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.
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Roop Kishore Goyal.PTCL 1996 F.C. 100 · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-07-13Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rasiklal Kantilal Shah1996 PTD 467 · Gauhati High Court · 1993-06-09Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs R.M. Meenakshisundaram(PTCL 1996 FC. 157) · Madras High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Pachi Philip And Co.(PTCL FC. 58) · Kerala High Court · 1994-10-07Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs New India Industries Ltd.1996 PTD 572 · Supreme Court of India · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs N.M. Parthasarathy(PTCL 1996 FC. 1) · Madras High Court · 1994-04-29Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs N. M. Parthasarathy1996 PTD 579 · Madras High Court · 1994-04-29Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs K. Bhaskaran(PTCL 1996 FC. 118) · Kerala High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Jayantilal Sarkarlal Gandhi1996 PTD 646 · Calcutta High Court · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Hardelia Chemical Ltd.1996 PTD 556 · Bombay High Court · 1994-11-25Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Garware Nylons Ltd.(PTCL 1996 FC. 178) · Bombay High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Fancy Corporation Ltd. , .1996 PTD 549 · Bombay High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dr. Usharani Panda1996 PTD 600 · Orissa High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dandeli Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., .1996 PTD 538 · Bombay High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bhandra Zilla Shahkari Kharedi Vikri SanghPTCL 1996 FC. 70 · Bombay High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bhandara Zilla Sahakari Kharedi Vikri1996 PTD 602 · Bombay High Court · 1992-01-27Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bhagwan Broker Agency1996 PTD 591 · Rajasthan High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Baishnab Charan Mohanty1996 PTD 1197 · Orissa High Court · 1994-11-11Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Baishab Charan Mohanty(PTCL 1996 FC. 134) · Orissa High Court · 1994-11-11Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs Major Tikka Khushwant1996 PTD 574 · Supreme Court of India · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat)1996 PTD 840 · Supreme Court of India · 1995-08-16Read full judgment →
- Commander (Retd) Ma. Ansari vs Pakistan Defence Housing Authority1996 CLC 198 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-03Read full judgment →
- Colonies). Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Rafiq1996 CLC 453 · Board of Revenue · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Nowshera and others vs Abdur Rashid1996 CLC 1193 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved two cross-appeals arising from a judgment of the Acquisition Judge, who had enhanced the compensation for land acquired for the University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar. The core legal question was whether the compensation determined by the Collector was sufficient, or if the potential commercial value of the land justified further enhancement. The Court held that the Acquisition Judge correctly enhanced the compensation based on the potential value of the land, noting that the objectors' evidence regarding the land's location and potential for commercial use remained unrebutted. The Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the lower court's valuation while rejecting the objectors' request for a further increase. The key principles laid down are that compensation for acquired land must account for its 'potential value'—the best use to which the land is reasonably capable of being put in the future—rather than being restricted solely to its current use or the date of the initial notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Questions settled- Is the determination of market value for acquired land limited to its current use at the time of the Section 4 notification?
- Can oral testimony be relied upon to establish the market value of acquired land in the absence of documentary evidence?
- Are the factors listed in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 exhaustive for determining compensation?
- Does the potential future use of land constitute a relevant factor in assessing its market value for acquisition purposes?
- Collector, Customs And Central Excise, Peshawar And Other vs Sher Ahmed(PTCL 1996 CL. 571) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Peshawar High Court judgment concerning the disposal of seized silver following the acquittal of the respondent by a Special Judge (Customs). The core legal question is whether a Criminal Court, upon acquitting an accused under the Customs Act 1969, retains the jurisdiction to order the return of seized goods, or if such power vests exclusively in Customs authorities. The Supreme Court observed that while Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally empowers Criminal Courts to dispose of property, existing jurisprudence suggests that confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act 1969 are departmental and quasi-judicial in nature, distinct from criminal trials. The Court noted conflicting judicial views on whether a criminal acquittal automatically overrides the statutory confiscation powers of Customs authorities. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative pronouncement on whether a Criminal Court can restore allegedly smuggled goods to an accused upon acquittal, emphasizing that revenue-side proceedings serve a different purpose than criminal prosecution.
Questions settled- Does a Criminal Court possess the jurisdiction to order the return of seized goods upon the acquittal of an accused under the Customs Act 1969?
- Are confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act 1969 considered departmental or quasi-judicial in nature?
- Does an acquittal in a criminal trial automatically negate the statutory power of Customs authorities to confiscate goods?
- Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Custom House, Peshawar1996 SCMR 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment encompasses two distinct matters from the Supreme Court of Pakistan granting leave to appeal on different legal fronts. The first matter, authored by Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, J., addresses whether a criminal court trying an accused under the Customs Act can, at the time of acquittal, restore allegedly smuggled goods to the accused, considering the exclusive jurisdiction of customs authorities over confiscation and departmental proceedings. The core legal question revolves around the jurisdictional boundaries between criminal courts and customs authorities regarding case property disposal. The second matter, authored by Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, J., arises from a civil petition involving an ex parte decree against the government without recording evidence where substantial property rights were involved. The court granted leave in the first matter to settle the public importance of the criminal court's power of restoration upon acquittal, and in the second matter to examine whether a trial court exercises judicial discretion properly by decreeing a suit against a defendant without recording evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a Criminal Court trying an accused under the Customs Act can, at the time of acquitting the accused, restore to him the goods allegedly smuggled?
- Does a trial court exercise its discretion judiciously when it decrees a plaintiff's claim against defendants without recording any evidence, particularly when substantial property rights are involved?
- Collector of Customs and others vs Tawakkal General Export1996 SCMR 1294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Collector of Customs challenged a judgment of the High Court which had declared the stoppage of export of four consignments of polyester, textile fabrics, and bed-sheets to be without lawful authority. The core legal question revolved around whether sections 16 and 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 were attracted to the case regarding alleged misdeclaration and substandard quality. The Supreme Court found that a corrigendum issued by the appellant authorities revealed they solely relied upon an alleged contravention of the Export (Quality Control) Order, 1973, rather than any misdeclaration of value or duty drawback violations. Furthermore, the appellants failed to produce any applicable notification under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 or the Pakistan Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Ordinance, 1961 covering the subject goods. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that leave to appeal had been granted on a wrong assumption of facts, recalled the leave order, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether sections 16 and 32 of the Customs Act 1969 are attracted when export goods are alleged to be of substandard quality?
- Can an appeal be dismissed upon recalling the leave order if leave was granted on a wrong assumption of facts?
- Collector of Central Excise vs Rajasthan SPG. & WVG. Mills Ltd1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1038 · Supreme Court of India · -Read full judgment →
- Collector Customs and Central Excise Customs House, Peshawar, And Others vs M_S. Sher Ahmed1996 P.C.T.L.R. 182 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which directed customs authorities to return seized silver to a respondent who had been acquitted by a Special Judge Customs. The core legal question is whether a Criminal Court, upon acquitting an accused person in a case under the Customs Act, possesses the jurisdiction to order the disposal or return of goods seized by customs authorities, or if such authority remains exclusively with the customs department. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that while Criminal Courts generally have powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to dispose of case property, previous jurisprudence establishes that proceedings under the Customs Act are departmental and quasi-judicial in nature, distinct from criminal trials. The Court identified a need for an authoritative pronouncement on whether the acquittal of an accused in a criminal trial necessitates the release of goods confiscated under the Customs Act, given that the object of criminal proceedings is punishment, while customs proceedings aim to realize revenue and enforce statutory confiscation.
Questions settled- Can a Criminal Court, upon acquitting an accused under the Customs Act, order the return of goods seized by customs authorities?
- Does the acquittal of an accused in a criminal trial absolve their civil liability under the Customs Act regarding the confiscation of goods?
- Is the power to confiscate goods under the Customs Act exclusive to customs authorities, or can it be exercised by a Criminal Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Col. Syed Maqbool Hussain vs Syed Waqar Hassan and anothers1996 MLD 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
- Col. Syed Maqbool Hussain vs Syed Waqar Hassan And Another1996 MLD 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
- Col. Muhammad Hashim Baloch vs Muhammad Afzal and 5 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan in a constitutional petition. In the High Court, respondents had successfully challenged a notification dated 26-10-1991 inducting the petitioner, a military officer on deputation, into the Balochistan Civil Service in B-19 with top seniority. The High Court declared the induction unlawful. Aggrieved, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, it was brought to the Court's notice that subsequent developments occurred wherein both contesting respondents were promoted to BPS-20 alongside the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents submitted written statements confirming they had no remaining grievance and did not wish to contest the petition. Accepting the statements and changed circumstances, the Supreme Court granted leave, converted the petition into an appeal, and allowed it, thereby setting aside the impugned High Court judgment.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal challenging the invalidation of an induction notification can be allowed when the original writ petitioners concede they no longer have any grievance due to subsequent promotions?
- Whether the Supreme Court may set aside a High Court judgment when the contesting respondents submit in writing that they do not wish to contest the petition?
- Coimbatore Texcity Share Brokers ' Association And Another vs Union1996 P.C.T.L.R. 671 · Madras High CourtRead full judgment →
- Circle Head, National Bank of Pakistan and 2 others vs Labour1996 PLC 411 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-17Read full judgment →
- Chughatta And Others vs The State1996 MLD 638 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
- Chiraghud Din and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1546 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
- Chiragh Din Alias Chiraghoo vs The State1996 MLD 769 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-11Read full judgment →
- Chief Director, Central Directorate of National Savings, Islamabad1996 SCMR 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave of the Supreme Court against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside an order imposing minor penalties on the respondent civil servant. The respondent had been charged with financial irregularities and misappropriation, but was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, whose finding was concurred with by the Authorized Officer. Subsequently, the Authority, invoking Rule 6-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, issued a show-cause notice and passed an adverse order without recording reasons for disagreeing with the exoneration or providing a proper hearing. The core legal question was whether the Authority could exercise its revisional powers under Rule 6-A arbitrarily and without adhering to natural justice. The Supreme Court held that while the Authority possesses revisional powers under Rule 6-A, it cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously, must exercise powers within a reasonable time, and must adhere to the principles of natural justice by providing reasons and an opportunity of hearing when differing from an exoneration order. Given the lapse of 12 years since the initiation of the proceedings, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Authority can exercise its revisional powers under Rule 6-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 without observing the principles of natural justice?
- Is the Authority required to state reasons in a show-cause notice when differing from a concurrent finding of exoneration by the Enquiry Officer and Authorized Officer?
- Within what timeframe must revisional powers under Rule 6-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 be exercised by the Authority?
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Pachi Philip & Co., .1996 PTD 699 · Kerala High Court · 1994-10-07Read full judgment →
- Chief Director, Central Directorate of National Savings, Islamabad1996 PLC (C.S.) 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave of the Court against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside an order of the departmental authority imposing penalties on the respondent, a National Savings Officer. The respondent had been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer and the Authorised Officer regarding charges of financial irregularities and misappropriation. Nearly eight months later, the Chief Director (the Authority) issued a show-cause notice under Rule 6-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, seeking to revise the exoneration, ultimately leading to the imposition of penalties, which the Tribunal subsequently annulled. The core legal question was whether the show-cause notice and the revisional proceedings fully satisfied the requirements of law and principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that while the Authority possesses revisional powers under Rule 6-A, it cannot act arbitrarily, must observe the principles of natural justice, must exercise such powers within a reasonable time, and must record reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Authorised Officer in the show-cause notice to afford the accused an effective opportunity of defense. The appeal was dismissed due to the lapse of twelve years since the initiation of the inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether the Authority can exercise revisional powers under Rule 6-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 without observing the principles of natural justice?
- Does Rule 6-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 require the Authority to record reasons when disagreeing with the findings of the Authorised Officer?
- Within what timeframe must the Authority exercise its revisional powers under Rule 6-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Chaudhry Muhammad Zaman vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 4 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 901 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed to challenge an order of the Service Tribunal of Azad Jammu and Kashmir which dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding seniority and promotion. The core legal question was whether a civil servant who was promoted later can be deemed superseded and lose seniority when his case was not considered by the selection board at the time of the juniors' promotion. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that a civil servant who is senior in a lower grade remains senior in the higher grade upon promotion unless he was actually considered and superseded by the selection authority. The Court established that failure to consider a senior employee's case for promotion does not amount to supersession, and unchallenged departmental orders counting prior service and fixing seniority remain intact and binding.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant lose seniority when promoted later if his case was not considered by the selection board at the time of his junior's promotion?
- Whether unchallenged departmental orders fixing seniority and counting prior service remain binding upon other civil servants?
- Does the principle of determining seniority in promotion differ between the Kashmir Civil Service Rules 1939 and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1977?
- Chaudhry Muhammad Din vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1224 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
- Chamuadi Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (In Company Liquidotion) vs M.C. Cherian And Others1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1286 · karnataka High CourtRead full judgment →
- Chaman Baig vs Karachi Transport Corporation Through Its ChairmanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 316 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and others vs Maj. (Retd.) Nisar Ahmed1996 SCMR 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Chairman, WAPDA and others challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which had accepted the respondent retired Major's writ petition and declared WAPDA's refusal to renew his contract service as without lawful authority. The core legal questions involved were which service rules governed the respondent when his appointment letter stipulated he would be bound by rules prescribed from time to time, the effect of his option exercised under the amended rules, and the maintainability of a writ petition to enforce terms of a service contract. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment, holding that the respondent was bound by the option he formally exercised under the applicable rules and could not resile from it, and reaffirming the principle that contractual rights and obligations, including terms of a service contract, cannot be enforced through constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Are contractual rights and terms of a service contract enforceable through constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- What is the effect of an option exercised by an employee under statutory re-employment rules?
- Does a writ of mandamus issue for the enforcement of contracts?
- Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and another vs Gulbat Khan1996 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals, arising from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, examine whether the Tribunal was legally bound to remand a service matter to the competent authority rather than modifying the penalty and setting aside the removal from service. The respondent, a Line Superintendent with WAPDA, was initially reverted and subsequently removed from service through orders passed without recording adequate reasons or disagreeing with the enquiry report properly. The Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeals, set aside the removal, and converted the reversion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed WAPDA's appeals, holding that while Service Tribunals possess the power to alter punishments or set aside arbitrary orders, remand is not mandatory in every case where an order is found illegal. The Court established that remand depends on the facts of each case and is unnecessary when sufficient material exists on record to decide the matter, particularly where orders are vitiated by arbitrariness, bias, or lack of bona fides.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is bound to remand a case to the competent authority whenever an administrative order is set aside for lack of reasons?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess the power to alter or substitute punishments in service appeals?
- Is remand of a case a mandatory routine matter when an impugned departmental order is found to be arbitrary or illegal?
- Can the competent authority impose a penalty differing from the enquiry committee's findings without recording plausible reasons for disagreement?
- Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 2 others vs Maj. (Retd.) Nisar Ahmed1996 PLC (C.S.) 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a Peshawar High Court judgment directing the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to renew the service contract of a retired Army officer. The respondent, initially employed on a contractual basis, sought the renewal of his contract, challenging the application of amended rules that restricted such extensions. The core legal questions were whether the respondent was bound by the rules as amended from time to time, whether his prior exercise of an option to remain under existing terms precluded him from claiming benefits under unamended rules, and whether a writ petition is maintainable to enforce the terms of a service contract. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, having exercised his option to remain under the existing terms and conditions, was bound by that choice. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle that contractual rights, particularly those arising from service contracts, are not enforceable through writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the writ petition was not maintainable for the enforcement of contractual obligations.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of the terms of a service contract?
- Does an employee who has exercised an option to remain under existing terms and conditions have the right to later claim benefits under unamended rules?
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued for the enforcement of purely contractual rights?
- Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, Islamabad vs Abdul Rashid1996 SCMR 1286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter addresses an appeal concerning the legality of withdrawing provisional seniority lists issued by the department. The respondent challenged the departmental notification that withdrew provisional seniority lists which had assigned him seniority from an earlier date based on a recommendation that was ultimately rejected by the Federal Public Service Commission. The Federal Service Tribunal accepted the respondent's appeal, holding that the provisional lists had attained finality upon the expiry of the objection period. The Supreme Court held that the initial assignment of seniority was based on a factual error, as the respondent had never been appointed against the quota in question and was not a member of the cadre from the claimed date. The Court ruled that provisional seniority lists containing errors apparent on the face of the record do not attain finality so as to create an estoppel against the department, which is under a legal obligation to prepare correct seniority lists in accordance with the applicable rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal and upheld the withdrawal notification.
Questions settled- Whether provisional seniority lists attain finality precluding the department from correcting errors apparent on the face of the record?
- Can an employee claim seniority in a cadre from a date prior to becoming a member thereof based on a rejected promotion recommendation?
- Does an incorrect entry in a provisional seniority list create an estoppel against the department from preparing a correct seniority list in accordance with rules?
- Chairman, Pakistan Railways, Islamabad vs Aftab Ahmad Memon, D.P.O., Pakistan Railway, Karachi and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Chairman, Pakistan Railways, against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had accepted the service appeals of the respondents and set aside the minor punishment of withholding promotion for one year, which had been imposed on them following a railway accident at Ghotki Railway Station. The core legal question was whether the respondents could be held liable for negligence and laxity in connection with the accident when they had been transferred away from the station prior to the incident. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that since the respondents had left their posts one month and three months respectively before the accident occurred, they could not be held responsible for the incident. The Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal, finding no question of law of public importance.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be held liable for negligence regarding an accident at a station where they were no longer posted at the time of the incident?
- Whether a minor punishment of withholding promotion is legally sustainable if the alleged administrative laxity cannot be factually linked to the employee's tenure of service?
- Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi and another vs Sherin Dokhth and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had accepted a constitution petition filed by a female employee challenging her retirement from the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and the vires of Regulation 25 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985. The High Court had found the retirement action to be discriminatory on the basis of sex and violative of Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Before the Supreme Court, the core legal questions concerned whether the service relationship between the Corporation and its employees is governed by statutory rules or the principle of master and servant, and whether the impugned regulations violated fundamental rights. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court noted previous precedents establishing that in the absence of statutory rules framed and published in accordance with the parent statute, the relationship is one of master and servant, and constitutional petitions for reinstatement may not be maintainable. The Court granted leave to examine these questions further without suspending the impugned judgment.
Questions settled- Are the service employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation governed by statutory rules of service?
- Does the relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and its employees fall strictly under the principle of master and servant?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained against the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation in the absence of statutory service rules?
- Whether the retirement regulations applicable to female cabin crew members of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation violate fundamental rights regarding discrimination on the basis of sex?
- Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and anothers1996 SCMR 1520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that accepted a constitutional petition filed by an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). The respondent challenged her retirement, alleging that the PIAC's action was discriminatory and violated her fundamental rights under the Constitution. The core legal question is whether the employment relationship between PIAC and its staff is governed by statutory service rules, which would permit constitutional petitions and claims for reinstatement, or whether it is governed by the principle of master and servant, which restricts remedies to damages. The Supreme Court, referencing established precedents like Raziuddin and Anisa Rehman, noted that PIAC regulations lack the requisite statutory status because they were not gazetted or laid before the National Assembly as mandated by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to definitively determine if PIAC employees are subject to statutory service rules and whether the impugned regulation constitutes unconstitutional discrimination. The operation of the High Court's judgment was not suspended.
Questions settled- Is the relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and its employees governed by statutory service rules or the principle of master and servant?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained against the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation for the reinstatement of an employee?
- Do the regulations framed by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation constitute statutory rules in the absence of gazette notification and laying before the National Assembly?
- Chairman WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and anothers vs Noor Elahi1996 SCMR 1536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chairman WAPDA against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed the respondent employee's appeal regarding the recovery of standard rent for retaining official accommodation post-retirement. The core legal question concerned whether a retired employee could be charged standard rent for unauthorized occupation when an application for regular transfer of the accommodation to his serving son, also a WAPDA employee, remained pending and undecided. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 14 of the Government Residences Allocation Rules, the accommodation was retainable at normal rent until alternative accommodation or proper disposal of the eligible serving family member's transfer application occurred. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the respondent was only liable for normal rent for the disputed period. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a retired government employee can be charged standard rent for retaining official accommodation while an application for transfer of the accommodation to a serving family member is pending?
- Is an employee entitled to retain official accommodation at normal rent under Rule 14 of the Government Residences Allocation Rules until alternative accommodation is provided?
- Ch. Saeed Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance1996 SCMR 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals with leave of the Court challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal maintaining adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the appellant for the periods 1984, 1986, and 1989. The core legal questions concerned whether the Tribunal was justified in treating certain ACR remarks as advisory and whether adverse remarks recorded due to personal bias, prejudice, and unreasonable delay could be sustained. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals and expunged the adverse remarks. The Court held that adverse remarks must be communicated within the prescribed period, and any unexplained, unreasonable delay vitiates their authenticity and efficacy. Furthermore, the Court established that ACR assessments tainted by personal bias, hostility, or animosity between the reporting or countersigning officers and the civil servant carry no legal authority and cannot be allowed to remain on record.
Questions settled- Whether the Tribunal was justified to hold that the remarks recorded in the A.C.Rs for the periods from 1-1-1984 to 14-7-1984 and 1-1-1986 to 10-4-1986 were advisory though ostensibly they appeared to be adverse?
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in maintaining adverse A.C.R remarks in spite of material indicating that the reporting and countersigning officers acted out of personal reasons and bias?
- Does an unexplained, unreasonable delay in communicating adverse remarks to a civil servant vitiate such remarks?
- Can an adverse remark in an A.C.R that is biased, unreasonable, and contrary to facts be allowed to remain on record?
- Ch. Sadiq Ali (Retired) Assistant Engineer_S.D.O., P.W.D. Nia Mohallah, Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmkir vs The Chief Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government, Muzaffarabad and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 337 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
- CH. Pervez Elahi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 559 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
- CH. Pervaiz Elahi Versus . CH. Pervaiz Elahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 631 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Siddique vs Ch. Zahoor Din and others1996 MLD 1814 · Board of Revenue · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Siddique vs Ch. Zahoor Din And Other1996 MLD 1814 · Board of Revenue · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Ismail vs Fazal Zada, Civil Judge, Lahore and 20 others1996 PLD Supreme Court 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for damages where the Civil Judge rejected the plaint for non-payment of requisite court-fee without allowing time to make good the deficiency. The petitioner challenged this order via a constitutional petition under Articles 199 and 203 of the Constitution before the Lahore High Court, which dismissed it in limine on the ground that an appeal was available. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Civil Judge's order, allegedly passed without allowing time, constituted an 'excess of jurisdiction' warranting constitutional intervention despite the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the Civil Judge's action, even if erroneous in not allowing time, amounted to a 'wrong exercise of jurisdiction' rather than 'want of jurisdiction' or 'excess of jurisdiction'. The Court reiterated that constitutional jurisdiction is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, especially when an adequate alternative remedy is available, and that rushing to the High Court without exhausting other remedies is improper.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition be invoked against an order of a Civil Judge rejecting a plaint for non-payment of court-fee if an alternative remedy of appeal is available?
- Does a Civil Judge's rejection of a plaint for deficient court-fee without allowing time to make good the deficiency constitute an 'excess of jurisdiction'?
- When is the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to be exercised?
- Is it proper for a litigant to bypass the remedy of appeal and directly invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Ch. Muhammad Hameed and 9 others vs General Manager, Pakistan1996 PLC (C.S.) 72 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-30Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Ashrif vs Messrs Hi-Teach, Bakers (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi1996 PLC 282 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-04Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar vs Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 3 others1996 MLD 961 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar vs Province of the Punjab Through Secretary, Housing And Physical Planning Department, Civil Secretariat Lahore And 3 Other1996 MLD 961 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
- CH. Mehdi Khan And Another vs 'R'(k.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service 138) · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
- Ch. Masood Ahmed and others vs Messrs Pakistan Machine Tool1996 PLC 358 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
- Ch. Kabir Ahmed vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IV Karachi and another1996 PLC 127 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
- Ch. Irshad Ahmad Virk vs Commissioner Appeals Income Tax and others1996 PTD 279 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the validity of recovery notices and seeking a declaration that his income tax appeal for the year 1994-95 had been accepted by operation of law. The core legal question was whether the failure of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide an appeal within the three-month period prescribed by Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 automatically results in the appeal being deemed accepted, or whether such relief is contingent upon compliance with mandatory procedural requirements. The Lahore High Court held that the deeming provision in Section 132(5) is not self-executing. It ruled that the appellant must strictly comply with the mandatory pre-conditions set out in Section 132(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, specifically the requirement to serve a written notice personally on the Commissioner at least thirty days before the expiration of the three-month period. As the petitioner failed to serve this mandatory notice, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the failure to decide an income tax appeal within the three-month period prescribed by Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 automatically result in the appeal being deemed accepted?
- Is the service of a written notice under Section 132(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 a mandatory pre-condition for invoking the deeming provisions of Section 132(5)?
- Does the fact that an appeal has been fixed or heard by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dispense with the requirement to serve a formal notice under Section 132(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
- Ch. Fateh Jang vs Punjab Election Commission and others1996 CLC 1574 · Election Tribunal · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two election petitions challenging the election of a returned candidate to a Provincial Assembly seat reserved for Christians. The core legal questions were whether the Returning Officer correctly tabulated the final results in Form XVI-B based on the Assistant Returning Officers' Forms XVI-A, whether the latter had been tampered with, and whether the recount conducted by the Provincial Election Commissioner was accurate. The Tribunal held that the Forms XVI-A were authentic and untampered, but the Returning Officer had failed to tabulate the results accurately, leading to an incorrect declaration of the winner. Upon conducting a recount and reconciling discrepancies with Form XIV, it was determined that Qaiser Ifrahim Saroya had secured the highest number of votes. Consequently, the election of the returned candidate, Dr. Sheela B. Charles, was declared void, and Qaiser Ifrahim Saroya was declared elected to the seat. The judgment affirms that election results must be strictly based on verified data from Assistant Returning Officers, and that technical objections regarding ballot validity cannot be raised for the first time during a recount if not previously contested.
Questions settled- Does a ballot paper remain valid if it lacks either the signature or the stamp of the Presiding Officer?
- Can a party raise objections to the validity of votes during a recount if those objections were not raised at the time of the initial count or in the election petition?
- Is a ballot paper without a marking stamp considered invalid under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Can an election tribunal declare an election void based on the incorrect tabulation of results by a Returning Officer?
- CH. C.Hulam Ali vs CH. Muhammad Nawaz, Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 536 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
- Ch. Abdul Majid and others vs Station House Officer and others1996 P Cr. L J 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
- Ch. Abdul Haleem, XEN vs Province of Punjab and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the regularisation of service of a senior employee. The respondent civil servant had remained abroad for seven years, and upon his return, the Provincial Government regularised his absence by treating it as various kinds of leave and reinstated him into service. The petitioner, a junior civil servant, challenged this regularisation before departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal, contending that the prolonged absence automatically terminated the respondent's service, rendering his reinstatement unlawful. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the regularisation of another employee's period of absence. The Court laid down the principle that whether a civil servant is taken back into service is exclusively a matter between that civil servant and the Government, and a junior employee cannot claim a cause of action or grievance relating to their own terms and conditions of service merely because the reinstated senior employee retains original seniority.
Questions settled- Does a junior civil servant have locus standi to challenge the regularisation of absence and reinstatement of a senior civil servant?
- Does the retention of seniority by a reinstated civil servant give a junior civil servant a valid cause of action under service laws?
- Is the decision to regularise an employee's period of absence strictly an administrative matter between the Government and that employee?
- Cetus Electronics P. Ltd., In Re. (DR.) Jitendra Nath Saha And Another vs Si1yamal Mondal And Others1996 P.C.T.L.R. 203 · Company Law Board · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
- Central Cotton Mills Limited and anothers vs Atlas Bot Lease Co.1996 CLC 981 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-01Read full judgment →
- Central Cotton Mills Limited And Another vs Atlas Bot Lease Co. Limited1996 P.C.T.L.R. 102 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
- Central Cotton Mills Limited and 2 others vs Naveed Textile Mills1996 MLD 1943 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Central Cotton Mills Limited And 2 Others vs Naveed Textile Mills1996 MLD 1943 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Central Board Of Revenue And Other vs M/s. Champion Clock Company(PTCL 1996 CL. 383) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the Central Board of Revenue before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a dispute regarding the levy of sales tax on plastic bodies and cases of wall clocks manufactured by the respondent company. The core legal question was whether the exemption from sales tax granted to wall clocks extends to the manufacture of the bodies and cases in which these clocks are housed. The Supreme Court held that while partly manufactured goods are generally subject to sales tax, if such goods are exclusively incorporated into an end product that is exempt from sales tax, tax cannot be levied at two stages of the same manufacturing process, nor can it be charged separately on the component parts if they are not sold independently. The Court laid down the principle that sales tax is not recoverable on intermediate partly manufactured goods that are solely consumed in the production of an exempt end product rather than sold separately.
Questions settled- Whether exemption from sales tax availed for wall clocks is equally available to the manufacture of the cases and bodies in which the clocks are housed?
- Can sales tax be charged at two stages of the same manufacturing process when the intermediate partly manufactured goods are incorporated into an exempt end product?
- Are partly manufactured goods subject to sales tax if they are not sold separately but used exclusively in the production of an exempt end product?
- Central Board of Revenue and 3 others vs Seven-Up Bottling Company (Pvt.)1996 SCMR 700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment declaring the proviso to Rule 7 of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990, as invalid. The core legal question was whether the proviso, which based excise duty liability on the actual production of the preceding year rather than the production capacity of the plant, was discriminatory and ultra vires the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Supreme Court held that the proviso was indeed discriminatory and invalid. The Court reasoned that while the Act and Rules allow for taxation based on production capacity (a mutually exclusive mode from actual production), the proviso created an arbitrary sub-classification within the manufacturer category that lacked a rational nexus to the object of the legislation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that fundamental rights, such as the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution, cannot be waived by a party's prior consent to a taxation scheme. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, striking down the proviso for violating the principle of equality and exceeding the mandate of Section 3(4) of the Act.
Questions settled- Can a party waive their fundamental right to equality regarding taxation?
- Is a taxation rule that bases liability on actual production valid when the enabling statute mandates taxation based on production capacity?
- Does a sub-classification of manufacturers based on prior year's actual production violate the principle of equality?
- Are the modes of levying excise duty based on actual production and production capacity mutually exclusive under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Habibullah Qureshi vs Farooque and 3 others1995 MLD 92 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-27Read full judgment →
- Central Board of Revenue And 3 Others vs Seven-Up Bottling Company1996 P.C.T.L.R. 641 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Central Board Of Revenue And 3 Other vs Seven-Up Bottling CompanyPTCL 1996 CL. 341 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment declaring the proviso to Rule 7 of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Waters) Rules, 1990, invalid. The core legal question was whether this proviso, which linked excise duty liability to a manufacturer's previous year's actual production rather than their production capacity, was discriminatory and ultra vires the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the modes of levying excise duty based on 'production capacity' and 'actual production' are mutually exclusive under the Act and the Constitution. The Court held that the proviso created an arbitrary sub-classification among manufacturers that lacked a reasonable nexus with the object of capacity-based taxation, thereby violating the principle of equality before the law under Article 25 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court established that fundamental rights cannot be waived by a party's prior consent to a taxation scheme. Consequently, the proviso was struck down as discriminatory and enacted beyond the mandate of Section 3(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Questions settled- Are the modes of levying excise duty based on 'production capacity' and 'actual production' mutually exclusive under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Can a party waive their fundamental right to equality before the law by consenting to a taxation scheme?
- Is a sub-classification of manufacturers based on previous actual production within a capacity-based taxation scheme discriminatory?
- Does the proviso to Rule 7 of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Waters) Rules, 1990, exceed the scope of Section 3(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Captain S.M. Aslam vs Mst. Rubi Akhtar1996 CLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arose from constitutional petitions under Article 199 regarding custody of two minor children under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The petitioner-father challenged an appellate order restoring custody to the respondent-mother, who had remarried a stranger to the prohibited degree. The core legal questions pertained to whether a mother loses custody automatically upon remarriage or when minors reach specified ages under traditional Hanafi jurisprudence, how the Majority Act, 1875 intersects with Islamic personal law, and the role of the minors' intelligent preference under Section 17(3) of the Act. The High Court held that the paramount consideration is exclusively the welfare of the minor, not rigid proprietary parental claims or mechanical age rules from secondary commentaries. Minors who have attained puberty possess discretion, and courts exercising parental jurisdiction must ascertain their free intelligent preference. Finding that the subordinate courts failed to ascertain the minors' wishes, the High Court allowed the constitutional petition, set aside the appellate order, and remanded the matter to the District Judge to ascertain the children's preference.
Questions settled- Does a mother automatically lose her right of Hizanat (custody) merely upon contracting a marriage with a person outside the prohibited degrees?
- Whether the age thresholds for custody prescribed in classical legal textbooks override the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor under Sections 17 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
- Does Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875 preclude a Muslim minor who has attained puberty from exercising personal rights and expressing an intelligent preference regarding custody?
- Is an order determining the custody of minors who have attained puberty sustainable if the court fails to ascertain their intelligent preference under Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
- Capt. (Retd.) Muhammad Yunus Jaffar vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a service matter regarding the appellant's promotion from B-17 to B-18 and the subsequent fixation of his seniority. The appellant, formerly of the Tribal Areas Group (TAG), sought to ante-date his promotion to the date he completed five years of service, claiming seniority over officers from the District Management Group (DMG) following the merger of the two groups. The core legal questions were whether promotion to B-18 is automatic upon completing five years of service and whether the appellant could claim seniority over DMG officers. The Supreme Court held that promotion is not automatic and requires meeting specific eligibility criteria, including the absence of adverse remarks. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that TAG and DMG were distinct cadres prior to their merger; therefore, seniority must be determined by the date of regular appointment to the grade, as per the Tribal Areas Group and the District Management Group Merger (Seniority) Rules, 1981. Consequently, the appellant's claim for seniority over DMG officers was rejected, though his appeal was partially allowed to correct his seniority relative to a specific officer within his own cadre.
Questions settled- Is promotion from B-17 to B-18 automatic upon the completion of five years of service?
- Can a civil servant claim seniority over officers of a different cadre prior to the merger of those cadres?
- Does the seniority of officers in merged cadres depend on the date of regular appointment to the grade?
- Capital Farms, Islamabad vs National Development Finance1996 SCMR 1450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a banking recovery decree and subsequent auction of mortgaged property. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell, allegedly executed by a company director in his personal capacity after the property had already been mortgaged to a financial institution, created a superior interest capable of overriding the mortgage and the resulting auction. The Supreme Court held that the mortgage, having been duly registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, constituted constructive notice to the petitioner. The Court affirmed that an agreement to sell does not per se create an interest in the property until a sale deed is executed. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner, having failed to pursue its objection petition in the executing court and having participated in the auction proceedings without reservation, was estopped from challenging the auction. The Court affirmed the principle that a prior registered mortgage takes precedence over a subsequent agreement to sell, and that a third party cannot challenge a decree on grounds not available to the judgment-debtor.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell property create a legal interest in the property prior to the execution of a sale deed?
- Does a registered mortgage under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 constitute constructive notice to subsequent purchasers?
- Can a third party challenge an auction sale if they participated in the auction proceedings without reservation?
- Is a decree passed against a judgment-debtor open to challenge by a third party on grounds not available to the judgment-debtor?
- Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur vs Secretary and 3 others1996 MLD 43 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
- Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur vs Secretary And 3 Other1996 MLD 43 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
- Calicon (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federal Government of Pakistan And Other1996 MLD 705 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the privatization and sale of controlling shares of D.G. Khan Cement Company Ltd. by the Federal Government through the Privatisation Commission. The core legal questions raised were whether an Act of the appropriate legislature is a prerequisite under Article 173(1) of the Constitution for the executive sale of government-owned property, whether the Federal Government was required to frame statutory rules to structure its discretionary jurisdiction in privatization matters, and whether the rejection of the petitioner's highest bid was arbitrary and discriminatory. The Lahore High Court held that the executive authority under Article 173(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is co-extensive with legislative power and does not require a prior specific Act of the legislature as a prerequisite for the sale or disposal of government property. The Court further held that while executive actions in privatization must be transparent, fair, and free from arbitrariness or discrimination, the petitioner failed to comply with the essential payment terms of the letter of intent and approached the court with unclean hands. Consequently, the constitutional petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an Act of the appropriate legislature is a prerequisite for the exercise of executive authority for the sale or disposal of property vested in the Federal or Provincial Government under Article 173 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether the privatization and sale of state-owned shares by the executive are amenable to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether a bidder who fails to fulfill the mandatory financial deposit requirements under a letter of intent qualifies as an aggrieved party with locus standi to challenge the rejection of its tender?
- Whether the Privatisation Commission is legally justified in negotiating with subsequent highest bidders upon default by the initial highest tenderer?
- C. I.T. vs Malik Wallayat Hussain1996 P.C.T.L.R. 898 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
- Brother Sugar Mills Ltd. Brother Steel Mills Ltd. And Another Khalid Siraj(PTCL 1996 CL. 404) · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Brother Steel Mills Ltd. and others vs Mian Ilyas Miraj and 14 others1996 PLD Supreme Court 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants challenged an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court under Section 292 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, suspending the management of a group of companies and appointing an Administrator pending a petition under Section 290. The preliminary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether direct appeals to the Supreme Court were maintainable, or if the remedy lay before a Division Bench of the High Court via intra-Court appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 constitutes 'original civil jurisdiction' for the purposes of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 and Section 15 of Ordinance X of 1980. The Court held that direct appeal under Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 applies solely where a company is ordered to be wound up. Under Section 10(2), proceedings initiated in the High Court as a Court of first instance to adjudicate civil rights constitute 'original civil jurisdiction.' Consequently, interlocutory orders passed by a Single Judge are appealable to a Division Bench of the High Court, making direct appeals to the Supreme Court non-maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 constitutes 'original civil jurisdiction' for the purpose of intra-Court appeals?
- Does a direct appeal lie to the Supreme Court under Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 in the absence of an order winding up the company?
- Whether an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge under Section 292 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 is appealable to a Division Bench of the High Court under Section 15 of Ordinance X of 1980?
- Brigade Commander Headquarters Field Command NLC, Karachi vs The State1996 MLD 469 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
- Brigade Commander Headquarters Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 447 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
- Brig. (Retd.) Manzur Malik vs The State1996 SCMR 934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who is facing trial under sections 409, 420, 161, and 218 read with section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, for allegedly misusing his powers as Chairman/Director-General of the Lahore Development Authority to allot a valuable plot to his wife. The petitioner's earlier bail applications before the Special Judge and the High Court were unsuccessful, though a Medical Board constituted by the High Court confirmed he suffered from effort angina following a previous by-pass surgery. The Supreme Court considered that the petitioner's wife had been granted leave to appeal and interim bail in a related matter pending before the Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court admitted the petitioner to interim bail subject to furnishing surety bonds, and directed that both matters be heard together at the Lahore Registry.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted to an accused suffering from serious heart ailments after bypass surgery?
- Can interim bail be granted when a related appeal of a co-accused is pending before the Supreme Court?
- Brig. (R) Imtiaz Ahmed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
- Boota Masih vs Mjan Javed EtcK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases l2 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
- Boota Masih vs Mian Javed and anothers1996 MLD 222 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
- Boota Masih vs Mian Javed And Another1996 MLD 222 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore vs Saima Azad1996 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal was filed against an interim order of the Lahore High Court in a pending writ petition, wherein the High Court summoned paper examiners and the entire lot of answer books to ascertain if the respondent's papers were correctly marked and to adjudicate a claim of discrimination. The core legal question was whether the High Court, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, can evaluate answer books and perform a merits review of examination marking. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that paper marking is a technical task performed by educational experts which cannot be undertaken by the High Court under judicial review. The Court laid down the principle that Article 199 jurisdiction is principally meant for correcting jurisdictional errors of tribunals and executive authorities, not for substituting executive or expert decisions on merits, nor for conducting roving inquiries into disputed facts.
Questions settled- Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution summon answer books to evaluate whether an examiner correctly marked an examinee's paper?
- Is the High Court empowered under its constitutional jurisdiction to conduct a roving inquiry into disputed facts to determine claims of discrimination?
- Whether the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution can be invoked to correct merits of administrative or expert decisions as opposed to jurisdictional errors?
- Bismillah Khan vs Abdul Qahar Khan Wadan1996 MLD 1619 · Election Tribunal · 1995-12-17Read full judgment →
- Binyameen and 3 others vs Chaudhry Hakim and another1996 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment dismissing a Constitutional petition against an order of the District Judge, Kasur. The District Judge had accepted a civil revision petition and directed the Trial Court to admit an agreement to sell produced by respondent No. 1 in proceedings under Section 12(2), C.P.C. The core legal questions were whether a party who pleaded an oral agreement could prove it by producing a written agreement to sell that was not initially relied upon, and whether a revision petition filed after an unexplained delay of five years ought to have been entertained. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and District Judge. The Court held that a party can only prove a case that it has expressly pleaded, and variation between pleading and proof is impermissible. Introducing a written agreement to substitute a plea of an oral agreement without amending pleadings constitutes an impermissible new case. Furthermore, gross laches and unexplained delay in filing a revision petition disentitle a party to discretionary relief.
Questions settled- Can a party that has specifically pleaded an oral agreement produce a written agreement in evidence to prove its claim without amending its pleadings?
- Can evidence be led or considered in support of a plea that has not been taken in the pleadings?
- Whether an unexplained delay of five years in filing a civil revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. disentitles the petitioner from receiving discretionary relief on grounds of laches?