The State and 3 others1996 PLD Lahore 454 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the registration of an F.I.R. against a Revenue Patwari, a public servant, for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether a local Station House Officer (S.H.O.) possessed the legal authority to register and investigate a criminal case against a public servant for scheduled offences, or if such jurisdiction exclusively vested in the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The Court held that the registration of the F.I.R. by the S.H.O. was illegal and without lawful authority. The Court determined that under the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance 1961 and the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985, cases involving public servants for scheduled offences must be initiated and registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment following specific preliminary inquiries and written orders from designated officers. Consequently, the F.I.R. was quashed, though the Court clarified that the competent authorities remained free to initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.
Questions settled- Does a local Station House Officer have the authority to register a criminal case against a public servant for scheduled corruption offences?
- Are offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 committed by a public servant considered scheduled offences under the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance 1961?
- What is the mandatory procedure for registering a criminal case against a public servant under the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985?
- Can a court quash an F.I.R. if it was registered by an officer lacking the requisite legal authority?
- Mehboob Ali vs The Director, Kachi Abadi and anothers1996 MLD 865 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Ali vs The Director, Kachi Abadi And Another1996 MLD 865 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Ali and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Alam, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 184 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
- Mazhar vs State1996 CLC 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Rashid Zahid vs Punjab Provincial Transport Authority(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 87) · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mazdoor Union, Karachi Water and Sewerage Board vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Central Division, Karachi and 9 others1996 PLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mazar and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1404 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
- Maulvi Muhammad Zufran and 273 others vs Malik Nehmat and 619 others1996 MLD 1576 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
- Maulvi Muhammad Zufran And 273 Others vs Malik Nehmat And 619 Other1996 MLD 1576 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
- Maulvi Abdul Rehman vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore1996 PLC (C.S.) 1051 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- Maulvi Abdul Rehman vs Chief Administrative of Auqaf Punjab, Lahore, And Another(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 30) · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Maulana Muhammad Azam Tariq, M.Na. vs Khurshid Ali and another1996 P Cr. L J 119 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondent by the High Court in a writ petition. The petitioner contended that the bail order was passed without jurisdiction, citing a Supreme Court dictum requiring matters under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 to be heard by a Division Bench. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to review, recall, or revise its own order passed in a constitutional petition involving criminal matters. The Court held that it lacks the jurisdiction to review or alter its own judgment, as Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 precludes such review in criminal matters. The Court emphasized that allowing such reviews would lead to litigation multiplicity and conflict with statutory provisions. Furthermore, it affirmed that the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 remains distinct and cannot be undermined by subsequent attempts to relitigate settled orders through bail cancellation applications.
Questions settled- Is the High Court competent to review or recall its own order passed in a criminal matter?
- Does Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the High Court from reviewing its own judgments?
- Can a bail cancellation application under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to seek a review of a High Court's previous order?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to examine detention facts under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 even if the detenu is involved in a criminal case?
- Mateen vs The State1996 MLD 633 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
- Masud Akhtar and others vs The State and others1996 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of criminal petitions arising from a Lahore High Court judgment concerning an incident of firing resulting in murder and injuries due to a dispute over a graveyard site. The Additional Sessions Judge had convicted multiple accused under sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing one to death and others to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court altered the death sentence to life imprisonment, set aside certain convictions due to lack of proof of active participation, altered others to section 302/34, and modified convictions for murderous assaults and unlawful assembly. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including statements of injured eyewitnesses, weapon recoveries, and medical evidence, and found no merit in the petitions filed by the convicts, complainant, and the State. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed all the petitions, upholding the findings and modifications made by the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact properly scrutinized by the lower courts based on eyewitness and medical evidence?
- Does the absence of a strong premeditated motive justify altering a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether individual criminal liability can be separated from common intention when active participation in a crime is not proved against certain co-accused?
