Latest Judgments

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

• Attaullah vs Income Tax Officer and others1996 PTD 273 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Attaullah Atta vs Ohulam Bashir Mughal and 5 others1996 CLC 1551 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-03-13
  domicile certificatewrit jurisdictionalternative remedypublic appointmentjudicial reviewquestion of factAzad Jammu and Kashmir
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Attaullah Atta, challenged a High Court judgment that invalidated his domicile certificate and subsequent appointment as Assistant Commissioner. The respondent, Ghulam Bashir Mughal, had successfully argued in the High Court that the appellant's domicile certificate was obtained through misrepresentation. The core legal questions were whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of alternative administrative remedies under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subjects Rules, 1980, and whether the High Court could review the factual findings of the District Magistrate. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was maintainable because the alternative remedies were not efficacious or expeditious. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the District Magistrate’s issuance of the certificate was illegal as the evidence presented was self-contradictory and failed to prove the required five-year continuous residence in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that when evidence before an authority is inherently contradictory and fails to meet statutory requirements, the resulting order is subject to judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable when alternative administrative remedies are not efficacious or expeditious?
  • Can a court review a finding of fact by a District Magistrate if the evidence relied upon is self-contradictory?
  • Does the failure to prove five years of continuous residence invalidate a domicile certificate issued by a District Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Attarasool vs Fateh Khan, Etc.1996 KLR Civil Cases 521 · Other · -Read full judgment →
• Atta Ullah and 5 others vs State through Custodian, Lahore and 11 others1996 PLD Supreme Court 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-16
  evacuee propertyCustodian of Evacuee Propertyrehabilitation allotmentmortgagee possessionconfirmation of salejurisdiction of civil court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land ownership and its classification as evacuee property. The petitioners, claiming ownership through a 1946 sale deed and prior mortgage, challenged the allotment of the land to respondents by the Rehabilitation Department. The core legal question was whether the land, purchased from non-Muslim evacuees after March 1, 1947, constituted evacuee property under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957, absent confirmation by the Custodian. The trial court and appellate court had previously dismissed the petitioners' suit for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of such confirmation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that because the sale occurred after March 1, 1947, and lacked Custodian confirmation, the property fell within the statutory definition of evacuee property. The Court affirmed that the petitioners' possession as mortgagees did not alter the property's status or ownership character. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, establishing that transfers of evacuee property post-March 1, 1947, require mandatory Custodian confirmation to be valid.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sale of land by a non-Muslim evacuee after March 1, 1947, require confirmation by the Custodian to avoid being classified as evacuee property?
  • Does the existence of a mortgage in favor of a purchaser alter the status of land as evacuee property under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957?
  • Is the jurisdiction of a civil court ousted in matters concerning the confirmation of sales of evacuee property?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Rasool vs Fateh Khan, Etc.1996 KLR Civil Cases 521 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad represented by Legal Heirs and others vs Matloob Alam1996 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-29
  pre-emptioncross-examinationcontradiction of witnessnatural justiceconfronting witnessQanun-e-Shahadatadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal arising from pre-emption suits, where the central dispute involved whether a transaction was an exchange or a sale. The petitioners sought to rely on a previous statement made by the respondent in a separate suit to contradict his testimony in the current proceedings. The core legal question was whether a party's prior statement can be used as evidence to contradict them without having confronted the witness with that statement during cross-examination. The Supreme Court held that, in accordance with Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and established precedent, a previous statement cannot be used to contradict a witness unless the witness is confronted with it while in the witness box, allowing them an opportunity to explain. The Court affirmed that failing to provide such an opportunity violates principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower appellate court's decision to exclude the statement from consideration and dismissed the petitions, noting that the nature of the transaction was a concurrent finding of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Can a previous statement of a witness be used to contradict them without confronting them with that statement during cross-examination?
  • Is it a requirement of natural justice to allow a witness to explain a prior statement before an adverse inference is drawn?
  • Does the failure to confront a witness with their previous statement render that statement inadmissible as evidence against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Hussain vs Sindh Labour Court No. v, Karachi and another1996 PLC 117 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
• Atlas Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2015 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-17Read full judgment →
• Atif Ramzan vs The State1996 MLD 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad vs Mazhar Hussain, EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhamm'ad and others vs Sultan and another1996 CLC 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
• Associated Press of Pakistan through Executive Director No, 18, Islamabad vs Associated Press of Pakistan Employees' Union through President and 22 others1996 PLC 687 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Collector, Badin1996 CLC 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-18
  land acquisitioncourt-feelimitationmaintainability of appealcontumacious conductdeficit court-feegovernment litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Badin, enhancing compensation for land acquired for an oil well. Respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal and the insufficiency of the court-fee stamp. The Sindh High Court examined whether the appeal was competently filed by an authorized person under the relevant rules and whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for making good a deficient court-fee after the expiry of the limitation period. The Court held that while the appeal was filed by a competent party and signed by an authorized law officer, the appellant's conduct in delaying the payment of the heavy deficit court-fee without plausible explanation—despite notice of the objection—was contumacious and negligent. Consequently, the Court ruled that the subsequent payment of the court-fee did not cure the defect retrospectively, rendering the appeal barred by limitation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 can be preferred by the Land Acquisition Collector or Provincial Government?
  • Does an Advocate-General or an advocate engaged by the government require a formal Vakalatnama to file an appeal on behalf of the Provincial Government?
  • Can the retrospective benefit of section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be extended to an appellant who pays a heavy deficit court-fee after the period of limitation in a negligent or contumacious manner?
  • Does the conditional granting of an application to make up a court-fee deficiency 'subject to all just exceptions' preclude the respondent from raising the question of limitation at the final hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Assessee vs Department(PTCL 1996 CL. 125) · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Assam Forest Products (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1996 P.C.T.L.R. 592 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan vs Government of Punjab(K.L.R. 1996 Labour and Service Cases 76) · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-11Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Forest1996 PLC (C.S.) 851 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11
  reinstatementlocus poenitentiaevested rightspromissory estoppelconstitutional petitioncivil servantrevocation of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the revocation of the petitioner's reinstatement into government service. The petitioner, formerly a Forester removed from service in 1973 whose departmental appeals and Supreme Court challenges failed by 1978, was later reinstated by the Governor of the Punjab in 1986 under Section 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974. After serving for nearly eight years, the reinstatement order was revoked in 1994 based on advice from the Regulation Wing, Law Department, and Advocate-General. The core legal questions involved whether a completed reinstatement order creating vested rights could be rescinded years later, and whether the Governor could act upon the advice of departmental wings rather than the constitutional mechanism under Article 105. The Lahore High Court held that the revocation was illegal as a vested right had accrued, attracting the principle of locus poenitentiae once the order took legal effect and the employee entered service. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Governor must act on the constitutional advice of the Chief Minister or Cabinet under Article 105, not subordinate departmental wings. The petition was allowed, setting aside the revocation order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of reinstatement taking legal effect and creating vested rights can be revoked after several years under the principle of locus poenitentiae?
  • Can the Governor of a Province lawfully revoke an order based on the advice of departmental wings rather than the constitutional advice of the Chief Minister or Cabinet under Article 105 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the Lahore High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain a petition against the withdrawal of a reinstatement order where no other efficacious remedy is available before the Services Tribunal?
  • What are the limitations on the doctrine of promissory estoppel when invoked against the Government and its functionaries?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah vs Government of Punjab(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 69) · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Asma Khatoon vs Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah, A.C.M. & F.C.M. Courtiv.1996 PLD Karachi 517 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-19
  unlawful detentionconstitutional petitionremand orderpolice custodyhabeas corpussuppression of terrorist activitiesprocedural safeguards
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the continued detention of the petitioner's son, who was arrested under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question concerned whether the detention was lawful, given the police's failure to produce the accused before a magistrate within twenty-four hours, the absence of valid remand orders, and the failure to submit a challan within the statutory timeframe. The High Court held that the detention was unlawful and ordered the immediate release of the detenu. The Court established that constitutional guarantees under Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, regarding the right to liberty and production before a magistrate, remain applicable even in proceedings under special laws like the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that remand orders must be speaking orders containing recorded reasons, and that procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, including sections 61, 167, and 173, cannot be bypassed by police or magistrates, as special laws only override the Code where there is explicit inconsistency.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 exclude the application of constitutional guarantees regarding arrest and detention?
  • Are remand orders passed by a magistrate required to be speaking orders containing recorded reasons?
  • Can a magistrate authorize police custody if the accused was not produced within twenty-four hours of arrest as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to submit a challan within the statutory period render the continued detention of an accused unlawful?
  Read full judgment →
• Aslam vs The State1996 SCMR 1122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07
  leave to appealinterested witnessescriminal justice administrationmurder convictioncorroborationdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Muhammad Aslam, for murder. The prosecution case, initiated by the father of the deceased, alleged that the petitioner killed the deceased by stabbing him, purportedly due to a dispute over a broken marriage engagement arrangement known as 'Warta Satta'. The trial court and the High Court relied heavily on the testimony of two prosecution witnesses—the father and brother of the deceased—and the recovery of a weapon at the instance of the accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court erred in sustaining the conviction based solely on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration, particularly given the existence of enmity and the timing of the incident. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the principles of criminal justice administration regarding the reliability of interested witnesses were correctly applied in the circumstances of this case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does the existence of enmity between the accused and the deceased's family necessitate independent corroboration of eyewitness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Asifa Jaffar Alvi vs University of Punjab1996 CLC 2050 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Asif Khan Shamim vs The Government of Sindh and otherss1996 CLC 456 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-17Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs K.M.C, Through Its Administrator And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 415 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali CH. vs The Registrar, Cooperative Society Punjab, Lahore and 31996 MLD 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali CH. vs The Registrar, Cooperative Society Punja Lahore And 31996 MLD 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Asia Flour Mills and others vs Director of Food and others1996 PLD Lahore 133 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02
  Section 144 CrPCinter-provincial tradefreedom of tradeconstitutional petitionwheat movementpublic tranquilityadministrative excess
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged successive orders passed by the District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan, under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, prohibiting the movement of wheat and wheat products outside the district. The core legal questions concerned whether the District Magistrate could utilize Section 144 to restrict inter-provincial trade and whether the practice of issuing repetitive, successive orders to maintain this ban was legally permissible. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned orders were illegal and set them aside. The Court established that Section 144 is a transitory provision intended for temporary emergencies and cannot be employed to permanently regulate trade or suppress private rights. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that inter-provincial trade is a federal subject protected by the Constitution, and the Magistrate’s actions constituted an unlawful interference. It was further held that goods in transit do not constitute "export" from a local area, and the repetitive issuance of orders to circumvent statutory time limits is legally impermissible. The Magistrate failed to demonstrate any genuine threat to public peace or tranquility justifying such restrictive measures.

  Questions settled

  • Can a District Magistrate use Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to permanently regulate trade or restrict inter-provincial movement of goods?
  • Does the repetitive issuance of orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to circumvent statutory time limits, constitute a valid exercise of power?
  • Do goods in transit through a district constitute 'export' from that district for the purposes of restrictive administrative orders?
  • Can a Provincial Government or District Magistrate restrict inter-provincial trade under the guise of maintaining public order when such trade is a federal subject?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1381 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Sugar Mills Ltd. vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1996 PLC 145 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-03Read full judgment →
• Ashiq, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Muhammad vs Karam and another1996 CLC 468 · Board of Revenue · 1995-06-14Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain and others vs Mohtasib, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzafarabad and others1996 MLD 2002 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain And Others vs Mohtasib, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzafarabad And Other1996 MLD 2002 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
• Ashiq and others vs The State and others1996 MLD 886 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →
• Ashiq And Others vs The State And Another1996 MLD 886 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali vs The State1996 MLD 1484 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali vs Qari Naeemurrehman Tahir and others1996 MLD 1131 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali vs Qari Naeemurrehman Tahir And Other1996 MLD 1131 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali vs Messrs Republic Motors Limp Karachi and 2 others1996 PLC 508 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ijaz vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Services Cases 105 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
• Ashf Aq Ahmad Malik vs Military Accountant-General, Government1996 PLC (C.S.) 666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-05
  leave to appealremoval from serviceunauthorized absencedisciplinary proceedingsshow-cause noticemisconductproportionality of penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner, an Accountant under the Controller of Military Accounts, was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated due to his unauthorized absence for approximately three years. The petitioner contended that the removal order was passed without a show-cause notice and that the penalty was disproportionately harsh given his twenty-two years of unblemished service. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that multiple attempts were made to serve the petitioner, including notices sent via registered post and publications in daily newspapers, which the petitioner failed to answer. The Court held that the petitioner was rightly found guilty of misconduct due to his prolonged unauthorized absence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the choice of penalty falls within the discretion of the competent authority and the Service Tribunal's decision not to alter the penalty did not constitute an illegality. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can challenge a removal order on the ground of lack of notice when show-cause notices were sent via registered post and published in daily newspapers but ignored?
  • Does a prolonged unauthorized absence from duty for three years constitute sufficient grounds for misconduct and removal from service?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a penalty of removal from service if the Service Tribunal declines to convert it into compulsory retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar vs Subdivisional Magistrate, Mehar1996 P Cr. L J 107 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Asghar Beg vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 451 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1687 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-07-02Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Chaudhry vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary1996 PLC (C.S.) 487 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
• Asfand Yar Khan vs Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory, Islamabad and 3 others1996 SCMR 1421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-12
  mining leasewrit jurisdictioncontractual obligationconstitutional petitionenvironmental protectionlease revocationMargalla Hills National Park
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a writ petition against the revocation of a mining lease for limestone quarrying in the Islamabad Capital Territory. The petitioner argued that the lease termination was unlawful, asserting that the Mining Concession Rules, 1960, framed under the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948, held overriding effect over the Islamabad Wild Life (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court held that the lease was validly terminated under clause 15 of the lease agreement, which permitted termination if the leased area was not legally available for mining. Consequently, the Court found the petitioner's argument regarding the overriding effect of the Mining Concession Rules inapplicable. The Court further affirmed that disputes arising from the violation of contractual terms in a lease agreement are matters for civil courts to resolve through damages, rather than through the extraordinary constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to resolve disputes arising from the violation of a contractual lease agreement?
  • Does the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act 1948 override the provisions of the Islamabad Wild Life (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance 1979 in all circumstances?
  • Is the determination of whether a specific area falls within the territorial limits of a National Park a question of fact that precludes interference in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Khan vs Abdul KarimK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 397 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• Asad Abbas And Another vs The State1996 MLD 782 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
• Arshad vs The State and another1996 SCMR 1270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-08
  post-arrest bailattempted murderprohibitory clauseQatl-i-Amdfirearm injuriessudden fightbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the Peshawar High Court in a case involving attempted murder (Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860). The complainant alleged that the petitioner fired a shotgun at him, causing multiple injuries to his shoulder and face. The petitioner argued that the incident was a sudden fight, the injuries were minor, and the offense fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court examined the amended Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which mandates that if hurt is caused during an attempt to commit Qatl-i-Amd, the offender is liable for both the ten-year imprisonment for the attempt and the additional punishment for the specific hurt caused. The Court held that the nature of the injuries and the application of the amended statute brought the offense within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the petitioner was not entitled to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amended Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bring an offense involving firearm injuries within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused claim the benefit of a sudden fight to avoid the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when the evidence indicates an attempt to commit Qatl-i-Amd?
  • Does the punishment for an attempt to commit Qatl-i-Amd under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, include additional liability for the specific hurt caused?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mehmood, And Other vs The Secretary Education, And Other,(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service 141) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mehmood and anothers vs Sarfraz and others1996 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-11
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmedical groundsold age bailcriminal leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal concerning the grant and refusal of bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 337-F (ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Dhudial, District Chakwal. The High Court granted bail to one accused, Sarfraz, on medical grounds, while refusing bail to another accused, Muhammad Feroze. The complainant challenged the grant of bail to Sarfraz, and Muhammad Feroze sought leave to appeal against the refusal of his bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to interfere with the High Court's order granting bail to Sarfraz, noting that the decision was supported by a medical certificate showing physical disability and was not based on extraneous circumstances. However, regarding Muhammad Feroze, the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the medical officer's report regarding his advanced age of seventy-five years, poor physique, and the lack of treatment facilities in jail. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the complainant's petition for bail cancellation, converted Muhammad Feroze's petition into an appeal, and granted him bail subject to furnishing surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted on medical grounds by the High Court warrants interference by the Supreme Court when supported by a medical certificate?
  • Does the advanced age and poor health of an accused person suffering from ailments inadequately treatable in jail constitute sufficient ground for the grant of bail?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court in bail matters absent extraneous circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood vs Sher Rasool and 14 others1996 SCMR 1292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-12
  specific performanceremand of casecourt-feepecuniary jurisdictionoral agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24-11-1992, which set aside a trial court decree in a specific performance suit and remanded the matter for fresh decision regarding a specific portion of land. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's remand order, the calculation of court-fee on the memorandum of appeal, and the effect of pursuing an appeal before a forum with improper pecuniary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly remanded the case for adjudication on merits and correctly determined that court-fee was payable only in respect of the 34 kanals of land directly under challenge rather than the entire decretal amount. The key principle laid down is that where a portion of a decree is contested, court-fee is to be assessed on the value of that specific portion, and appellate courts may properly remand a matter for trial on merits when initial proceedings lacked adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether court-fee on an appeal challenging a partial decree must be paid on the total consideration of the original suit or only on the value of the property specifically contested?
  • Can an appellate court remand a matter for trial on merits when the trial court failed to adjudicate the dispute upon merits?
  • Whether an appeal filed before a wrong forum affects the computation of limitation for subsequent proceedings before the competent forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali Shah vs Saeed Ahmad Ashraf and another1996 P Cr. L J 1673 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali And Another vs The State1996 MLD 766 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Subugutgeen vs The State1996 P.C.T.L.R. 14 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain vs Abdul Qayyum Khan and others1996 CLC 902 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-26
  pre-emptiongift mutationsham transactionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadsuperior right of pre-emptionco-sharer
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an appellate court judgment that dismissed the plaintiff’s pre-emption suit regarding land transferred via a gift mutation. The core legal questions were whether the transaction, disguised as a gift, constituted a sale subject to pre-emption, and whether the plaintiff had satisfied the requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad. The High Court held that the transaction was a sale, noting the lack of relationship between the donor and donee, the donor's ignorance of the transaction, and the absence of physical possession by the donee. The Court ruled that these circumstances, combined with the subsequent rapid alienation of the property, indicated a sham gift intended to defeat pre-emption rights. Furthermore, the Court found the plaintiff’s Talb-i-Muwathibat was timely and valid, as the law requires only an expression of intent to pre-empt, not specific terminology. Consequently, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff was restored. The principle established is that courts may look behind the facade of a gift to determine the true nature of a transaction for pre-emption purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transaction labeled as a gift be treated as a sale for the purposes of pre-emption?
  • What constitutes sufficient compliance with the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987?
  • Does the lack of physical possession by a donee support the finding that a gift is a sham transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1979 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
• Arbab Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 703 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Arabian Express Line Ltd. Of United Kingdom And Other vs Union Of India(PTCL 1996 FC. 33) · Gujarat High Court · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
• Anwer Ali and 6 others vs Sharfuddin through Legal Heirs1996 CLC 997 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khattak vs The State1996 SCMR 1119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-09
  leave to appealcustoms offencecompetency of appealre-appraisal of evidencebail pending appealsentence of fine
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence under the Customs Act, 1969, where the petitioners were sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a heavy fine. The core legal question concerns the competency of a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan in proceedings arising out of section 185-F of the Customs Act, read with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court held that the question of competence of the appeal requires fuller examination and authoritative pronouncement, and prima facie the evidence brought on record requires re-appraisal for safe administration of criminal justice. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal and directed the release of the petitioners on bail subject to the deposit of a portion of the fine and furnishing requisite security, given that they had already undergone their substantive sentence. The key principle laid down is that where substantial questions regarding statutory appeal mechanisms and the re-appraisal of evidence arise in criminal convictions under special legislation, leave to appeal is warranted, and bail may be granted upon partial satisfaction of fine penalties if the substantive sentence is already served.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan is competent in proceedings arising out of section 185-F of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Can a convict be released on bail pending appeal after serving the substantive sentence upon depositing a portion of the fine?
  • Does the evidence in a conviction under the Customs Act require re-appraisal by the Supreme Court to ensure safe administration of criminal justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Kabir Sheikh, Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Indus_2247787d(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 46) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Anwar Kabir Sheikh, Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Indus_2197399e1996 PLC (C.S.) 19 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Anwar Hussain Shah vs Muhammad Mansha and another1996 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali and others vs Manzoor Hussain and another1996 SCMR 1770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15
  civil procedurepleadingsspecific relieftransfer of property actadmission of factsdeclaratory suitburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the ownership and possession of agricultural land. The respondents, legal heirs of a mortgagee, filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the appellants, who claimed ownership of the same property. The Trial Court initially dismissed the suit, citing the Transfer of Property Act and Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this, holding that the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable in the Punjab province and that the suit was maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The Lahore High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court addressed whether the appellants could challenge the identity of the suit property when such a plea was absent from their written statement. The Court held that under Order VIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allegations not specifically denied are deemed admitted. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to the Punjab and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that parties are bound by their pleadings.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Transfer of Property Act applicable to the Province of Punjab?
  • What is the legal consequence under the Code of Civil Procedure when a defendant fails to specifically deny an allegation of fact in the plaint?
  • Can a party challenge the identity of the suit property on appeal if such a plea was not raised in the written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ahmad Khan vs The State and another1996 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-18
  custodial deathpolice tortureconstitutional petitionpolice investigationjudicial inquirysuo motu actionbailfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against High Court orders passed in a constitution petition initiated upon a letter complaining of custodial torture and death of the petitioner's son by police officials. The core legal question was whether the High Court, under its constitutional jurisdiction, could monitor, interfere with, or direct the course of police investigation and inquire into the conduct of investigating agencies and police officers during pending criminal proceedings. The majority of the Supreme Court held that while the High Court could examine the legality of proceedings and ensure fairness where investigations are mala fide, it cannot supervise or control ongoing police investigations. The court ultimately refused leave to appeal by majority, dismissing the petition, while a dissenting note favored granting leave.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has the power under Article 199 of the Constitution to supervise or control police investigation?
  • Can the High Court interfere with the statutory right of the police to investigate a cognizable offence?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court examine the validity of criminal proceedings in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is an investigating officer's opinion binding on a court of law during criminal inquiries?
  Read full judgment →
• Ansar vs The State1996 MLD 444 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Ansar Ahmed vs The State1996 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-22
  leave to appealrecovery of weaponexclusive possessionprocedural complianceArms Ordinanceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which had upheld his conviction under the Arms Ordinance for the possession of a Kalashnikov, while slightly reducing his sentence and fine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the conviction on two primary grounds: first, that the prosecution failed to establish that the weapon was recovered from a place within the petitioner's exclusive possession; and second, that the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were not complied with during the recovery process. The Supreme Court found that these contentions raised substantial legal questions regarding the appreciation of evidence and procedural compliance in recovery cases. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the prosecution's evidence and the procedural requirements for recovery under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to comply with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a recovery of a weapon?
  • Must the prosecution prove exclusive possession of the premises where a weapon is recovered to sustain a conviction under the Arms Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Wazifa Sadat Momineen (Regd.) vs Ghulam AhmedK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 197 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Anjum Shafi vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and 3 others1996 SCMR 1782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service appeallimitation perioddate of knowledgedepartmental appealFederal Service Tribunalseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the order of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal as barred by time. The core legal question concerns the computation of the period of limitation for filing a departmental appeal and a service tribunal appeal when the notification adversely affecting the appellant's seniority was not published and came to his knowledge later during judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period must be computed from the date of knowledge of the notification. The Court established the principle that where an official notification is not published and bears potential interpolations affecting seniority, time for filing a departmental appeal runs from the date the aggrieved party acquires actual knowledge of the said notification, rendering subsequent appeals before the tribunal within time if filed within the statutory period thereafter.

  Questions settled

  • From what date should limitation be computed for filing a departmental appeal against an unpublished notification?
  • Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred by time when the departmental appeal is filed within time from the date of knowledge of the impugned notification?
  • Does the absence of a formal reply to a departmental appeal within the statutory period entitle the aggrieved civil servant to approach the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjum Hayat Mirza vs Rehmat Khan1996 SCMR 1230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-14
  evictiondefault in payment of rentrent receiptsburden of proofservice of noticepresumption of delivery
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal with leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which allowed the landlord's appeal and granted eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent, reversing the dismissal order of the Trial Court. The core legal question concerns whether the tenant successfully proved regular payment of rent or discharged the burden of establishing no default for the disputed period of seventeen months. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly applied the presumption of service under the Evidence Act regarding the statutory notice, and that the tenant's oral evidence and interpolated rent receipts failed to substantiate regular payment or explain the admitted default. Upholding the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal while granting the tenant four months to vacate the premises upon payment of rent. The key principle laid down is that a tenant alleging regular payment of rent despite the non-issuance of receipts must provide cogent and reliable evidence to rebut a proved period of default, and cannot rely on suspicious or inadequately explained documents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can successfully disprove a claim of rent default without reliable evidence and explanation for interpolated receipts?
  • Does a presumption of delivery arise under the law when a notice is sent by registered post to the tenant's address?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's finding on default in the absence of a legal infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Anil Mussarat Hussain vs Muhammad Anwar Naseem and 2 others1996 CLC 1406 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-14
  dissolution of marriagejurisdictionforeign citizenfamily courtrejection of plaintconflict of laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by a Pakistani citizen (respondent No. 3) against a United Kingdom citizen (the petitioner). The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 does not apply to non-citizens. The Family Court and the revisional court rejected this contention. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 contains no provision restricting its applicability solely to citizens of Pakistan. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court precedent in Masood Ahmad Malik's case, noting that while the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 is restricted to Pakistani citizens, the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 is an independent enactment operating in a different field. Since the plaintiff was a Pakistani citizen and the marriage was solemnized in Lahore, the Family Court possessed valid jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 restrict its applicability only to citizens of Pakistan?
  • Does the citizenship restriction in the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 apply to all proceedings under the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Can a Family Court in Pakistan entertain a suit for dissolution of marriage where the plaintiff is a Pakistani citizen, the marriage was solemnized in Pakistan, but the defendant is a foreign citizen?
  • Is an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable after an issue regarding jurisdiction has already been framed in the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• and Noor Muhammad Magsi, Member Raja Saeed Ahmad vs Chairman, WAPDA and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 470 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
• and Khawaja Abdul Hameed, Member Dr. Saif-Ud-Din Saif vs Azad1996 PLC (C.S.) 1159 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ammar Housing Services (Pvt) Ltd vs Jalaluddin Ahmed and otherss1996 CLC 1006 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
• Amjad Latif vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 80) · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
• Amjad Latif vs C.B.R and others1996 CLC 1422 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19
  constitutional petitionservice matterviva voceselection committeesubjective assessmentinitial recruitmentjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three writ petitions challenging the selection process for the posts of Inspectors in BPS-11 initiated by the Central Board of Revenue. The core legal questions involved the validity of entertaining certain candidates whose applications were allegedly received after the deadline, the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan in matters concerning initial recruitment, and the legality of reserving an unusually high percentage of marks (33.3%) for viva voce, which allegedly enabled the Selection Committee to manipulate merit through subjective assessment. The Lahore High Court held that the writ petitions were maintainable because the dispute pertained to the pre-selection procedure rather than the terms and conditions of service. The court upheld the written test results and the eligibility of the candidates who took the test but struck down the merit list based on the viva voce. The court laid down the principle that reserving an excessively high proportion of marks for interview without structured sub-criteria or recorded reasons leads to arbitrariness and subjectivity, which vitiates the selection process, and directed a fresh viva voce to be conducted transparently.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of challenges to the pre-selection procedure for public posts?
  • Can a candidate's participation and qualification in a written test cure an alleged defect in the untimely submission of their initial application form?
  • Whether the reservation of 33.3 percent marks for viva voce in public employment selections renders the process vulnerable to arbitrariness and subjective assessment?
  • Is a merit list prepared through viva voce sustainable when the Selection Committee fails to record reasons or apportion marks based on academic qualifications and written test performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1469 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain Choudhry and another vs Pakistan International1996 PLC 273 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain and another vs Mst. Shagufta and 2 others1996 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-08-29
  dowerNikahnamapublic documentNikah RegistrarHiba-bil-Ewazcompulsory registrationimmovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a dispute between a husband and wife regarding the fixation and payment of dower involving both movable and immovable property. The trial and appellate courts concurrently decreed the wife's claim based on the entries in the Nikahnama. The husband challenged these decisions, disputing his signature and arguing that the transfer of immovable property via an unregistered Nikahnama was invalid under the Registration Act. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a Nikahnama is a public document executed by a public officer (the Nikah Registrar) under Section 5 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, carrying a presumption of truth. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a Nikahnama recording the transfer of immovable property in lieu of dower does not require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908. Such a transaction is in the nature of Hiba-bil-Ewaz, and the Nikahnama merely acts as a record or acknowledgment of an existing transfer rather than an instrument creating a new title.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Nikahnama registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 constitutes a public document?
  • Whether the transfer of immovable property to a wife in lieu of dower via a Nikahnama requires compulsory registration under the Registration Act 1908?
  • Is a Nikah Registrar considered a public officer for the purposes of verifying public documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Arif vs Muhammad Ashraf ShaguftaK.L.R 1996 Civil Cases 492 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-22Read full judgment →
• Amjad Arif vs Muhammad Ashraf Shagufta and another1996 PLD Lahore 711 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-17Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 308 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
• Amjad Akhtar Shah vs Sahib Khatoon And Other1996 MLD 601 · Board of Revenue · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Amir Nawab vs Regional Manager, Agricultural Development Ban1k of Pakistan, Mardan and 4 others1996 SCMR 1425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-21
  lachesconstitutional petitiondisciplinary proceedingsdelay in filingwrit jurisdictionservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petitions challenging disciplinary penalties imposed by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. The petitioner, an employee of the bank, was penalized with a reduction in pay scale following inquiries into allegations of gross negligence, inefficiency, and embezzlement. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly dismissed the constitutional petitions on the grounds of laches, given the four-year delay in filing. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to provide plausible or satisfactory explanations for the inordinate delay. The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments that departmental promises or the lack of a specific limitation period in constitutional jurisdiction justified the delay, characterizing the excuses as afterthoughts. The Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to excuse unexplained, inordinate delay, especially when the petitioner's conduct is questionable. The principle laid down is that a petitioner seeking constitutional relief must provide reasonable and satisfactory grounds to explain any significant delay, and mere assertions of a continuing cause of action or departmental promises do not automatically condone laches.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court after an inordinate delay of four years without providing satisfactory grounds for such delay?
  • Does the absence of a specific period of limitation for filing constitutional petitions automatically entitle a petitioner to condonation of laches?
  • Are departmental promises of relief sufficient grounds to condone a significant delay in filing a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Nawab vs Habibullah Mines (Pvt.) Limited, Quetta through its1996 PLC 37 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-06-27Read full judgment →
• Amir Hussain Khokhar vs Mst. Nargis Khatoon1996 CLC 1588 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-14
  benami transactiondeclaration of ownershipburden of proofcivil revisionjudgment of variancesale deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate judgment of variance that dismissed the petitioner's suit for a declaration that he is the real owner of a plot purchased in the name of the respondent, claiming the transaction was 'benami'. The core legal question revolved around whether the purchase of the property in the respondent's name constituted a benami transaction or if she was the genuine owner with her own funds. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish the benami nature of the transaction, noting that the respondent possessed independent financial capacity, provided a plausible explanation for the registration process, and that the original title deed's custody and company mortgage circumstances did not prove ownership by the petitioner. The court laid down the principle that a registered sale deed carries a rebuttable presumption of ownership in favor of the named purchaser, and a benami claim requires cogent, convincing proof of the source of funds and intention, which cannot be sustained on weak or flimsy explanations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a registered sale deed in the name of a respondent creates a rebuttable presumption of real ownership?
  • Can a benami transaction be established solely on the ground that a male family member or friend paid the balance consideration before the Sub-Registrar?
  • Does the appellate court's judgment of variance warrant interference in civil revision when based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Alias Shami vs The State1996 MLD 1351 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-26Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali vs The State1996 SCMR 999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11
  murderprivate defensefree fightcriminal appealvicarious liabilityleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and life sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The incident arose from a dispute over landed property, leading to a violent confrontation between two parties. The petitioner claimed he acted in the exercise of the right of private defense of person and property, asserting that the fatal shot was fired accidentally while attempting to frighten assailants. The trial court, however, characterized the incident as a free fight occurring without premeditation, rejecting the plea of self-defense and holding the petitioner individually liable for the fatal shot. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the lower courts, noting that the trial court had already acquitted the co-accused based on the evidence. Finding no error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the nature of the occurrence as a free fight and the petitioner's culpability, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plea of private defense hold in a situation characterized as a free fight?
  • Can an accused be held individually liable for a fatal act in a free fight where co-accused are acquitted?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the occurrence is found to be a sudden, unpremeditated fight?
  Read full judgment →
• Aminuddin and 4 others vs Salima Bano1996 CLC 1361 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-08Read full judgment →
• Amin Textile Mills Limited, Sheikhupura vs Punjab Employees' Social1996 PLC 373 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-28
  social security contributionwages definitionspecial allowancefederal vs provincial lawconstitutional adaptationstatutory interpretationalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of writ petitions challenged notices issued by the Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution demanding social security contributions calculated on the 'Special Allowance' paid under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988. The core legal question was whether this statutory allowance constitutes 'wages' under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, thereby subjecting it to contribution requirements. The petitioners argued that the 1988 Act explicitly excluded the allowance from wages for 'any other law.' The Court held that the 1965 Ordinance, having been converted into a Federal Law through constitutional adaptation, prevails over the Provincial 1988 Act regarding inconsistencies. Furthermore, the Court determined that the definition of 'wages' in the 1965 Ordinance is exhaustive and does not exclude the Special Allowance. The principle laid down is that statutory allowances granted as a matter of right constitute remuneration, and unless explicitly excluded by the 1965 Ordinance itself, they form part of the wage base for social security contributions. Factual disputes regarding calculation must be pursued through statutory remedies under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Special Allowance payable under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988 constitute 'wages' for the purpose of calculating social security contributions under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Is the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 considered a Federal Law following constitutional adaptations?
  • Can a Provincial Act override the provisions of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 regarding the definition of wages?
  • Are the remedies provided under sections 57 and 58 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 considered adequate and efficacious for disputing contribution amounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Amin Ahmed and 31 others vs Ministry of Production Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary and 3 others1996 PLD Karachi 27 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-26
  privatizationconstitutional petitionCouncil of Common Interestsmaster and servantgolden handshakeservice conditionsdisposal of government propertyequal protection of lawtransfer of managementstate-owned enterprises
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple constitutional petitions challenging the privatization of state-owned industrial units and its effects on the service conditions and benefits of their officers. The core legal questions concerned the constitutionality of privatization without consulting the Council of Common Interests (CCI), the validity of transferring management alongside shares, and the officers' entitlement to a 'Golden Handshake' scheme. The Sindh High Court held that the Federal Government was competent to privatize and dispose of property under Article 173 of the Constitution, and consultation with the CCI was not required for disposal, as opposed to development, of industries. It further ruled that the transfer of management was a natural consequence of transferring majority shareholding. The Court also found that officers were not entitled to the 'Golden Handshake' scheme, as the relevant Memorandum of Agreement was specifically for workers, and their service conditions differed. Consequently, the relationship between the officers and the privatized companies was deemed 'master and servant,' rendering constitutional petitions for enforcing contractual service conditions non-maintainable. The petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is consultation with the Council of Common Interests required for the Federal Government to privatize or dispose of state-owned industrial units?
  • Does the transfer of majority shares in a managed establishment under privatization legislation also entail the transfer of management control?
  • Are officers of privatized state-owned enterprises entitled to a 'Golden Handshake' scheme primarily negotiated for workers?
  • Can contractual service conditions of employees in a master-servant relationship with a private company be enforced through a constitutional petition?
  • Does Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibit different benefit schemes for officers and workers in the context of privatization?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 642 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ameenuddin and 3 others vs The State1995 MLD 1321 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Ambreen Gul and anothers vs Nomination Board of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad through Chairman, Muzaffarabad and 3 others1996 CLC 1794 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs District Judge, Gujranwala and 2 others1996 SCMR 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31
  Khuladissolution of marriagerestitution of conjugal rightsfamily lawmarital discordwife's right to divorce
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dissolved a marriage on the ground of Khula'. The parties had a history of marital discord, with the wife previously seeking refuge in Darul Aman and alleging physical abuse by the husband. While the Family Court and the District Judge had initially dismissed the wife's suit for dissolution and decreed the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights, the High Court reversed this decision, granting the dissolution based on Khula'. The Supreme Court examined the District Judge's rejection of the Khula' plea, which had erroneously required 'objective proof' of the parties' inability to live within the limits prescribed by God. The Supreme Court held that given the intimate nature of the marital relationship and the difficulty of proving private grievances, a wife's assertion of hatred toward her husband cannot be summarily rejected. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the wife's subjective assertion of hatred is sufficient for Khula' when the circumstances indicate an irreparable breakdown of the marriage. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a wife's assertion of hatred towards her husband be rejected summarily in a suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula'?
  • Is objective proof required to establish the grounds for Khula' in a dissolution of marriage suit?
  • Does the intimate nature of the marital relationship preclude a requirement for objective evidence when a wife claims hatred for her husband?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan vs Chief Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P. and 21996 PLC (C.S.) 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-24
  departmental inquiryInquiry Officersubstitution of Inquiry Officercasus omissusstatutory interpretationleave to appealwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a departmental inquiry initiated under the N.-W.F.P. Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1980 against a municipal employee regarding missing funds. During the proceedings, the original Inquiry Officer was transferred in routine course and replaced by a new Inquiry Officer. The petitioner challenged this substitution via a writ petition, alleging it was unauthorized and mala fide, but the High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that in the absence of an explicit rule permitting the substitution of an Inquiry Officer, such substitution must be deemed legally prohibited. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, relying on the doctrine of casus omissus and established principles of statutory interpretation. The Court held that courts cannot supply missing words or read prohibitions into a statute or rules unless compelling legislative intent exists. Finding no intention to prohibit substitution upon routine transfer, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court read a prohibition into statutory rules under the doctrine of casus omissus when the rules are silent on a specific procedure?
  • Is the substitution of an Inquiry Officer following a routine transfer impermissible in the absence of an explicit provision allowing it?
  • Does the silence of statutory service rules regarding the substitution of an Inquiry Officer prohibit such substitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Baig vs Land Acquisition Collector, Scarp, Construction1996 CLC 1431 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
• Amanullah and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1889 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
• Amanat Khan and 2 others vs Federal Land Commission, Government of Pakistan, and 5 others1996 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-10
  land reformsallotment of landMartial Law Regulation 115cultivating possessionKhasra Girdawariwrit jurisdictionresumed land
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a writ petition against an order of the Member, Federal Land Commission. The core legal question concerns the validity of the allotment of resumed land under Martial Law Regulation 115, specifically whether the appellants were entitled to the land based on their alleged cultivating possession versus the respondents, to whom the land was allotted. The appellants contended that they were in actual physical possession during the relevant period and that the Land Commission misread the Khasra Girdawaris. The Supreme Court held that the findings of the Land Commission regarding the possession of the respondents were based on a proper appraisal of both oral and documentary evidence, as well as a spot inspection. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the High Court's refusal to interfere with these factual findings in its constitutional jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that factual determinations by competent land authorities, supported by evidence and spot inspections, are generally not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with factual findings regarding land possession made by the Federal Land Commission in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is an allotment of resumed land under Martial Law Regulation 115 valid when based on findings of actual physical possession supported by spot inspection and revenue records?
  Read full judgment →