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.

• Altaf Construction Company vs Central Board of Revenue and others1996 PTD 804 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-21
  contractor income taxenhanced tax rateretrospective operationFinance Actconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  M/s. Altaf Construction Company filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenging the deduction of income-tax at the enhanced rate of 5% pursuant to the Finance Act, 1995 and a notification dated 1-7-1995, in respect of contracts awarded and initiated prior to 1-7-1995. The petitioner contended that applying the enhanced rate to prior contracts amounted to giving retrospective operation to the amendment. The core legal question was whether income-tax on payments made to contractors on or after 1-7-1995 under earlier contracts is leviable at the new enhanced rate of 5% or the former rate of 3%. The court held that the enhanced tax rate applies to all amounts received or collected on or after 1-7-1995, regardless of when the underlying contract or agreement was executed, because income tax is assessed on the basis of the financial year in which the taxable income is collected rather than the date of the agreement. The court established that the levy is prospective as it applies to payments received after the enforcement date, dismissing the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the enhancement of income-tax rate on contractors through the Finance Act applies prospectively to payments received after the effective date regardless of the date of the underlying contract?
  • Does the deduction of income-tax at an enhanced rate on amounts received after the enforcement date of a taxing statute constitute retrospective taxation?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmad Khalid vs Ministry of Finance through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1026 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
• Alpha Insurance Company Ltd., Karachi and others vs United Insurance1996 SCMR 1668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-27
  self-incriminationtestimonial compulsionconstitutional protectioncorporationsproduction of documentscriminal investigationinsurance companies
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether an inquiry into the affairs of insurance companies could be undertaken without a formal First Information Report (FIR), and whether notices requiring them to produce company records violated Article 13(b) and Article 14(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court examined the scope of protection against self-incrimination under Article 13(b) and the applicability of Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not exclude an accused from its purview, as an accused may voluntarily produce non-incriminating material or claim the privilege against self-incrimination regarding incriminating material. Furthermore, the Court held that the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination under Article 13(b) is restricted solely to natural persons (human beings) and cannot be availed of by incorporated entities or companies. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the protection against self-incrimination under Article 13(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan apply to incorporated entities and companies?
  • Can an accused person be ordered under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to produce documents during a criminal investigation?
  • Whether the guarantee of protection against self-incrimination can be claimed by a corporate body as a 'person' under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakitstan Limited vs Shabbir Ahmad1996 P.C.T.L.R. 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-04
  banking courtleave to appealreview applicationexecution of decreepowers of civil courtinterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of a review application by the Special Judge, Banking Court, Lahore. The petitioner bank had filed a recovery suit against the respondent, which was decreed. During execution proceedings, disputes arose regarding the sale of pledged golden ornaments and insurance policies, leading to an ex parte order appointing a local commissioner. The petitioner's review application against this order was dismissed as time-barred, and a subsequent appeal to the High Court was dismissed on the ground that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to review its order. The core legal question concerns whether a Special Judge, possessing the powers of a Civil Court under section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, can entertain and decide a review application against an interim order passed during execution proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to thoroughly examine this question and determine whether the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure extend to review in such proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Judge under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 has the power to review an interim order passed during execution proceedings?
  • Does clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 confer the power of review upon a Special Court?
  • Is an appeal competent against an interlocutory order that does not dispose of the entire case before a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 702 · Lahore High Court
  grievance petitionindustrial relationsdismissal from servicecompetency of appealprocedural irregularitybank employeetermination of serviceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses four consolidated Constitutional petitions arising from a dispute between Allied Bank and two employees regarding their dismissal and termination. The primary legal questions concerned the competency of the bank's appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the maintainability of a grievance petition by a dismissed employee. The Court held that procedural irregularities in the presentation or signing of a memorandum of appeal are curable defects and do not render an appeal incompetent. Regarding the grievance petition, the Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, ruled that a dismissed employee cannot maintain a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On merits, the Court affirmed that an employer possesses the discretion to terminate services under applicable service rules rather than pursuing a formal dismissal for misconduct, provided the rules allow such an option. Consequently, the Court set aside the Labour Appellate Tribunal's orders, declaring the grievance petitions non-maintainable and upholding the employer's disciplinary actions against the employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of procedural defects in the signing or presentation of the memorandum of appeal?
  • Does a dismissed employee have the legal standing to maintain a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is an employer legally permitted to terminate an employee's services under service rules instead of pursuing a formal dismissal for misconduct?
  • Does the Labour Appellate Tribunal have the authority to decide a case on merits after dismissing an appeal as incompetent?
  Read full judgment →
• Allauddin vs Addl. Settlement Commissioner, Etc(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 119) · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar and others vs Ghulam Jeelani and others1996 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-06
  pre-emptionsuperior pre-emptive rightdivisible sale transactionprocedural irregularityoral evidence of ownershipacquiescencerebuttal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' appeal against a trial court decree in favour of the respondents for possession through pre-emption of agricultural land. The core legal questions involved whether procedural irregularities regarding the timing of affirmative and rebuttal evidence vitiate a decree, whether ownership in an estate must be proved strictly by documentary evidence or can be established orally, and whether a sale transaction in favour of multiple vendees is divisible. The Supreme Court held that procedural irregularities acquiesced to without prejudice do not vitiate a decree under section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, that ownership can be established through oral evidence without an invariable rule requiring documentary proof, and that a sale transaction where the price is paid in a lump sum is indivisible. The Court laid down the principle that failure to object to evidence procedures at trial constitutes waiver, oral evidence suffices to prove estate ownership if unrefuted, and indivisibility of a pre-empted sale tainted by stranger vendees defeats the entire joint purchase.

  Questions settled

  • Does a procedural irregularity regarding the order of producing affirmative and rebuttal evidence vitiate a decree in the absence of prejudice and when the objecting party acquiesced?
  • Can ownership of land in an estate be established through oral evidence without the production of documentary revenue records?
  • What constitutes a divisible sale transaction for the purpose of a pre-emption suit where multiple vendees acquire property under a single sale deed?
  • Does joining a stranger vendee in an indivisible sale transaction defeat the superior pre-emption rights of co-vendees who are otherwise owners or tenants?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 211 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 288 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1911 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Wariah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1683 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakhio vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1328 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs The Director, T.R. (Distribution), WAPDA, Lahore and Ten(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Services Cases 41) · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Mukhtar Ahmad Baig (deceased) through Legal Heirs1996 SCMR 1501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-18
  mortgage deedagreement to sellprovisional transfer orderpermanent transfer deedsale transactionredemption of mortgageintent of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which reversed the findings of the Additional District Judge and set aside his judgment. The core legal question revolves around whether the simultaneous execution of a mortgage deed and an agreement to sell in respect of property for which only a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) had been issued constituted a mortgage or a completed transaction of sale. The Supreme Court held that the contemporaneous execution of the mortgage deed served merely as collateral security for the sale transaction, and since full consideration was paid, possession delivered, and subsequent acts such as obtaining the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) and reconstruction performed, the transaction was effectively a sale rather than a mortgage. The Court laid down the principle that where contemporaneous documents like a mortgage deed and an agreement to sell are executed, the true intention of the parties must be gathered by reading them together along with subsequent conduct, and the absence of a formal registered sale-deed due to pending official documentation does not negate an otherwise complete sale transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the contemporaneous execution of a mortgage deed and an agreement to sell indicates a transaction of sale or mortgage?
  • Can a mortgage deed executed alongside an agreement to sell be treated as collateral security for the sale?
  • Does the absence of a formal registered sale-deed render an otherwise complete sale transaction ineffective where full consideration and possession have passed?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Nawaz Sheikh vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and another1996 PLC 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-13
  constitutional petitionlachespremature retirementmaster and servantlabour disputemisreading of recordgrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition on the ground of laches, as it was filed after a lapse of thirteen months without any explanation tendered in the petition. The core legal question involved whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the constitutional petition on the ground of unexplained delay and whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal's finding regarding the premature retirement was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the constitutional petition on the ground of laches was fully justified, as the explanation regarding an accident and obtaining certified copies was never pleaded before the High Court. Furthermore, upon examining the merits, the Supreme Court affirmed the view of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that the appellant stood retired from service in accordance with his original application and that the documents relied upon by the appellant did not establish any valid extension of his retirement date. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed on the ground of laches when no explanation for the delay is provided in the petition filed before the High Court?
  • Can an employee unilaterally alter the date of voluntary retirement once an application for premature retirement has been submitted and acted upon?
  • Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the non-receipt of applications for extension of retirement can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya and others vs Allah Diwaya and others1996 CLC 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-26
  pre-emptiondischarge of decreeadjustment of decreecivil decreeexchange of landsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land where parties had originally exchanged land, subsequently litigated, obtained a declaratory decree, and then entered into a private agreement to abide by the original exchange, leading to a subsequent sale of land. The core legal question was whether a court decree could be adjusted or discharged by the parties out of court without the intervention of the court, and whether such an agreement effectively restored the parties to their pre-litigation status regarding land ownership. The Lahore High Court held that parties are legally competent to adjust or discharge their rights and liabilities under a decree through a private agreement or instrument of discharge, thereby extinguishing or satisfying the decree. The court laid down the principle that a decree-holder can discharge a judgment-debtor from obligations under a decree, and an agreement acting as a discharge of liability is valid and wider in effect than a mere adjustment, effectively relegating the parties to their original positions and rendering subsequent transactions valid accordingly. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court decree be adjusted or discharged by the parties without the intervention of the court?
  • Whether an oral or written agreement between parties can operate to discharge obligations under a judicial decree?
  • Does a pre-emptor have a superior right of pre-emption over land other than the actual subject-matter of the sale-deed?
  • What is the distinction between the adjustment and the discharge of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 628 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The General Manager, Finance (Power), WAPDA, Lahore1996 PLC (C.S.) 1022 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Bashir Ahmed1996 CLC 907 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Additional District Judge, Chiniot and 3 others1996 SCMR 1779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-11
  evictionlandlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantconcurrent findingsownership disputerevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an eviction dispute concerning a house in Chiniot Town. The contesting respondents filed an eviction application before the Rent Controller alleging default in rent payment, damage to the property, and personal need. The appellant resisted, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and claiming ownership of the house, asserting it was constructed on a graveyard site. The Rent Controller found in favor of the respondents and ordered eviction, a decision affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge and upheld by the High Court in a constitutional petition. The core legal question revolved around the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and whether the appellant successfully established ownership through revenue records. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding ownership and tenancy by the lower forums were based on proper appraisal of evidence and suffered from no legal infirmity, and reiterating that criminal courts cannot conclusively decide questions of civil title.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal court's observation in a criminal case can conclusively decide a question of civil title?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by rent tribunals regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction without showing grave illegality?
  • Does revenue record entries unsupported by linkage to the disputed property establish ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Additional District Judge and others1996 MLD 403 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Additional District Judge And Other1996 MLD 403 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta By Legal Heirs vs Abdul Aziz And 2 Other1996 MLD 697 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 1651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-30
  murderocular evidencepresidential amnestydeath sentence commutationself-defencejail petitioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioners for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence, supported by a prompt FIR and motive, was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of a Presidential Amnesty Order. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, affirming that the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating circumstances. The Court rejected the defense plea of self-defense as unreasonable. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Presidential Amnesty Order dated 7-12-1988, as they were sentenced to death prior to the cutoff date. Consequently, the Court commuted the death sentences to imprisonment for life on each count, ordered the sentences to run concurrently, and granted the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Are convicts sentenced to death by a trial court before 6-12-1988 entitled to the benefit of the Presidential Amnesty Order dated 7-12-1988?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an ocular account when the FIR is promptly lodged and the witnesses are credible?
  • Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to convicts whose death sentences are commuted to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and 2 others vs The State1996 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-07
  common intentionmurdercompromiseacquittalbailcriminal petitionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and petition arise from a murder and murderous assault case where the trial court convicted the accused persons under section 302/149 and section 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing one to death and others to life imprisonment. Upon appeal, the High Court acquitted two co-accused, altered the death sentence to life imprisonment, and upheld the convictions of the remaining appellants under sections 302/34 and 307/34. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, a compromise was accepted between two of the appellants and the legal heirs of the deceased, resulting in their acquittal. The core legal question regarding the remaining petitioner, Mushtaq Hussain, was whether his conviction for murder under section 302 read with section 34 was sustainable when he allegedly caused only an injury to an injured witness and made no direct attempt to injure the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner shared a common intention with the co-accused, as he arrived armed, participated in the attack, and injured a witness who tried to intervene. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of an accused under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when he caused injury only to an injured witness and not directly to the deceased?
  • Does a compromise between the legal heirs of the deceased and some of the appellants result in their acquittal in a murder case?
  • Whether the presence of injured eyewitnesses sufficiently supports the prosecution's case regarding common intention?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta alias Dittu vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1970 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Mst. Noor Bhari and others1996 CLC 374 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Baksh and 4 others vs Dr. Abdul Waheed and another1996 PLD Karachi 458 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-14
  suit for possessionlimitationres judicataKatchi Abadisubsisting titlemesne profitsconstructive possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration, permanent injunction, possession, mesne profits, and damages in respect of a plot located in a Katchi Abadi in Karachi, tracing a lengthy history of prior litigation between the parties concerning tenancy, ejectment, and title. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, whether it was barred by the principle of res judicata under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the plaintiffs had established a subsisting title or right to possession. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was barred by limitation, as it was filed well beyond the period of twelve years from the date of dispossession, and was also barred by res judicata in light of a prior finalized suit for possession. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership or subsisting title to the government land comprising the Katchi Abadi. The key principle laid down is that a plaintiff seeking possession of immovable property on the basis of title must establish a subsisting title and bring the action within the limitation period prescribed, and subsequent suits for reliefs omitted in earlier proceedings are barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for possession of immovable property is barred by limitation if filed beyond twelve years from the date of dispossession under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Does a prior final adjudication of a possession suit between the same parties bar a subsequent suit under the principle of res judicata pursuant to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Is a suit for possession simpliciter maintainable when the plaintiff fails to establish ownership or subsisting title to the property in dispute?
  • Whether the omission to claim possession and mesne profits in an earlier suit for declaration and injunction attracts the bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 254 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and anothers vs Muhammad Shaft1996 MLD 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh And Another vs Muhammad Shafi1996 MLD 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Alkesh Subodhchandra Shah, Kaushikkumar Keshavlal, Paresh Jayantilal(PTCL 1996 FC. 183) · Gujarat High CourtRead full judgment →
• Alkesh Subodhchandra Shah and others vs State of Gujarat and others1996 PTD 1052 · Gujarat High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
• Aljihad Trust and others vs Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo and others1996 MLD 1789 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-25Read full judgment →
• Ali:Pakistan A.D.B.P. Workers Federation through Secretary-General,1996 PLC 669 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 357 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs Province of Sindh and others1996 MLD 1580 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs Province of Sindh And Other1996 MLD 1580 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad vs Station House Officer, Ahmadpur Lamma, District1996 MLD 169 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1347 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State and others1996 SCMR 501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-30
  acquittalextra-judicial confessionmotiverecovery of weaponscriminal appealreappraisal of evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court that acquitted two respondents of murder charges. The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Yar, based on allegations of illicit relations and motive. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its reappraisal of the evidence, specifically regarding motive, recovery of weapons, and extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal, finding that the lower court had properly appraised the evidence. The High Court had correctly discarded the motive as unnatural, rejected the recovery of weapons from an open place as unreliable, and dismissed the extra-judicial confession because the witnesses failed to produce the accused before the police despite the alleged confession. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court's reasoning was sound and based on a proper perspective of the evidence, concluding that there was no merit in the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an extra-judicial confession be discarded if the witnesses fail to produce the accused before the police after the alleged confession?
  • Is the recovery of crime weapons from an open place, not in the possession of the accused, sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Does evidence of motive that is deemed unnatural by the High Court warrant the rejection of that evidence in a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Mst. Sadaqat Begum and anothers1996 MLD 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Mst. Sadaqat Begum And Another1996 MLD 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Shafi and ethers1996 PLD Supreme Court 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-14
  Suits Valuation ActPecuniary jurisdictionAppellate jurisdictionValuation of suitSpecific performancePrejudiceRemand of caseCivil Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil dispute over a land sale agreement, where the valuation of the suit was contested. The core legal question was whether an appellate court, upon determining that a suit was undervalued and thus exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction, must return the appeal for presentation to a competent court, or whether it can proceed under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act. The Supreme Court held that Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act provides a comprehensive procedure for handling jurisdictional objections based on valuation. The Court ruled that an appellate court should not be divested of jurisdiction merely because a suit was undervalued, provided no prejudice was caused to the merits of the case. The Court affirmed that a change in the forum of appeal does not, by itself, constitute prejudice under Section 11. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order that had struck off specific issues and remanded the case, restoring the District Judge’s original order to proceed with the trial on all relevant issues.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court lose jurisdiction over an appeal if it determines the suit was undervalued for pecuniary purposes?
  • What constitutes prejudice under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act regarding the disposal of a suit or appeal on its merits?
  • Can a change in the forum of appeal, resulting from a correction in suit valuation, be considered prejudice under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act?