- Master Shah Wali Khan vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Islamabad and 41996 PLD Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
- Master Muhammad Ismaeel and another vs Government of Balochistan1996 SCMR 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over revenue record entries concerning land in District Khuzdar, where appellants sought a declaration of their status as 'Mouroosi Bazgars' (occupancy tenants) entitled to proprietary rights under a 1977 government notification. The core legal question was whether the appellants held the status of occupancy tenants or were merely 'tenants-at-will,' and whether the subsequent correction of revenue records by the Deputy Commissioner was lawful given a document signed by the appellants surrendering their proprietary claims. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that the appellants were tenants-at-will. The Court held that the appellants had failed to challenge the document in which they voluntarily surrendered their proprietary rights and agreed to be recorded as tenants-at-will. The judgment underscores that where a party fails to specifically challenge a document forming the basis of a revenue entry correction in their original suit, they cannot subsequently contest the validity of those entries or the underlying status change in appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a document surrendering proprietary rights, if not challenged in the original suit, preclude a party from claiming occupancy tenant status?
- Can revenue record entries be corrected based on a written statement provided by the occupants?
- Is a person who executes a document as an attorney for a sibling bound by the terms of that document?
- Masserat Bibi vs Muhammad Bashir1996 MLD 692 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal called in question the validity of a Family Court judgment regarding the dissolution of marriage and the return of ornaments. The core legal questions involved whether an appeal filed against a Family Court judgment was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1908, and whether the Family Court was justified in dissolving the marriage on the basis of Khula' and ordering the return of ornaments despite proving cruelty, and whether a party is bound by an offer made by their father without power of attorney. The Federal Shariat Court held that section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to special laws like the Family Courts Act when the First Schedule of the Limitation Act omits a period of limitation, thus allowing the exclusion of time spent obtaining copies under section 12, rendering the appeal timely. The court further held that once cruelty was proved, the lower court was bound to dissolve the marriage on that ground rather than Khula', and that a father's unauthenticated offer or counter-offer cannot bind an adult appellant. The appeal was accepted and the decree modified accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to appeals under the Family Courts Act when no limitation period is prescribed in the First Schedule of the Limitation Act?
- Can the time spent in obtaining copies of judgments be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 for appeals governed by special laws?
- Is a Family Court justified in granting dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula' when an issue regarding cruelty has already been proved?
- Is an adult party bound by an oath or offer made by their father during court proceedings without a formal power of attorney?
- Masood Pervaiz Siddiqui vs Commissioner of Incometax, Companies1996 PLC (C.S.) 282 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-07-16Read full judgment →
- Masood Khan vs The State1996 MLD 502 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
- Masood Javed and 7 others vs Fauji Sugar Mills, Tando Muhammad1996 PLC 341 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
- Masood Ahmed Khan vs Province of Sindh and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 447 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-06-23Read full judgment →
- Masjid Hanfia vs Qurban Hussain Shah1996 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal challenged a civil court judgment dismissing a suit for possession of land (Ahata) filed by Masjid Hanfia against the respondent. The trial court had ruled that the mosque was not a juristic person, the suit was time-barred, and the respondent had acquired ownership through adverse possession. The High Court reversed this decision. It held that a mosque is a juristic person capable of suing and being sued. The court affirmed that property dedicated as Waqf for a mosque is property of God, and no individual, including a caretaker (Mujawar), can claim ownership or title through adverse possession, regardless of the duration of occupation. Furthermore, the court found the suit was filed within the limitation period. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's decree, ruling that the respondents had no legal right to the property, and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant-plaintiffs. The judgment reinforces the principle that Waqf properties are protected from private encroachment and that mosques possess legal standing to protect their assets.
Questions settled- Is a mosque considered a juristic person capable of suing and being sued?
- Can a caretaker (Mujawar) of a mosque claim ownership of Waqf property through adverse possession?
- Does the law of limitation apply to Waqf property dedicated to a mosque?
- Can a suit for possession of Waqf property be filed in a representative capacity?
- Mashooq Ali vs Shahnawaz Junejo1996 SCMR 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an Election Tribunal judgment that declared the election for National Assembly seat N.A. 181 void due to irregularities. The core legal questions concerned whether the Election Tribunal was strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the framing of issues, and whether the election result was materially affected by administrative failures, specifically the non-issuance of postal ballots, the exclusion of voters with specific Identity Card series, and the failure to provide updated electoral rolls to polling stations. The Supreme Court held that the 1985 amendment to Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, removed the requirement for Election Tribunals to follow the strict CPC procedure, meaning the non-framing of issues was not fatal where evidence was recorded. However, the Court upheld the declaration that the election was void, ruling that the failure of election authorities to provide updated electoral rolls and the improper denial of franchise rights to eligible voters constituted a breach of the Act that materially affected the election result under Section 70(a).
Questions settled- Is an Election Tribunal required to follow the strict procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the framing of issues?
- Does the failure to provide updated electoral rolls to polling stations constitute a ground for declaring an election void under Section 70 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Can an election be declared void if the result is materially affected by administrative failures even if the winning margin is large?
- Are voters entitled to cast postal ballots if their applications are received in time, even if not on the specific prescribed form?
- Mashooq Ali Alias Shooka vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 57 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
- Masha Khan vs Chamnai Khan and another1996 SCMR 928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, whereby the respondent, tried and convicted under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was acquitted and given the benefit of the doubt on the ground that the eye-witnesses were related and lacked sufficient corroboration. The core legal question is whether the High Court appraised the evidence in accordance with sound principles for the administration of criminal justice, specifically regarding the weight given to corroborative evidence of absconsion and statements recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine the appraisal of evidence by the High Court and ordered that bailable warrants be issued.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court properly appraised the evidence in accordance with sound principles for the administration of criminal justice?
- What is the evidentiary value of absconsion as corroborative evidence when evaluating a murder conviction?
- How should statements recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered in absconsion proceedings?
- Masab Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 248 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
- Marvi Laboratories vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the Government, Revenue Division, Islamabad and others1996 MLD 131 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jehan Ara vs Mst. Tayyaba Khatoon through Legal Heirs1996 CLC 377 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
- Marvi Laboratories vs The Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary To The Government, Revenue Division, Islamabad And Other(PTCL 1996 CL. 112) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Maroon Paracha vs Muhammad Shahid KhanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 509 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
- Maroof Shah and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 174 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
- Mariyum and 3 others vs Ali Bahadur1996 CLC 692 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Shah and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 498 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Shah And Another vs The State1996 MLD 498 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Akhtar Butt vs Muhammad Rafique Awan and others1996 PLC 35 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmed vs Engineer-in-Chief, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 286 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-10-05Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmed alias Sooda vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1514 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-23Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Hussain vs The State1996 MLD 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Hussain vs Muhammad Lal and anothers1996 MLD 941 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-01-13Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Hussain vs Muhammad Lal And Another1996 MLD 941 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-01-13Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Hussain vs Abdul Qayyum and others1996 CLC 167 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmed and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for murder and attempted murder. The petitioners challenged the judgment of the High Court, which maintained their convictions and sentences under sections 302, 307, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of an injured witness, in the absence of independent corroboration, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the physical impossibility of the injuries as described by the prosecution warranted acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of the injured witness, whose presence at the scene was established and who had no enmity with the accused, was sufficient to support the conviction when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. The Court rejected the argument regarding the impossibility of the injuries, noting that the location of wounds depends on the specific circumstances of the struggle. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the convictions.
Questions settled- Is the solitary testimony of an injured witness sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Can a conviction be maintained where the physical possibility of an injury is challenged based on the positioning of the victim and assailant?
- Does the presence of an injured witness, whose presence is established and who lacks enmity, provide sufficient basis for conviction?
- Manzoor, Elahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 363 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
- Manzoor vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 830 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Textile Mills Ltd. vs Special Judge Banking, Lahore and others1996 CLC 422 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the Special Judge Banking, Lahore, dismissing the petitioner's application for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restrain the encashment of irrevocable letters of credit (LCs) issued in connection with a contract for the supply of cotton. The core legal question was whether a court can restrain the encashment of an irrevocable letter of credit or bank guarantee based on a private dispute regarding the quality of goods between the buyer and seller. The Lahore High Court held that banks deal in documents and not goods, and an irrevocable letter of credit constitutes an independent, absolute obligation of the bank to pay upon presentation of stipulated documents conforming on their face. The Court ruled that interim injunctions restraining the operation of LCs or bank guarantees should not be granted except in clear, established cases of fraud known to the bank, as interference severely impacts international trade. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a court restrain the encashment of an irrevocable letter of credit due to a dispute over the quality of goods between the buyer and seller?
- Are banks dealing in underlying commercial contracts or solely in shipping and commercial documents under letters of credit?
- Under what circumstances will an exception be made to the general rule prohibiting injunctions against the payment of irrevocable letters of credit?
- Does the lack of local assets by a foreign seller justify granting an interim injunction to freeze payments under an irrevocable letter of credit?
- Manzoor Hussain vs The Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha1996 MLD 346 · Board of Revenue · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs District Health Officer, Khanewal1996 PLC (C.S.) 562 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 733 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-02Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed and 6 others vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary, S&Gad, Quetta and 2 others1996 PLC 69 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed And 6 Others vs Government of Balochistan Through Secretary, S&Gad, Quetta And 2 Other1996 MLD 171 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed alias Manzoor Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 216 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 466 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Messrs Facto (Pakistan) Ltd. And Other1996 MLD 265 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Facto (Pakistan) Ltd. ant others1996 MLD 265 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Ahmad Yar and 3 others1996 MLD 1867 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Ahmad Yar And 3 Other1996 MLD 1867 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad Khan vs CH.Shah Muhammad, S.H.O, And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 626 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 155 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad and 74 others vs Commander H.Q. South Zone, Karachi1996 PLC 22 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
- Manthar and anothers vs Province of Sindh through Deputy1996 MLD 1510 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
- Manthar And Another vs Province of Sindh Through Deputy1996 MLD 1510 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Azam vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 432 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mansab Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
- Manoj Dyeing Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax D.B.1996 PTD 827 · Rajasthan High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mandviwalla Muaser Plastics Industries Limited, Karachi vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Education, Ministry of Education, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 3 others1996 CLC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the vires of section 15 of the Finance Act, 1992, and SRO No. 139(I)/93 dated 16-2-1993, through which a Federal Education Fee was levied and the Income Tax Department was appointed as the collecting agency. The core legal question was whether the Federal Legislature acted in excess of its constitutional authority in levying the Federal Education Fee for the purpose of general education. Relying on a previous unappealed judgment of the Lahore High Court in Nishat Tex Limited v. The Federation of Pakistan, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Sohail Jute Mills v. Federation of Pakistan, the Court held that a fee can only be levied for services rendered and cannot be imposed to enhance general revenue. The Court concluded that the Federal Legislature acted in excess of its authority. Consequently, the Court declared section 15 of the Finance Act 1992 and the Federal Education Fee Scheme under SRO 139(1)/93 to be ultra vires the Constitution and without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Legislature has the authority to levy a fee for general education under the legislative lists?
- Can the Federal Education Fee levied under section 15 of the Finance Act, 1992 be imposed with a view to enhance the general revenue of the State?
- Whether section 15 of the Finance Act 1992 and SRO 139(1)/93 dated 16-2-1993 are ultra vires the Constitution?
- Managing Director, Agricultural Development Authority, Peshawar1996 PLC 651 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
- Managing Director through Secretary, Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi and another vs Muhammad Aslam and another1996 PLC 113 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-10-02Read full judgment →
- Malik Tariq Mahmood vs Chairman. Pakistan Telecommunication1996 PLC (C.S.) 1036 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
- Malik Sher Ahmad Khan vs The State1996 SCMR 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court reducing the forfeiture of his surety bond from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000. The petitioner had stood surety for an accused charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who subsequently absconded and committed another murder. The core legal question concerned the extent of penalty to be imposed upon a surety for default and whether a lenient view similar to the precedent in Dildar v. The State should be applied. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, being the Lambardar of the village and knowing the accused's credentials, was distinguishable from sureties who acted purely out of innocent fellow-feeling without knowing the accused. The Court concluded that the High Court had already taken a sufficiently lenient view, and thus dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that while courts must balance undue leniency and severity in surety default cases, a surety who is a village headman and presumably aware of the accused's dangerous antecedents cannot claim the same mitigation as a surety acting in total ignorance without financial or personal interest.
Questions settled- Whether a surety who is a village headman and knows the accused's credentials is entitled to a lenient reduction of a forfeited bail bond amount?
- Does standing surety out of benevolence rather than monetary consideration automatically warrant minimal penalty upon the accused's default?
- What factors should a court consider when assessing the extent to which a surety bond should be forfeited?
- Malik Sanaullah vs Mst. Roheela Hassan And Other1996 MLD 702 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →