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.
- Khurshid Ahmad Lang vs The State and others1996 P Cr. L J 1292 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
- Khursheed Anwar vs The State and 3 others1996 MLD 111 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
- Khursheed Anwar vs The State And 3 Other1996 MLD 111 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bux vs The State1996 MLD 1030 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1226 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Minister for Revenue and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
- Khizar Hayat vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1461 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
- Khizar Hayat and others vs Ghulam Muhammad and others1996 CLC 127 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- Khial Badshah and anothers vs The State and another1996 SCMR 948 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed their appeal and upheld their conviction under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of fire-shots and the contents of the deceased's stomach warranted setting aside the conviction, and whether long abscondence of the accused was a valid incriminating circumstance. The Supreme Court held that there was no material conflict between the medical and ocular evidence, and the minor discrepancies raised by the defence did not discredit the eye-witnesses. The Court laid down the principle that in the absence of positive medical testimony contradicting the eye-witness account, and where ocular evidence is natural, corroborated by motive, prompt reporting, and long unexplained abscondence of the accused, the conviction concurrent with lower courts will be maintained. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Questions settled- Whether discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of fire-shots are sufficient to set aside a murder conviction?
- Does the presence of semi-digested food in the stomach of the deceased, contrary to the statements of eye-witnesses regarding meals, constitute a material contradiction?
- Can long unexplained abscondence of the accused be treated as an incriminating circumstance supporting a conviction?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding appreciation of evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Khayabaneiqbal (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others vs Mustafa Haji Muhammad1996 CLC 1758 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated suits arising from a property dispute between a private company ("the Owners") and an individual ("the Purchaser"). The Purchaser claimed the existence of a concluded oral agreement for the sale of immovable property and sought specific performance, while the Owners denied the existence of any binding contract and sought a permanent injunction against the Purchaser’s claims. The core legal question was whether a binding oral agreement existed and whether the Purchaser was entitled to interim injunctive relief. The Court held that the Purchaser failed to establish a prima facie case for a concluded agreement, noting that negotiations had not finalized and the alleged consideration was never encashed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Purchaser's injunction application and granted the Owners' request to restrain the Purchaser from advertising false claims. The judgment reaffirms that a contract for the sale of immovable property does not create interest in the property itself. Furthermore, oral agreements require clear, satisfactory evidence, and the conduct of parties is essential in determining the credibility of such claims.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell immovable property create any interest or charge on such property?
- Can a court allow the cross-examination of a party on an affidavit during interlocutory proceedings?
- What is the standard of proof required to establish a concluded oral agreement for the sale of immovable property?
- Is a party entitled to interim injunctions in a suit for specific performance without establishing a prima facie case?
- Khayaban-E-Iqbal (Pvt) Ltd And 2 Other vs Mustafa Haji Muhammad And Other1996 K.L.R. Civil Cases 533 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Khawar Munir Dar vs Director-General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab1996 SCMR 1518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal. The core legal question was whether a judgment announced by a Tribunal after one of its members had already retired is legally valid. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a judgment takes effect from the date it is announced, and since the member had retired prior to the announcement and was no longer a member of the Tribunal on that date, the judgment was invalid. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh re-hearing. The key principle laid down is that a judicial or quasi-judicial order or judgment must be pronounced by persons holding office at the time of its announcement.
Questions settled- Is a judgment announced by a tribunal after one of its members has retired legally valid?
- Does a judgment take effect from the date it is recorded or the date it is announced?
- Khawaja Muhammad Naseem vs Shafiqur Rehman1996 CLC 1460 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts below, which decreed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution against the petitioner. The respondent had instituted the suit following his discharge under Section 17 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, in proceedings initiated upon a police report lodged by the petitioner regarding obscene acts near a water spring. The Peshawar High Court examined the essential ingredients required to sustain a suit for malicious prosecution, specifically the absence of reasonable and probable cause and the presence of malice. The Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence and erroneously applied the criminal law presumption of innocence to civil proceedings for damages. Finding that the petitioner had acted upon reasonable and probable cause, with police investigation supporting the initial report and trustworthy witnesses corroborating the allegations, the Court concluded that malice was not established. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the lower courts' judgments were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- What are the essential ingredients that a plaintiff must prove to succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution?
- Does the acquittal or discharge of an accused in criminal proceedings automatically establish the absence of reasonable and probable cause in a subsequent malicious prosecution suit?
- Can the presumption of innocence applicable in criminal trials be utilized to shift or satisfy the burden of proof in a civil suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
- Does the police investigation and corroboration of a complaint by notable witnesses establish reasonable and probable cause for lodging a report?
- Khawaja Muhammad Latif Ahmad vs Secretary, M_O Industries and Production, Islamabad and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1059 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Liaquat vs The State1996 PLD Supreme Court 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial where the appellant and co-accused were initially convicted for murder and attempted murder. While the High Court had previously accepted a compromise regarding the substantive offences of murder and attempted murder, it maintained the convictions under sections 148 and 149. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction under section 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon) and section 149 (vicarious liability) could be sustained when the trial court had not convicted the accused for the substantive offences through the aid of section 149, and where the existence of an unlawful assembly was not established. The Supreme Court held that section 149 is an enabling provision, not a substantive offence, and that a conviction under section 148 requires the existence of an unlawful assembly using force in prosecution of a common object. Finding that the trial court's failure to establish vicarious liability negated the existence of an unlawful assembly, the Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under sections 148 and 149.
Questions settled- Is section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a substantive offence or merely an enabling provision?
- Can an accused be convicted under section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the prosecution fails to establish the existence of an unlawful assembly?
- Does the absence of a conviction for vicarious liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude a conviction under section 148 of the same code?
- Khawaja Mazhar Farid Kureja vs Government of the Punjab and 51996 CLC 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
- Khawaja M. Iftikhar vs Chief Executive, the Pakistan Times, Lahore and 21996 PLC 109 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-09-12Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Kamaluddin vs Ibrahim Khan1996 PLD Karachi 503 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Auto Cars Limited vs Haji Sharif Khan1996 CLC 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns applications for bringing the legal representatives of deceased defendants on record and for condonation of delay in a recovery suit originally instituted in 1977 by a private limited company. The core legal question revolved around the interpretation of Order XXII Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as amended by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, and specifically whether the failure of legal representatives to apply within the limitation period debars them from participating in proceedings or causes the suit to abate. The court held that the 1972 amendment removed the automatic abatement of suits upon the death of a defendant, substituting a discretionary procedure where the court may proceed with the suit and any judgment pronounced retains its force, and that legal representatives are not barred from defending the suit merely because a formal substitution application was not filed within ninety days under Article 177 of the Limitation Act 1908, especially where a list of legal representatives is already on record or intimation of death has been provided. The key principles laid down are that procedural technicalities should not be used to defeat adjudication on merits, that the amended Order XXII Rule 4 does not penalize legal representatives by excluding them from participation, and that courts bear a duty to protect minor legal representatives by appointing a guardian ad litem.
Questions settled- Does the failure of legal representatives to apply for substitution within the period of limitation under Article 177 of the Limitation Act 1908 debar them from taking part in proceedings under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the effect of the substitution of sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 regarding the abatement of suits upon the death of a defendant?
- Can a court proceed against minor legal representatives of a deceased defendant without appointing a guardian ad litem under Order XXXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether delay in bringing legal representatives on record can be condoned under section 151 or section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Khatoon Bibi vs Karachi Transport Corporation Through Director And Another1996 MLD 1197 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khanan Khan vs Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar and 2 others1996 MLD 1428 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
- Khanan Khan vs Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar And 2 Other1996 MLD 1428 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
- Khan Yunus Khan And 2 Others vs The State1996 MLD 414 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs The State and another1996 SCMR 956 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside the respondent's conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder and instead convicted him under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment on two counts with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. According to the prosecution, the respondent shot his sister and another victim at different locations following a business rivalry and alleged provocation. The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 302, but the High Court altered the conviction, holding that the circumstances showed the accused acted under sudden provocation though not grave and sudden provocation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence on record properly justified converting the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part I. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the proper appreciation of evidence regarding sudden provocation, holding that an arguable question of law and fact arose as to whether the circumstances warranted the application of Section 304, Part I.
Questions settled- Whether on proper appreciation of evidence on record the case could fall under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Khan Muhammad and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2052 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
- Khalil-Ur-Rehman vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 973 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmed vs The State1996 SCMR 1144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against his conviction for the murder of Muhammad Riaz and for causing injury to Muhammad Boota. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code was sustainable given his defense that the deceased was injured during a scuffle and his claim of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court observed that there were two eye-witnesses, and despite their relationship to the deceased, their testimony was credible given the lack of prior enmity. The Court rejected the petitioner's version of the scuffle, noting that the fatal injury was not consistent with his account. While acknowledging evidence that the deceased had made objectionable remarks about the petitioner's sister-in-law, the Court held that this did not constitute sufficient grounds for the plea of grave and sudden provocation. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, noting that the petitioner had already received the benefit of a lesser sentence, and refused to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of eye-witnesses who are related to the deceased be relied upon in the absence of prior enmity?
- Does the passing of objectionable remarks against a relative constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to mitigate a murder charge?
- Is a claim that a deceased was injured by their own knife during a scuffle credible when contradicted by the nature of the fatal injury?
- Khalil Ahmed vs M/s. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation,1996 PLC 190 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-09-05Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmed and another vs The State1996 SCMR 1912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment maintaining the appellants' convictions and sentences for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the ocular evidence was reliable despite alleged discrepancies with medical evidence and whether the death sentence imposed on the primary appellant was appropriate. The Supreme Court held that the convictions were sound, finding the ocular evidence cogent and consistent despite minor discrepancies, which the Court deemed insufficient to discredit the witnesses. Regarding sentencing, the Court maintained the convictions but commuted the death sentence of the primary appellant to life imprisonment. The Court reasoned that the fatal injury inflicted upon one victim was likely a mistake in judgment, as the assailant appeared to have intended to target the other victim. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies in ocular evidence do not necessarily invalidate witness testimony if the account is otherwise consistent, and sentencing may be mitigated where a fatal injury appears to result from a mistake in judgment rather than specific intent against that particular victim.
Questions settled- Does the presence of minor discrepancies in ocular evidence necessarily render witness testimony unreliable?
- Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the fatal injury resulted from a mistake in judgment?
- Is medical evidence required to perfectly align with ocular evidence for a conviction to be sustained?
- Khalid Zaman and others vs The State and others1996 SCMR 523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Khalid Zaman against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had modified his conviction for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to a conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with a reduced sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the court could accept a compromise reached between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased to set aside the conviction and sentence. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan found the compromise to be genuine, noting that the heirs had received the Diyat amount of Rs. 172,000 and had affirmed the settlement through affidavits and personal appearance. Consequently, the Court accepted the compromise, converted the petition into an appeal, and acquitted the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where a genuine compromise is effected between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased regarding Diyat, the court may accept such compromise to acquit the accused, thereby rendering petitions for enhancement of sentence infructuous.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be set aside by the Supreme Court based on a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Does the payment of Diyat to the legal heirs of the deceased constitute a valid ground for acquittal in a criminal case?
- What is the effect of a valid compromise on pending petitions for enhancement of sentence?
- Khalid Waseem and another vs Chairman, National Highway Authority, Islamabad and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1129 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
- Khalid Siddique vs Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab, Lahore, and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 672 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Excise and Taxation Officer, challenged a penalty imposed for allegedly reducing a bus's seating capacity to lower tax liability. Following departmental proceedings and an unsuccessful review, he appealed to the Provincial Service Tribunal. The appeal was heard by a Bench consisting of the Chairman and a Member; however, the Member retired before the judgment was delivered. The Chairman subsequently issued the judgment alone, partially accepting the appeal by reducing the penalty. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, raising two primary legal questions. First, whether the Chairman was competent to deliver the judgment alone after the matter had been heard by a two-member Bench, specifically in light of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974. Second, whether the Tribunal erred by failing to specify the duration of the penalty, as required by Fundamental Rule 29. The Supreme Court found these contentions required examination and granted leave to appeal to resolve the conflict in previous judicial interpretations regarding the Tribunal's composition and procedural requirements.
Questions settled- Is a Chairman of a Service Tribunal competent to deliver a judgment alone if the appeal was heard by a Bench comprising both the Chairman and a Member who subsequently retired?
- Does the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 require a penalty of reduction in time scale to specify the duration for which the penalty remains in force?
- Does the special provision regarding the composition of a Bench in the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 override the general provisions of section 3-A?
- Khalid Saleem vs Muhammad Jameel alias Billa and 6 others1996 SCMR 1544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, by leave of the Court, challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the disposal of case property following an acquittal in a dacoity and murder case. The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of a criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue directions for the distribution and administration of property recovered from the house of the deceased which was neither the subject-matter of the offense nor used in its commission. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked the authority to establish a special committee of judicial and executive officers to adjudicate ownership or distribute property that was not involved in the commission of the offense. The ratio laid down is that under Section 516-A and related provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a criminal court's power to dispose of property is strictly limited to property regarding which an offense has been committed or which was used in the commission of an offense, and property merely seized from a victim's premises must be returned to the person from whom it was taken.
Questions settled- Can a criminal court order the disposal or distribution of property that was not the subject-matter of an offense nor used in its commission?
- What is the proper course of action for a criminal court regarding property seized from the possession of a deceased victim during a criminal investigation?
- When should a dispute regarding the title of case property be referred to a Civil Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Khalid Pervaiz Butt vs The General Manager (Operation) Power(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 23) · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Khalid Nawaz and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 118 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
- Khalid Nawaz And Another vs The State1996 MLD 118 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
- Khalid Nadeem vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Collector, Dera Ismail1996 PLC (C.S.) 328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Khalid Nadeem against the dismissal of his civil suit and subsequent appeals regarding a claim for public employment. The core legal question was whether a nephew of a civil servant retired on medical grounds is entitled to claim appointment to the vacant post under the applicable departmental rules and policy, and whether he has the locus standi to challenge the appointment of another person. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no lawful claim to the post because the relevant departmental rules only benefit children of civil servants who die during service, whereas the petitioner's uncle had merely retired on medical grounds. The Court laid down the principle that compassionate appointment rules strictly apply only according to their explicit terms, restricting benefits to children of civil servants who die while in service, and a collateral challenger without a valid underlying right lacks locus standi to question another candidate's regularized appointment.
Questions settled- Does a nephew of a civil servant retired on medical grounds have a legal right to appointment under the rules governing deceased civil servants?
- Can a person who has no lawful claim to a public post challenge the regularized appointment of another candidate?
- Does rule 10(4) of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1989 apply to civil servants who retire on medical grounds?
- Khalid Mukhtar vs Mrs. Sadiqa Tasneem1996 CLC 741 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenges a decree for the recovery of money based on a promissory note. The core legal question concerns whether an appellant, who requested the court to appoint an expert to compare disputed signatures and thumb impressions and explicitly undertook to be bound by the expert's report, is subsequently estopped from challenging the adverse findings of that report. The Court held that the appellant was bound by the expert's opinion, as parties may by agreement adopt a procedure contrary to the ordinary cursus curiae when the court possesses general jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellant was precluded from challenging the decision on merits. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, a promissory note carries a statutory presumption of consideration, placing the burden on the defendant to prove the absence of such consideration. As the appellant failed to rebut this presumption or provide credible evidence, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Can parties to a proceeding by agreement adopt a procedure contrary to the ordinary cursus curiae?
- Is an appellant estopped from challenging an expert's report if they previously undertook to be bound by said report?
- Does a promissory note carry a statutory presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to rebut the presumption of consideration in a promissory note?
- Khalid Memhood vs S.S.P., Gujrat and 6 OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mehmood vs Department of Police, Government of the Punjab, Rawalpindi1996 PLC (C.S.) 1220 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mehmood and others vs The Administrator, Quetta Municipal1996 SCMR 1026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a civil suit filed by the petitioners for declaration, permanent injunction, and specific performance. The petitioners had entered into lease agreements for shops in a basement that had not yet been constructed. The lease term expired, and the respondent (Municipal Corporation) decided to utilize the basement for parking instead of constructing the shops. The core legal question was whether the petitioners possessed a subsisting cause of action at the time of filing the suit, given that the lease term had expired and not been renewed. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that the petitioners failed to establish a cause of action as the lease agreements had expired and the petitioners had not sought renewal. The Court affirmed that a plaint can be rejected for lack of a cause of action based on admitted documentary evidence, even without a written statement, provided the parties have addressed the issue through arguments. The judgment reinforces the principle that a suit cannot be maintained where the underlying contractual right has expired and no subsisting cause of action exists.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected for lack of a cause of action based on admitted documentary evidence before a written statement is filed?
- Does a lessee have a subsisting cause of action for specific performance if the lease agreement has expired and was never renewed?
- Is a party entitled to file a suit for specific performance when the underlying agreement has expired by efflux of time?
- Khalid Mahmood and 9 others vs The Station House Officer, Police1996 P Cr. L J 263 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-18Read full judgment →
- Khalid Iqbal vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 264 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hussain vs Water and Power Development Authority through its1996 SCMR 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Line Superintendent of the Water and Power Development Authority, challenged an order imposing a penalty and withholding his increment through a departmental appeal and subsequently before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine as time-barred, noting an unexplained delay of over two and a half years in filing the departmental appeal, and rejected the petitioner's excuse that relevant documents were trapped in a flood-affected native village. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the explanation tendered by the petitioner was inherently unbelievable and insufficient to justify the prolonged delay. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the appeal was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation and refusing to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the principle that unexplained and protracted delays in pursuing administrative and legal remedies cannot be condoned.
Questions settled- Whether an inordinate delay of over two and a half years in filing a departmental appeal can be condoned on the ground that necessary documents were located in a flood-affected area?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal justified in dismissing an appeal in limine when the appellant fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for delay?
- Khair Din vs Abdul H4eem1996 MLD 646 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
- Khair Deen vs Rehm Deen and 4 others1996 CLC 1731 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Court committed a legal error by failing to dispose of a pending application for the production of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, before deciding the appeal on its merits. The High Court examined the record and confirmed that the Appellate Court had indeed failed to pass any order regarding the said application. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that it is incumbent upon a court to ensure that all pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of, either by order or dismissal, before hearing arguments in a suit or appeal. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned appellate judgment and remanded the case to the Appellate Court with directions to decide the appeal afresh after specifically disposing of the application for additional evidence within a stipulated timeframe.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court legally required to dispose of a pending application for additional evidence before deciding an appeal on its merits?
- Does the failure of an appellate court to pass a specific order on a pending miscellaneous application constitute a ground for setting aside its judgment?
- Can an appellate court ignore a pending application for additional evidence if the party has not pressed it during the hearing?
- Khadim Hussain, A.S.I. vs Superintendent of Police, Rahimyar Khan and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 611 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs S.P. Rehimyar Khan, And Another(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 8) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-01Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs Rani Ghee Mills Limited, Jhelum through Manager1996 PLC 291 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs Javed Sarwar and another1996 PLD Supreme Court 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the court challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondent, a police constable, of murder. The core legal questions involved the condonation of delay in filing a petition against acquittal by a private complainant, the proper appreciation of ocular and medical evidence in a criminal trial, and the determination of the precise offence committed when a sudden altercation results in fatal injuries from kicks and fists without premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had grossly misread the evidence and that the ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, conclusively established the respondent's role in inflicting fatal injuries during a sudden scuffle. The Court laid down that delay in filing a petition against acquittal must be decided on the merits of each individual case, and where an accused causes grievous hurt during a sudden altercation without the intention or knowledge that death would result, the conviction must be altered from murder to voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
Questions settled- Whether delay in filing an appeal or petition against an order of acquittal by a private complainant can be condoned?
- Does the absence of specific cause of death in medical evidence preclude conviction when ocular and medical testimonies establish grievous injury?
- Whether an accused who inflicts fatal injuries via kicks and fists during a sudden altercation without murderous intent is guilty of murder or voluntarily causing grievous hurt?
- Khadim Hussain through Legal Heirs and 5 others vs Mst. Fazlan Bibi and 41996 SCMR 437 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal questions involved were whether the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act applied to revision petitions under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, and whether concurrent findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence could be interfered with. The Supreme Court held that while the statute does not prescribe a limitation period for filing a revision application under section 115, a settled rule of practice requires such petitions to be filed within ninety days, and any delay beyond this period must be satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. The Court further held that concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts warranted no interference in the absence of any misreading or non-consideration of material evidence. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether Article 181 of the Limitation Act applies to revision applications filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- What is the applicable period of limitation as a rule of practice for filing a revision application in the High Court?
- Does the onus lie on the petitioner to explain the delay when a revision application is filed beyond ninety days?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts be interfered with in revision when no material evidence has been misread or overlooked?
- Khadim Hussain and anothers vs The State and others1996 MLD 903 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain And Another vs The State And Another1996 MLD 903 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
- Khadim Ali and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 1855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment by the High Court of Baluchistan, which maintained the petitioners' convictions under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for the illicit possession of firearms and ammunition recovered from a vehicle. The core legal questions were whether the delay in preparing the recovery memo and the alleged absence of a proper First Information Report (F.I.R.) vitiated the trial and conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court clarified that the receipt and recording of an F.I.R. is not a condition precedent to initiating a criminal investigation, nor is an F.I.R. substantive evidence in itself. It serves primarily to corroborate or contradict statements made in court under Article 153 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The Court further held that the absence or defectiveness of an F.I.R. does not automatically vitiate a trial, provided the prosecution machinery was validly set in motion and no prejudice was caused to the accused.
Questions settled- Is the recording of a First Information Report a condition precedent to the commencement of a criminal investigation?
- Can the absence or defectiveness of a First Information Report vitiate a criminal conviction?
- What is the legal status of a First Information Report as evidence in a criminal trial?
- KH Alid And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 23 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
- Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1996 PTD 166 · Kerala High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
- Kashif-Ur-Rehman and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1689 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Quetta, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Rana Ejaz. The core legal question involved the reliability of the deceased's dying declaration contained in the Fard-e-Bian, the evidentiary value of police testimonies without independent private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the death was a direct proximate result of the initial gunshot wounds given that the victim survived for approximately two months before dying of peritonitis and toxemia. The Balochistan High Court held that the dying declaration was voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by medical evidence, the ballistic report, and the recovery of the crime weapon, and that the death was the natural and probable consequence of the initial gunshot injuries. The High Court established that a dying declaration does not mandatorily require independent corroboration if found reliable, that the mandatory requirements of Section 103 Cr.P.C. are not absolute in emergent situations, and that the testimony of police officials cannot be discarded merely due to their official status.
Questions settled- Whether a dying declaration can form the sole basis of a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a search and recovery automatically illegal?
- Whether an accused can be held responsible for murder when the death occurs months later due to intervening complications arising from the original gunshot wounds?
- Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely due to the absence of private independent witnesses during an investigation?
- Karimsons, Cotton Ginners, Liaqat Pur, District Rahimyar Khan and 21996 CLC 362 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
- Karim Bhai vs Hatim Bhai1996 KLR Civil Cases 518 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
- Kareesh and others vs Sispal and another1996 P Cr. L J 937 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
- Karamat Hussain vs Water and Power Development Authority and another1996 SCMR 461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 6-4-1993, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his penalty of reduction to the post of Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer for three years following an inquiry that found him guilty of corruption. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence and applied its mind in upholding the disciplinary action. The Supreme Court considered the petitioner's contentions that the inquiry witnesses were interested parties and that direct evidence of receiving a bribe was lacking. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Service Tribunal rightly relied on the inquiry report where the petitioner was furnished a copy of the report, suffered no prejudice, and was afforded a personal hearing. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by a service tribunal based on proper inquiry proceedings and observance of natural justice will not be interfered with lightly by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with factual findings of the Federal Service Tribunal based on an inquiry report?
- Is a public servant entitled to a copy of the inquiry report and a personal hearing in disciplinary proceedings?
- Whether the penalty of reduction in rank for corruption is warranted under service laws?
- Karam Elahi and 11 others vs Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P.1996 SCMR 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the decisions of various Revenue Authorities regarding the restitution of mortgaged land. The core legal question concerned the starting point of the limitation period for filing a suit for the restitution of mortgaged property. The Revenue Authorities had previously dismissed the respondent's application, calculating the limitation period from the date the mortgage transaction was entered into the mutation record (20-9-1925). Conversely, the High Court, relying on precedent, held that the limitation period commenced from the date the mutation was formally attested (2-10-1925). Upon review, the Supreme Court found the petitioners' reliance on conflicting case law distinguishable and affirmed the High Court's position. The Court held that the right to sue for the restitution of mortgaged land accrues only upon the formal sanctioning or attestation of the relevant mutation. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the suit was within the limitation period, and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for the restitution of mortgaged land commence from the date of the entry of the mutation or the date of its attestation?
- When does the right to sue for the restitution of mortgaged land accrue under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Karam Bakhsh and others vs The Registrar of Trade Unions (South1996 PLC 325 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
- Karachi Port Trust through Chairman, Board of Trustee vs Altaf Ahmed1996 SCMR 1205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that declared the termination of the respondent's employment by the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) to be without lawful authority. The respondent, a Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer, had his services regularized with advance increments, yet was subsequently terminated for unsatisfactory performance during an alleged probationary period. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent could be treated as a probationer after his regular appointment and whether the termination procedure complied with established legal standards. The Court held that the respondent, having been appointed on a regular basis, could not be treated as a probationer. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that even if he were a probationer, the termination of his services for unsatisfactory conduct required adherence to proper show-cause procedures and an inquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the termination was legally flawed. The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory employees cannot be summarily terminated without due process, particularly when their appointment has been regularized.
Questions settled- Can an employee whose services have been regularized be subsequently treated as a probationer?
- Is a show-cause procedure and inquiry mandatory before terminating a statutory employee for unsatisfactory conduct?
- Does a Constitution petition lie against the termination of an employee whose appointment is governed by a statutory provision requiring Federal Government approval?
- Karachi Metropolitan Corporation vs Balochistan Industrial Gases1996 SCMR 1759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which accepted a Constitution petition filed by respondent No. 1 and directed the appellant, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, to implement the decision of the Local Councils Appellate Tribunal requiring the appellant to charge octroi on the net weight of gas rather than the gross weight of gas cylinders and to refund excess amounts collected. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking implementation of a tribunal's order, was bound to examine the legality of the tribunal's decision or could merely act to enforce it as a consent or unchallenged order. By a majority view, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's order was akin to a consent order passed without opposition from a responsible law officer, and since the tribunal's order had attained finality without being challenged through appropriate proceedings, the appeal lacked merit. The key principle laid down is that where an adverse tribunal decision is left unchallenged through proper legal remedies and remains un-assailed, a constitutional petition seeking its implementation may be maintained when supported by a concessional statement that is not shown to be collusive or fraudulent.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is required to examine the legality of an unchallenged tribunal order before directing its implementation?
- Does an appeal lie before the Local Councils Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Mayor regarding octroi assessment?
- Is a concessional statement made by a Law Officer on a point of law before the High Court binding on a local authority?
- Mst. Kalsoom Ara vs Punjab UniversityK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
- Karachi Development Authority vs Shabih RazaK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 297 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
- Karachi Development Authority vs Dr. Hassanuddin Ahmed and another1996 CLC 1836 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-13Read full judgment →
- Karachi Building Control Authority And Other vs Muhammad ArifK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 364 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Karachi (Syed) Tahzib-Ul-Hasan Zaidi vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 464 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
- Kanwar Abdul Rashid vs Capt. Munir Ahmad, Assistant Commissioner, Arifwala, District Pakpattan and 5 others1996 P Cr. L J 1272 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
- Kaneez Bibi vs Sooba1996 CLC 632 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed under section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 seeking the transfer of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights from Narowal to Lahore, where the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage was pending. The core legal question concerned the convenience of parties, the petitioner's ordinary place of residence, and whether the transfer of family suits should be ordered. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish ordinary residence in Lahore and exhibited contumacious conduct by refusing to appear before the Family Court at Narowal despite directions. Consequently, the High Court disallowed the transfer of the restitution suit to Lahore and, exercising its suo motu powers under section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, withdrew the dissolution of marriage suit from Lahore and transferred it to Narowal to be tried along with the restitution suit. The key principle laid down is that a party displaying contumacious conduct and failing to establish bona fides regarding residence is not entitled to discretionary relief for the transfer of a family suit, and conflicting family proceedings between the same parties ought to be tried at one place to avoid contradictory judgments.
Questions settled- Can a family suit be transferred under section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 when the petitioner fails to establish ordinary residence within the jurisdiction of the transferee court?
- Does a party's refusal to put in appearance before the trial court disentitle them to discretionary relief for the transfer of a suit?
- Can the High Court exercise suo motu powers under section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 to transfer a family suit to another court for a joint trial?
- Kandasami Mudaliar vs Muthukrishna Moorthy & Another1996 P.C.T.L.R. 771 · Madras High Court · 1993-03-01Read full judgment →
- Kamran Haider vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1902 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
- Kam Ala Prasad Jaiswal vs Punjab National Bank & Ors1996 P.C.T.L.R. 196 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
- Kalsoom Akhtar, Widow And 3 Other vs Muhammad Aslam And 13 OtherK.L.R, 1996 Civil Cases 411 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
- Kaleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 376 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
- Justice (Rtd.) Qazi Abdul Ghafoor vs The Azad Jammu and Kashmir1996 CLC 1556 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the removal of the appellant from the office of Chairman of the Zakat Council. The appellant was appointed to fill a vacancy created by his predecessor's resignation. The core legal questions were whether the appointment could be for a full three-year term or only for the unexpired term of the predecessor, and whether the government could give retrospective effect to an order relieving the appellant of his duties. The Supreme Court held that, under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Zakat and Ushr Act, 1985, a person appointed to fill a casual vacancy must hold office only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. Therefore, the appointment for a full three-year term was legally invalid. However, the Court ruled that the administrative order relieving the appellant could not be given retrospective effect, as the power of retrospectivity is the sole prerogative of the legislature. Accordingly, the Court upheld the removal but modified the order to take effect from the date of issuance rather than the earlier date.
Questions settled- Can an administrative order be given retrospective effect?
- Does the appointment of a Chairman to fill a casual vacancy under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Zakat and Ushr Act, 1985, extend to a full three-year term or only the unexpired term of the predecessor?
- Does a wrong recital of a provision of law in an administrative order render the order without jurisdiction?
- Jumma Khan vs The State1996 PLD Quetta 37 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
- Jumma and 8 others vs Mst. Zainab Khatoon1996 CLC 686 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
- Judicial II) Ghaus Khan vs Nazir Khan1996 CLC 451 · Board of Revenue · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
- Jhangli, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 174 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- Jhangli and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1920 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- Jehanzeb Khan vs Member (Water) WAPDA, Lahore and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1135 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
- Jehangir Khan and 9 others vs Mst. Ruqia Begum1996 SCMR 1504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which affirmed the decree in favor of the respondent for the possession of agricultural land through the redemption of a mortgage. The core legal question was whether the suit for redemption brought in 1988 was barred by limitation on the ground that the 1902 mortgage was not redeemed within sixty years. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that subsequent legislation, specifically section 14-A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act read with its amendments, had the effect of converting the mortgage into a mere charge on the land retrospectively from 1958. Consequently, the sixty-year limitation period for redemption of a mortgage did not apply since the mortgage itself had ceased to exist and was replaced by a charge before the limitation period expired. The key principle laid down is that evacuee property laws and amendments concerning mortgaged lands allotted to claimants effectively effaced traditional mortgagee rights and converted them into statutory charges, altering the nature of the claim and the applicable legal remedies.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for redemption of a mortgage created in 1902 is barred by time when statutory amendments converted the mortgage into a charge before the expiry of the limitation period?
- What is the legal effect of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14-A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act on mortgagee rights over evacuee property?
- Did the notifications issued under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act extinguish the rights of mortgagees on agricultural lands formerly owned by evacuees?
- Jehangir Khan and 16 others vs Chairman, WAPDA (Water Irrigation), Lahore and 2 others1996 SCMR 1817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants filed a suit for damages against WAPDA, alleging that excavation work on Budni Nullah caused a loss of water pressure, rendering their water flour mills (ganders) inoperable. The Trial Court partially decreed the suit, but the High Court reversed this decision, dismissing the suit on grounds of limitation, failure to specify the identity of the mills, non-joinder of necessary parties, and lack of evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the appellants sufficiently established their claim for damages based on easement or custom. The Supreme Court held that the claim was time-barred under Article 37 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as the suit was filed more than three years after the alleged obstruction. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellants failed to establish a customary easement or provide a factual basis for their damages, noting that claims based on custom must be ancient, reasonable, and continuously enjoyed, which was not proven here. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a suit for compensation for obstructing a watercourse barred if filed more than three years after the obstruction?
- What are the essential requirements to prove a customary easement in a claim for damages?
- Does the failure to produce relevant revenue records create an adverse inference against the party claiming damages?
- Can a claim for damages be sustained when the plaintiff fails to specify the identity of the property for which compensation is sought?
- Jehangir and another vs S.H.O., Police Station Ghaziabad, Sahiwal1996 PLD Lahore 598 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
- Jeewan Bakhsh and others vs Fazal Ahmad and 52 others1996 CLC 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-11Read full judgment →
- Jeal and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1167 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
- Jazib Khan And 3 Others vs The State1996 MLD 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
- Jawad Ali Khan Lodhi, Superintendent Govt. Printing Press, Punjab, Lahore vs Secretary, Govt. of the Punjab, Sga&I Deptt. Lahore And Other(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Services Cases 84) · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Javed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
- Javed Shamshad and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 3 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
- Javed Muhammad Iqbal vs Senior Postmaster, G.P.O. Khushab and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 860 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-01-07Read full judgment →
- Javed Mahmood vs The State1996 MLD 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
- Javed Iqbal, General Secretary, United Workers' Union, Mustehkam1996 PLC 519 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
- Javed Akhtar Junejo vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
- Javed Ahmad and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
- Javaid Iqbal vs The State And 2 Other1996 MLD 626 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
- Javaid Akhtar vs WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of the petitioner, a Line Superintendent-II in WAPDA, from service following allegations of corruption, illegal gratification, and misappropriation of government material. The core legal questions involve whether the dismissal order was vitiated by personal enmity and mala fides of the dismissing authority, and whether a fresh opportunity of hearing was mandated when a prior dismissal order was withdrawn and a fresh order was issued based on the existing inquiry record. The Supreme Court held that allegations of mala fide and enmity must be supported by credible proof, finding the petitioner's purported grievance application to be a fabricated document lacking postal or dispatch evidence. The Court ruled that no fresh opportunity of hearing was required since the petitioner had fully participated in the original inquiry proceedings where he was validly found guilty on evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the departmental authorities and the Federal Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether an order of dismissal passed by a departmental authority can be invalidated on the ground of mala fides without credible proof?
- Is a fresh opportunity of hearing required when an initial dismissal order is withdrawn and a fresh order is passed based on the material already available on record from the inquiry proceedings?
- Whether concurrent findings of guilt by an inquiry officer and the Federal Service Tribunal can be interfered with when no misreading or non-reading of evidence is shown?