  • Is an objection to jurisdiction based on over-valuation or under-valuation maintainable if it was not raised at the earliest opportunity?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan vs The State(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 111) · Board of Revenue · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 797 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar vs The State1996 SCMR 1118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-04
  leave to appealocular evidencemedical evidencefirearm injurymitigation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitions for leave to appeal were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan to challenge a criminal conviction. The core legal questions presented for consideration were whether a material conflict existed between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the distance from which the firearm was discharged, and whether prior insults directed at the victim constituted mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction in the sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these specific issues concerning the appreciation of evidence and the determination of the appropriate sentence. The Court did not finalize the merits of the appeal but established that arguable points of law and fact existed regarding evidentiary consistency and sentencing mitigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conflict between ocular and medical evidence regarding the distance of a firearm shot warrants the grant of leave to appeal?
  • Whether preceding insults directed at a victim can be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the determination of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar vs State1996 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-25
  murdercommon intentionmedical evidenceocular evidencemitigating circumstancesgrave and sudden provocationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellants, Hukam Dad and Ali Gohar, for the murder of Ghulam Khan under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions examined by the Supreme Court were whether there was a fatal conflict between the ocular and medical evidence regarding the distance from which the fatal shot was fired, and whether preceding insults offered to one of the appellants constituted a mitigating circumstance warranting a reduction in sentence. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness testimony establishing that the shot was fired from close range, and that prior altercations involving fist and kick blows did not amount to grave and sudden provocation sufficient to mitigate a premeditated murder committed days later. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the death sentence of Hukam Dad and the life imprisonment of Ali Gohar, thereby reaffirming the principles regarding the evaluation of medical versus ocular evidence and the strict thresholds for mitigating circumstances in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the firing distance is sufficient to discredit eyewitness accounts?
  • Whether preceding insults and minor physical altercations occurring days prior to an incident constitute mitigating circumstances for reducing a death sentence?
  • Whether a co-accused whose firearm shot misses the target can be convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Dost vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 360 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs Muhammad Ramzan Ghauri and 2 others1996 MLD 530 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs Muhammad Ramzan Ghauri And 2 Other1996 MLD 530 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar Shah vs Hashim Shah and 6 others1996 CLC 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-03
  amendment of plaintnature of suitcause of actionspecific performancedeclaration and injunctioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arises from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge dismissing the plaintiff's application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amendment of the plaint. The core legal question concerns whether a plaintiff can be permitted to amend a suit originally framed for declaration and injunction to one including specific performance, and whether such an amendment changes the nature of the suit or its cause of action. The Sindh High Court held that the amendment was necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and did not alter the fundamental cause of action, as the bundle of facts remained unchanged. The Court emphasized that provisions governing amendments of pleadings must be construed liberally to advance complete justice, provided the amendment is not mala fide and does not set up an entirely new case. The revision application was accordingly allowed, setting aside the trial court's order subject to the payment of costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for amendment of the plaint seeking to add a prayer for specific performance changes the fundamental nature and cause of action of a suit for declaration and injunction?
  • Under what circumstances is a court bound to allow an amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Can an amendment of the plaint be permitted even if it involves altering the title and prayer clause, provided the underlying bundle of facts remains the same?
  • Does delay alone constitute a sufficient ground for refusing a bona fide application for the amendment of a plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs The State1996 MLD 1882 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar Bozdar vs The Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VIII, Larkana and another1996 PLC 361 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 534 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases I32 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Ali Aijmad vs DR. Akhtar AliK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 242 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs Dr. Akhtar Ali1996 CLC 1312 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways1996 PLC 406 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Alhamza Ship Breaking Company and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance & Economic Affairs (Revenue Division), Islamabad and Others1996 CLC 608 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-11Read full judgment →
• Alamgir vs The State Through Director General Pakistan Coast Guards1996 P.C.T.L.R. 64 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Alamgir and 11 others vs Messrs Dada Bhoy Silk Mills Ltd., Karachi and 21996 PLC 683 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
• Alamcir, And Other vs The StateK.L.R, 1996 Revenue Cases 97 · Board of Revenue · 1994-11-17Read full judgment →
• Alam Sher vs S.H.O., Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1833 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan vs Swans Khan and 3 others1996 SCMR 1742 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-26
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecriminal jurisprudencemurder trialballistics report
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges. The core legal question was whether the High Court's acquittal of the respondent, Swans Khan, was perverse, illogical, or unreasonable, thereby justifying interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning was sound and that the prosecution's case suffered from inherent weaknesses, including the failure to cite independent witnesses from the busy locality and the suspicious nature of the ballistics evidence, which cast doubt on the integrity of the investigation. The Court emphasized the settled principle that in an appeal against acquittal, the Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere unless the findings are perverse or wholly illogical. It reaffirmed that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to the accused and that the mere possibility of a different view of the evidence is insufficient to set aside an acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Is the mere existence of another possibility regarding the appreciation of evidence a sufficient ground for setting aside an acquittal?
  • Does the failure to cite independent witnesses from a busy locality in a criminal case weaken the prosecution's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Qadir Chemical Soap Factory, Etc. vs M/s. Azhar Corporation, Etc.1996 P.C.T.L.R.1545 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• Al Jihad Trust And Others vs Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo And Other1996 MLD 1789 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-25Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Munir and 4 others vs District Manager, Sindh Road Transport1996 PLC 306 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-11
  grievance petitionabatement of petitioncivil servant statusworkman definitionlabour court jurisdictionindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns revision applications filed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, challenging an order by the Labour Court, which had declared the petitioners' grievance petitions abated on the grounds that they were civil servants governed by the Civil Servants Act. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, employed by the Sindh Road Transport Corporation, qualified as civil servants or as workers under the relevant labour laws. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that, with the exception of the Junior Clerk, the petitioners—comprising conductors, drivers, and cleaners—fall within the definition of workers under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and are not civil servants. Consequently, their grievance petitions do not abate and must be decided on their merits. The Tribunal set aside the Labour Court's order regarding these workers and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits. The key principle laid down is that employees such as conductors, drivers, and cleaners are classified as workers under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and are excluded from the definition of civil servants, thereby retaining their right to seek redressal through labour courts.

  Questions settled

  • Do conductors, drivers, and cleaners employed by a transport corporation fall under the definition of civil servants?
  • Does the status of a worker under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, preclude the abatement of a grievance petition?
  • Are grievance petitions of transport corporation employees governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain, Food Grains Inspector District Food Controller, Sahiwal and another vs Member-I, National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), Lahore Bench, Lahore and 4 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 810 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1816 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-06Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 31996 PLC 714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-03
  workmanindustrial relationssupervisory statustermination of servicegrievance petitionlabour court jurisdictioncontract of employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reinstating the petitioner. The petitioner, formerly a Junior Clerk promoted to Sales Officer, challenged the termination of his services, asserting he remained a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, despite his promotion, because he continued to perform ministerial tasks. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, holding a supervisory Sales Officer position at the time of termination, qualified as a workman entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was an officer with supervisory status and not a workman. The Court reasoned that performing occasional ministerial tasks, such as typing, to save time did not negate his official designation or supervisory responsibilities. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the termination was lawful, having been executed in accordance with the terms of his promotion, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the performance of occasional ministerial tasks by an employee holding a supervisory position alter their status to that of a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can an employee who has been promoted to a managerial or supervisory role claim the status of a workman based on their initial job description?
  • Is a termination of service lawful if it complies with the specific terms and conditions stipulated in the employee's promotion letter?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs Assistant Commissioner_Collector, Sub-Division, Kasur and 9 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 943 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29
  public employmentmerit-based appointmentpolitical interferencePatwari recruitmentconstitutional petitionrule of lawjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order dismissing a constitutional petition against the appointment of several Patwaris. The appellant, a qualified candidate, argued that the appointments were made in violation of established procedures, specifically alleging that the selection process was bypassed in favor of political recommendations from Members of the Provincial and National Assemblies. The core legal question was whether public appointments made solely on political recommendations, rather than through a merit-based selection process as prescribed by law, are legally sustainable. The Court held that the appointments were unlawful, noting that the recruitment process was a mere ritual and that politicians lacked the authority to direct appointments. The Court emphasized that while public employment may not be a fundamental right in the same sense as in other jurisdictions, the rule of law requires that appointments be made strictly on merit, following prescribed rules and open competition. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned appointments, declaring them without legal authority, and directed the Collector to initiate a fresh, merit-based selection process in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can public appointments be made based on the recommendations of political representatives rather than through prescribed merit-based procedures?
  • Does a candidate for public service have a right to challenge an appointment process that fails to follow statutory requirements?
  • Are government instructions regarding the criteria for initial recruitment considered part of the governing statute?
  • Does the allocation of public service posts to political figures violate the principle of equality in public employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Food Grains Inspector And Another vs Member-IK.L.R. 1996 Labour and Service Cases 93 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Akhtar H. ASKARdI vs Mst. Mahboob Begum1996 CLC 869 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs Superintendent of Police, Toba Tek Singh and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1089 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Abbas and another vs Assistant Commissioner_Administrator, Municipal Committee, Pattoki and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 429 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Akhan Razaullah vs The Municipal Committee, Tando Allahyar, through Chairman and 3 others1996 PLD Karachi 515 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Akbar vs The State1996 MLD 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Pehlwan1996 MLD 1415 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Peh Lwan1996 MLD 1415 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment1996 SCMR 1724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-27
  service lawfederal service tribunalpersonal hearingremandamendment of appealdismissal from servicenatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of the petitioner, an Assistant In-charge at the Federal Service Tribunal, following allegations of accepting illegal gratification. After an initial inquiry and a remand for a fresh inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking to amend his Memorandum of Appeal to include additional grounds. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal without first deciding or disposing of the petitioner's application for amendment. The petitioner challenged this dismissal before the Supreme Court, contending that he was denied a personal hearing after the remand and that the Tribunal erred by ignoring his pending application for amendment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing after the remand, whether the failure to provide such a hearing denied him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, and whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deciding the appeal without disposing of the pending amendment application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee is entitled to a personal hearing by the Authorized Officer and the Authority after a case is remanded for a fresh inquiry?
  • Does the failure to provide a personal hearing after a remand constitute a denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend oneself?
  • Is the Federal Service Tribunal legally required to dispose of an application for the amendment of a Memorandum of Appeal before deciding the appeal on its merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment1996 PLC (C.S.) 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-27
  leave to appealdismissal from servicepersonal hearingremandamendment of memorandum of appealdisciplinary proceedingsillegal gratification
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the dismissal of the petitioner, an Assistant Incharge in the Federal Service Tribunal, following disciplinary proceedings on charges of accepting illegal gratification. Initially remanded for a fresh enquiry by the Authority, the disciplinary process culminated in his dismissal from service. The petitioner appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal and subsequently filed an application to amend his memorandum of appeal to incorporate additional grounds. However, the Federal Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal without deciding his application for amendment. The petitioner contended that he was denied a reasonable opportunity of defense as no personal hearing was granted by the Authorised Officer or the Authority post-remand, and that the Tribunal erred in failing to rule on his amendment application. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these core procedural questions regarding personal hearing after remand, defense rights, and the non-disposal of an amendment application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether after remand an employee is entitled to an opportunity of personal hearing by the Authorised Officer and the Authority?
  • Whether the failure to provide an opportunity of personal hearing post-remand denies reasonable opportunity to defend oneself?
  • Whether a service tribunal is legally justified in deciding an appeal without first disposing of an application for amendment of the memorandum of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Hussain vs Wadero Muhammad Tayyab1996 PLD Karachi 545 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-15
  arbitration awardsole arbitratorappointment of arbitratorpower of court to appoint arbitratorarbitration agreementappellate powersdefault of appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a matter remanded by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to determine whether notice was served on the respondent before an arbitration award was rendered by a sole arbitrator. The core legal question is whether the unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by the appellant, without invoking the court's jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act after the respondent failed to concur, rendered the subsequent arbitration proceedings and award illegal. The Sindh High Court held that where an arbitration agreement is silent on the mode of appointment, the statutory provisions of Section 3 and Paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act apply, requiring the appointment of a sole arbitrator through the intervention of the court under Section 8 if parties fail to concur. Because the appellant failed to move the court for appointment under Section 8(2) and erroneously confused the procedure with Section 9, the appointment was bad in law. The court dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that failure to follow the mandatory court-appointment procedure under Section 8 for a sole arbitrator invalidates the appointment, distinguishing it from the self-executing provisions of Section 9.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator without seeking court intervention under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is legally valid when parties fail to concur?
  • What is the distinction between the appointment procedures mandated under Section 8 and Section 9 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Can an Appellate Court proceed to determine a case finally under Order XVII Rule 3 read with Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the appellant's counsel fails to address the court after being granted time?
  • Does an arbitration agreement that is silent on the mode of appointment default to a sole arbitrator pursuant to the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs Government of Balochistan and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 295 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Ajmair Sharif and 19 others vs Messrs Siemens Pakistan Engineering1996 PLC 173 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ajay Kumar Saharia vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1996 PTD 449 · Gauhati High Court · 1993-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 639 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Sami and 2 others vs Saadia Ahmed and another1996 SCMR 268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-26
  custody of minorsSection 491 Cr.P.C.Guardians and Wards Actinterim custodyillegal detentionjurisdiction of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order passed under Section 491, Cr.P.C., which directed the restoration of two minor children to their mother (respondent No. 1) after they were allegedly illegally detained by their father (petitioner No. 1). The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Section 491, Cr.P.C. to order the custody of minors when proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act are already pending. The Supreme Court held that the High Court has jurisdiction to pass interim orders under Section 491, Cr.P.C. to restore a minor to the person who held lawful custody if that person was illegally deprived of it, notwithstanding the existence of parallel proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act. The Court affirmed that Section 491, Cr.P.C. and the Guardians and Wards Act operate in different spheres and do not exclude each other. The Court upheld the restoration of custody to the mother as an interim measure but clarified that the Guardian Court must decide the final custody merits independently.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 491, Cr.P.C. to order the restoration of a minor's custody while proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act are pending?
  • Can a court pass an interim order for the custody of a minor under Section 491, Cr.P.C. if the minor was illegally removed from the person who held lawful custody?
  • Do the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to pass orders under Section 491, Cr.P.C. regarding the custody of minors?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Saeed vs The State and another1996 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-17
  quashment of FIRinherent powers of High Courtcriminal breach of trustabuse of process of courtinvestigation stagecivil liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court whereby an F.I.R. registered under section 408, P.P.C. was quashed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The core legal question was whether the High Court is competent to quash an F.I.R. under its inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. before the submission of a police report or the commencement of proceedings in court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in quashing the F.I.R., as no judicial proceedings were pending before any court at the time the quashment petition was filed, precluding any question of abuse of the process of any court. The key principle laid down is that the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash an F.I.R. at the investigative stage where no proceedings are pending in any court, nor can an F.I.R. be quashed merely on grounds of mala fides or the existence of a civil liability prior to the completion of investigation and submission of a report.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an F.I.R. under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. before the completion of investigation and submission of a report in court?
  • Does the inherent power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. extend to preventing the abuse of the process of a police station during investigation?
  • Is an F.I.R. liable to be quashed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. solely on the ground that the dispute discloses a civil liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Jawad Sarwar vs Mst. Zenia1996 SCMR 1116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-18
  minor custodyhabeas corpusleave to appealinterim arrangementguardianship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the custody of a minor. The core legal question is whether section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was rightly invoked to hand over custody of the minor to the mother in the absence of any observation or material indicating she had been illegally deprived of such custody. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question and modified the interim arrangement ordered by the High Court to permit the grandfather and grandmother, along with the father, to visit the minor. The principle laid down involves the proper scope and invocation of habeas corpus jurisdiction under section 491 in minor custody matters where illegal deprivation must be examined.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked for handing over the custody of a minor in the absence of material indicating illegal deprivation?
  • Can the Supreme Court modify an interim custody arrangement passed by the High Court pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Alex vs Vijayan1996 P.C.T.L.R. 793 · Kerala High Court · 1993-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Jamal vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Hussain vs M/s. Mehran Jute Mills Ltd., Karachi1996 PLC 472 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Food Industries Mazdoorittehad Union through General1996 PLC 685 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Bux & Sons vs Ismail1996 SCMR 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-05
  leave to appealre-hearing of appealservice of noticeejectment applicationrented premisesprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sindh High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the re-hearing of an appeal. The petitioner had sought a re-hearing under Order XLI, Rule 21, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, read with Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, after the High Court decided an ejectment appeal against them in their absence. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application for re-hearing when the record, specifically the bailiff's report, indicated that the petitioner had not been served with notice of the appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the issue of non-service of notice requires consideration to determine if the re-hearing application should have been granted. The Court further stayed the ejectment of the petitioner, subject to the regular payment of rent, pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for re-hearing of an appeal is maintainable when the appellant was not served with notice of the appeal?
  • Does the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 regarding the re-hearing of appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz vs The State1996 MLD 640 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Javed Shah vs Lahore Development Authority1996 CLC 7 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ashraf vs University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1996 MLD 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →