Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Sikandar and others vs Allah Yar and others1995 CLC 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the plaintiffs' suit regarding the inheritance of agricultural land originally held by Mst. Karam Nishan. The core legal question revolves around whether the property was ancestral and whether Mst. Karam Nishan held it as a limited owner under custom, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 2-A added by Ordinance XIII of 1983 to the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Amendment Act, 1962 to enable the plaintiffs to inherit as residuaries. The Lahore High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence to establish that the land was ancestral or that Mst. Karam Nishan held it as a limited owner from the last male owner, Ghulam Farid. Consequently, Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Amendment Act, 1962 and the cited precedents do not apply. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' dismissal of the suit. The key principle laid down is that a party claiming inheritance rights under statutory amendments pertaining to limited ownership under custom must affirmatively establish through evidence that the property was ancestral and held under such limited ownership.
Questions settled- Whether Section 2-A added by Ordinance XIII of 1983 to the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Amendment Act, 1962 applies when land is not established as ancestral property?
- Does a plaintiff claiming inheritance as a residuary bear the burden of proving that the female predecessor held the property as a limited owner under custom?
- Can a second appeal succeed where the appellant fails to produce evidence to substantiate the foundational assertions made in the plaint?
- Sikandar alias Dhuni and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1522 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for the suspension of sentence pending appeal filed by petitioners convicted under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the suspension of sentence under section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory when an appeal has not been decided within two years of conviction, and whether the court must record reasons for granting or refusing such relief. The Court held that the provision of section 426(1-A)(c) is mandatory, using the word "shall," and creates a rule for suspension of sentence in cases where the statutory time limit has elapsed. The Court clarified that while section 426(1) grants discretionary power requiring written reasons for suspension, section 426(1-A) mandates suspension unless the court records reasons in writing to deny it. Consequently, as no valid reasons were provided by the State or complainant to justify an exception, the Court allowed the petition and suspended the petitioners' sentences.
Questions settled- Is the suspension of sentence under section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory when an appeal has not been decided within two years of conviction?
- Does the court need to record reasons in writing for granting suspension of sentence under section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the distinction between the court's discretion under section 426(1) and the mandatory requirement under section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Sikandar Ali Shah vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi1995 PLC (C.S.) 915 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1995-02-09Read full judgment →
- Sikandar A. Karim vs The State1995 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from two criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Managing Director of an automobile company, challenging the High Court of Sindh's refusal to grant bail in a case registered under Section 156(1), (8), and (14) of the Customs Act, 1969, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution alleged under-invoicing of imported auto parts and smuggling of parts inside imported taxis. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and granted bail. The Court held that under-invoicing under Section 156(1)(14) carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Cr.P.C., making bail the rule and refusal the exception. Regarding the smuggling charge under Section 156(1)(8), the Court ruled that under Section 156(2) of the Customs Act, the accused is entitled to tentatively show at the bail stage that the seized goods were lawfully imported. The Court also emphasized that judicial propriety requires judges to express dissent with courtesy and restraint.
Questions settled- Whether an offence under Section 156(1)(14) of the Customs Act, 1969, which carries a maximum punishment of three years, falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Whether an accused charged with smuggling under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, is entitled to produce and have the court tentatively examine import documents at the bail stage to discharge the burden under Section 156(2) of the Act?
- Can a private person who is not a public servant be substantively convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
- What are the standards of judicial propriety and courtesy required under the Code of Conduct when a High Court judge expresses dissent or disagreement with a brother judge of the same court?
- Siemens India Limited vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 277 206 I T R 83 · Bombay High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
- Siddique vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 351 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-10Read full judgment →
- Siddique alias Saddi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
- Siddique Ahmed Khan vs Muhammad Farooq1995 MLD 861 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
- Sibte Zahid Naqvi vs First Sindh Labour Court at Karachi and 4 others1995 PLC 11 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-08-15Read full judgment →
- Shree Ram Woolen Mills vs Collector of Customs, New Delhi1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1183 · Other · -Read full judgment →
- Shoukat Hayat vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 330 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-11Read full judgment →
- Shoaib Yousaf Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 230 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-23Read full judgment →
- Shoaib Bilal Corporation vs Government of PakistanK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 27 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
- Shoab vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 112 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
- Shikandar A. Karim vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 101 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
- Sherin Dokhat vs Government of Pakistan and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 251 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitution petition challenged the vires of Regulation 25 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, which mandated the retirement of female cabin crew at a significantly younger age than other employees. The petitioner, a Senior Purser, argued that this regulation discriminated against her on the basis of sex, violating her fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether the imposition of a lower retirement age for female employees, despite their performance of supervisory duties identical to male counterparts, constituted unlawful discrimination. The Court held that the regulation was discriminatory and violated Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It ruled that discrimination based solely on sex is prohibited, and any classification must have a rational nexus to the object of the law. Finding no such justification for the disparate treatment of the petitioner, the Court declared the retirement order illegal and of no legal effect, emphasizing that departmental regulations cannot override constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
Questions settled- Does a regulation mandating an earlier retirement age for female employees compared to male employees constitute discrimination based on sex?
- Can departmental regulations or service rules override fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
- Is a classification in service rules valid if it lacks a rational nexus to the object of the legislation?
- Sherin and 4 others vs Fazal Muhammad and 4 others1995 SCMR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing the appellants' first appeal as barred by time. The appellants originally instituted the appeal before the District Judge within the statutory limitation period on the mistaken advice of their counsel, who overlooked the pecuniary jurisdiction as determined by the trial court's order on court-fee deficiency. The District Court entertained and retained the appeal for over ten months before returning the memorandum of appeal for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The High Court refused to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court considered the standard of care required of litigants and the duties of court functionaries. The Supreme Court held that while filing an appeal in a wrong forum due to legal counsel's advice does not automatically excuse delay, the act and delay of the court itself in failing to return the appeal with reasonable dispatch prejudiced the appellants. Applying the maxim that an act of court shall prejudice no man, the Supreme Court held that the court's delay constituted 'sufficient cause' under Section 5. The appeal was allowed, delay condoned, and the matter remanded to the High Court for fresh decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure empower an appellate court to apply Order VII Rule 10 to return a memorandum of appeal for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction?
- Can the delay in returning a memorandum of appeal by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Is it the duty of court officials upon receiving a memorandum of appeal to decide jurisdictional issues regarding pecuniary limitation?
- Does the mistaken advice of counsel automatically furnish sufficient cause for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Sheraz Asghar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1456 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
- Sheraz Asghar d vs The State1995 SCMR 1365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction and life sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence in the presence of alleged delays in FIR registration, discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence regarding the weapon used, the impact of an unproven motive, and the effect of the acquittal of a co-accused on the petitioner's conviction. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that minor discrepancies in describing weapons (pistol vs. carbine) in rural contexts do not invalidate reliable eyewitness testimony. The Court affirmed that the doctrine of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not recognized in Pakistan, allowing courts to sift grain from chaff. Furthermore, it ruled that the absence of a proven motive does not destroy otherwise credible evidence, and procedural irregularities in investigation do not vitiate a trial unless they cause a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' apply to criminal trials in Pakistan?
- Does the failure to prove a motive for murder invalidate otherwise credible ocular evidence?
- Can procedural irregularities during a police investigation vitiate a conviction if no miscarriage of justice occurs?
- Does a minor discrepancy in the description of a weapon between the FIR and medical evidence inherently discredit eyewitness testimony?
- Sher Zaman vs Muhammad Irshad and another1995 SCMR 1106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8-11-1993, whereby the High Court maintained the conviction of respondent No. 1 under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but altered the sentence of death to life imprisonment with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns whether the circumstances considered by the High Court—namely, that the murder stemmed from a blood feud involving family honour and that the convict did not repeat the fire or attack the complainant—constituted valid mitigating circumstances to warrant the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the aforementioned circumstances legally amounted to mitigating circumstances justifying the commutation of the death penalty. The key principle laid down is that the adequacy of mitigating circumstances for reducing a sentence of death to life imprisonment requires detailed examination by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether the involvement of family honour and a blood feud can constitute mitigating circumstances for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Does the failure to repeat a firearm injury amount to a mitigating circumstance in a murder case?
- Whether the alteration of a death sentence to life imprisonment by the High Court is sustainable in law under the given circumstances?
- Sher Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 263 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Moula Bux1995 CLC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three connected Revision Applications arising from suits for damages filed by the respondents against the applicant for defamation and malicious prosecution. The core legal question was whether a prosecution, which resulted in an acquittal based on the 'benefit of doubt' rather than a finding of falsity, constitutes malicious prosecution sufficient to sustain a claim for damages. The Sindh High Court held that the respondents failed to establish the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution, specifically malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause. The Court reasoned that because the applicant had sustained injuries (supported by medical evidence), the police had investigated and challaned the respondents, and the trial court had initially convicted them, the prosecution could not be deemed malicious merely because the High Court later acquitted the respondents on the benefit of doubt. The Court laid down the principle that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt does not automatically equate to malicious prosecution, and a prosecutor who honestly believes in the guilt of the accused based on reasonable grounds cannot be held liable for damages.
Questions settled- Does an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt automatically constitute malicious prosecution?
- What are the essential ingredients a plaintiff must prove to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution?
- Can a suit for malicious prosecution be maintained where the complainant had reasonable and probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings?
- Does the initial conviction of an accused by a trial court negate a subsequent claim of malicious prosecution against the complainant?
- Sher Muhammad vs Government of Punjab and others1995 MLD 859 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Government of Punjab And Other1995 MLD 859 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Ahmed Khan and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 765 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Abdul Aziz1995 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent judgments of the trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court, which decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement. The respondent had filed a suit alleging that he and his two brothers, including the petitioner, had jointly acquired agricultural land through a pre-emption suit. The respondent claimed that an agreement existed whereby the petitioner and the other brother agreed to transfer their shares of the acquired land to the respondent, excluding 2-1/2 acres, in consideration for the respondent bearing all litigation expenses. The petitioner denied the existence of the agreement. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in finding the agreement proved. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the existence and terms of the agreement were final and free from defect. Furthermore, the Court refused to entertain a new factual contention raised for the first time at the leave stage regarding partial satisfaction of the agreement. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new factual contention for the first time during a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of legal defects?
- Sher Muhammad and others vs The State1995 SCMR 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction of the petitioners, Sher Muhammad and others, as reported in 1995 SCMR 846 before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns the proper appraisal of evidence, specifically whether the testimony of three relation-cum-chance witnesses, who allegedly witnessed the occurrence at dead of night in the moonlight, can form a safe basis for conviction in accordance with the established principles laid down by the Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the courts below correctly followed these evidentiary principles. The key principle laid down relates to the rigorous scrutiny required for appraising the testimony of relation and chance witnesses in criminal cases involving night-time occurrences.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of relation-cum-chance witnesses form a safe basis for conviction for an occurrence at dead of night in the moonlight?
- Were the principles governing the appraisal of evidence correctly followed by the courts below?
- Sher Muhammad and 2 others vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 and Section 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and causing hurt. The core legal questions concerned the proper appraisal of evidence, specifically whether the testimony of related and alleged "chance witnesses" regarding a nighttime occurrence could safely form the basis for conviction, and the scope of contradicting witnesses under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the convictions were sound. The Court affirmed that medical evidence corroborated the ocular account, and the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained. Crucially, the Court ruled that facts elicited by the defense during cross-examination cannot be equated with previous statements for the purpose of contradiction. Furthermore, the Court disapproved of the practice of using prolonged cross-examination to manipulate witness error, emphasizing that minor contradictions do not undermine the material evidence of credible eyewitnesses.
Questions settled- Can facts elicited during cross-examination be equated with previous statements for the purpose of contradicting a witness?
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Is the medical evidence sufficient to corroborate the ocular account of an incident?
- Does the practice of prolonged cross-examination to induce error in a witness invalidate the testimony?
- Sher Mehmood Khan vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 5 others1995 PLC 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Sher Khan vs Haji Naqeebuddin1995 MLD 148 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
- Sher Khan and others vs Muhammad Ali and others1995 MLD 547 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Sher Khan And Others vs Muhammad Ali And Other1995 MLD 547 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Sher Ghazan vs S.D.E.O. (Male), Timargara, District Dir and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 543 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
- Sher Ghazan vs S.D.E.O. (Male), Timargara, District Dir and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 129 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
- Sher Bahadur vs Collector of Customs, Central Excise and Sales, Rawalpindi and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 601 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
- Sher Azam vs M/s. Ghulam Nabi Engineering Works, Karachi1995 PLC 98 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
- Sher Azam Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Health, Peshawar1995 SCMR 1706 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a service appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had refused to exercise jurisdiction regarding the withdrawal of the appellant's promotion. The appellant, a Hostel Superintendent, was promoted to Assistant Provost but subsequently reverted when the government withdrew the promotion order. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine, citing Section 4(b)(i) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which bars appeals regarding the 'fitness or otherwise' of a person to be promoted. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted this provision as a bar to reviewing the legality of the withdrawal of a promotion order. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation. The Court clarified that determining the 'fitness' of a civil servant for promotion is distinct from determining the legality of an order reverting a civil servant from a superior to an inferior post. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits, establishing that the bar on fitness-related appeals does not preclude judicial review of the validity of promotion withdrawal orders.
Questions settled- Does the bar in Section 4(b)(i) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974 regarding 'fitness' for promotion preclude a Service Tribunal from reviewing the legality of an order withdrawing a promotion?
- Is the question of a civil servant's fitness for promotion synonymous with the question of whether a civil servant has been rightly reverted from a superior to an inferior post?
- Sher Ali KHAN/Defendant vs Miram Shah and 26 others/Plaintiffs1995 MLD 308 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali Khan vs Miram Shah And 26 Other/Plaintiffs1995 MLD 308 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali Khan and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 508 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali Khan And Another vs The State1995 MLD 508 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
- Sher Ahmed and others vs The State1995 SCMR 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing their application for pre-trial bail in a case registered under sections 420, 34, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of fraudulent transfer of land via a forged power of attorney. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail when the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and trial proceedings had been stayed for an indefinite period. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed bail, holding that accused persons cannot be detained in judicial lock-up without trial for an indefinite period when the case falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration without trial, coupled with the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause, warrants the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Is an accused person entitled to bail when the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can accused persons be detained in a judicial lock-up without trial for an indefinite period?
- Does a stay of trial proceedings by the High Court justify granting bail to incarcerated petitioners?
- Sher Afgan vs Shaikh Anjum Iqbal1997 MLD 98 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Rent Controller's order dismissing an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant regarding two commercial premises. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of rent default, personal bona fide use, and impairment of the premises. The Court held that the landlord's refusal to accept rent, which the tenant subsequently deposited with the Controller, negated the claim of willful default. Regarding personal requirement, the Court found the claim lacked good faith, noting the landlord resided in another city and lacked relevant business experience, suggesting the application was a retaliatory measure following a dispute over rent enhancement. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that because the tenancy agreements were unregistered, the relationship was governed by the statutory provisions of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 rather than the expired agreements. The Court established that where a landlord creates circumstances preventing rent payment, they cannot subsequently claim default. Additionally, evidence of personal requirement must be scrutinized for bona fides, particularly when coupled with evidence of malice or ulterior motives, such as retaliatory litigation.
Questions settled- Does the refusal of a landlord to accept rent, forcing the tenant to deposit it with the Rent Controller, constitute willful default?
- Are the rights and liabilities of parties governed by an expired, unregistered tenancy agreement or by the relevant rent restriction statute?
- Can a landlord's claim for personal bona fide use be rejected if the evidence suggests the application is a retaliatory measure?
- Does the failure to pay water and conservancy charges constitute rent default when the landlord fails to bifurcate the shared utility bills?
- Shela Rubab vs (Mst.) Nighat, Principal, Govt. Degree College forK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 484 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Naseeruddin vs Masood Hassan1995 PLD Lahore 89 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal Shafi vs Sheikh Pervaiz Alamgir Shaikh and others1995 MLD 974 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal Shafi vs Sheikh Pervaiz Alamgir Shaikh And Other1995 MLD 974 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal Shafi vs Sheikh Pervaiz Alamc.Ir SheikhK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 455 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-02Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Asghar vs The Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 51995 SCMR 915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal in limine. The petitioner, initially appointed as a Cashier and later as a Revenue Officer on probation, had his services dispensed with. He previously challenged his termination through a constitutional petition, which resulted in a compromise wherein he withdrew the petition and accepted re-appointment as a Cashier. Subsequently, he re-agitated the matter regarding his earlier termination before the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether an employee, having compromised a previous challenge and accepted a lower post under an arrangement, could subsequently turn around and challenge the termination order again. The Supreme Court held that having acted upon the settlement arrangement, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the termination order. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that a party who compromises a legal proceeding and acts upon the settlement cannot subsequently reagitate the settled grievance.
Questions settled- Can an employee challenge a termination order after compromising a previous constitutional petition and accepting a lower post under that arrangement?
- Whether an employee who has acted upon a settlement arrangement can subsequently reagitate the legality of their termination?
- Sheikh Muhammad Arif vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 628 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Abdul Saleem vs SHO, P.S. Garden Town, LahoreK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Abdul Saleem vs S.H.O., Police Station Garden Town, Lahore1995 MLD 1144 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Abdul Aziz Hamad Algosaibi/ vs Pakistan International Airlines1995 PLD Karachi 566 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant filed applications under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the transfer of two civil suits from the file of an Additional Judge of the Sindh High Court to a permanent Judge, alleging bias and lack of judicial independence. The core legal question was whether the Chief Justice of a High Court possesses the judicial power to transfer an individual case from one Bench, which is lawfully seized of the matter, to another Bench, and whether an Additional Judge is disqualified from hearing cases involving the government. The Court held that the Chief Justice's power to regulate sittings is purely administrative and does not include the authority to withdraw or transfer an individual case from a Bench already seized of it. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Additional Judges possess the same powers, jurisdiction, and status as permanent Judges, and prior political affiliation does not constitute a disqualification. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications, affirming that the Chief Justice lacks the judicial authority to interfere with a Bench's jurisdiction over a case it is already hearing.
Questions settled- Does the Chief Justice of a High Court have the judicial power to transfer an individual case from one Bench to another Bench of the same High Court?
- Are Additional Judges of a High Court considered to be on the same plane as permanent Judges regarding their judicial powers and independence?
- Does prior membership in a political party disqualify a person from serving as a Judge of the High Court?
- Is the power of the Chief Justice to regulate court sittings an administrative or a judicial power?
- Shaukat ALIPetititioner vs Secretary, Industries and Mineral1995 MLD 123 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development, Government of Punjab, Lahore And 3 Other1995 MLD 123 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Muhammad Ayub1995 MLD 1155 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Liaqat Ali and another1995 CLC 1566 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sub-Judge, Mirpur, which rejected the petitioner's application to be impleaded as a party in a suit for specific performance and subsequently passed a compromise decree between the original parties. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a co-sharer in the suit land, was a necessary party whose absence rendered the proceedings and subsequent decree unsustainable. The High Court held that the trial court committed a grave illegality by refusing to implead the petitioner, who was an admitted owner of the suit land. The Court emphasized that under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the court has the power to add parties whose presence is necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the suit. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, accepted the petitioner's application to be joined as a party, and remanded the case for trial. The Court affirmed that it may exercise revisional jurisdiction to correct patent illegalities even where an alternative remedy of appeal exists.
Questions settled- Is a co-sharer of land a necessary party in a suit for specific performance concerning that land?
- Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction to correct a patent illegality even if an appeal is technically available?
- What is the legal test for determining whether a person should be added as a party to a suit under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Shaukat Ali and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1749 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by a trial court issuing process against three petitioners who were placed in Column No. 2 of the challan submitted by the police. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully in summoning the petitioners to face trial without explicitly applying its mind to the police report and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court's order was passed without due application of mind, as it failed to consider that the police had found no evidence to implicate the petitioners and had placed them in Column No. 2. The Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that while the police's opinion is not binding on the trial court, the court must, before issuing process against persons placed in Column No. 2, examine the available material and record a prima facie conclusion regarding their involvement. The trial court was granted liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law after proper consideration of the record.
Questions settled- Is the opinion of the police regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the trial court?
- What is the legal requirement for a trial court before issuing process against persons placed in Column No. 2 of a challan?
- Can a trial court issue process against an accused without applying its mind to the material available in the police report?
- Shaukat Ali Alias Bagga Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 220 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali alias Bagga and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1108 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
- Sharif vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1692 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
- Sharaf Din And 7 Others vs Mst. Maqbool Jan1995 MLD 1602 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Sharaf Din and 7 others vs Mst. Maobool Jan1995 MLD 1602 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
- Shamsul Hassan vs The State1995 MLD 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-24Read full judgment →
- Shamshur Rehman vs Muhammad Rafiq And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 257 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-26Read full judgment →
- Shams-Ud-Din and 10 others vs Speaker, Balochistan Provincial1995 PLC (C.S.) 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- Shamman vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 342 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
- Shamman Jatoi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1334 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-17Read full judgment →
- Shamim Ahmed Kazmi vs The Presiding Officer, Ivth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and 4 others1995 PLC 91 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
- Shami-Ud-Din vs Federal Government of Pakistan through Chairman1995 CLC 299 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the detention of the detenue, an ex-director and ordinary shareholder of Bahawalpur Textile Mills Ltd., who was confined in civil prison under the orders of the Tehsildar/Revenue Officer WAPDA for the recovery of outstanding electricity dues owed by the company. The core legal question is whether a director or shareholder of a public limited company can be held personally liable for the company's electricity arrears and subjected to detention for the recovery thereof. The Lahore High Court held that a director of a limited company cannot be held personally liable for the dues of the company, and therefore the detention of the petitioner's brother for the company's default was illegal, unlawful, and without lawful authority. The court established the principle that WAPDA authorities must proceed against the assets and holdings of the company itself under the applicable land revenue laws rather than detaining individuals who are not personally liable as defaulters.
Questions settled- Whether a director or shareholder of a public limited company can be held personally liable for the electricity dues of the company?
- Can a person who is not a personal defaulter of electricity dues be arrested and detained for the recovery of arrears owed by a corporate entity?
- Are the assets and holdings of a company the proper subject of attachment and sale for the recovery of its electricity arrears under the Land Revenue Act?
- Shamas-Ud-Din vs Muhammad SharifK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 326 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
- Shakil-Ur-Rehman Hamidi vs Government of Sindh and others1995 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which had dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging the seniority list pertaining to Head Masters, Sub-Divisional Education Officers, and Deputy Education Officers (B-17). The core legal question concerned the alleged illegal supersession of the appellant by a junior officer in promotion from BS-17 to BS-18. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the Government of Sindh submitted a formal undertaking stating that if the appellant's allegation of supersession by a junior officer from the Provincialized Cadre in 1984 is correct, the appellant will be granted promotion from the date his junior was promoted. The appellant accepted this undertaking. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the official undertaking given by the Provincial Government, with no order as to costs.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal regarding a service seniority list can be disposed of on the basis of an official undertaking given by the Provincial Government?
- Does promotion of a junior officer entitle a senior civil servant to pro-rata promotion from the date of the junior's promotion when the government undertakes to rectify the supersession?
- Shakeeluddin vs Habib Bank Limited, Karachi through its Provincial Chief1995 PLC 166 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 464 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Adilzada vs S.M. Rafi1995 MLD 181 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Rent Controller, Karachi-South, which fixed the fair rent of the appellant's premises at Rs. 400 per room per month. The appellant contended that the Controller failed to consider all four factors enumerated in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, arguing that all such factors must co-exist for a valid determination of fair rent. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is legally required to consider all four factors listed in Section 8 of the Ordinance cumulatively when fixing fair rent. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it is not a mandatory requirement for all four grounds mentioned in Section 8 to co-exist in every case. The Court reasoned that certain factors, such as tax increases or changes in annual rental value, may not be applicable in every instance. The principle laid down is that the Rent Controller is not bound to find the presence of all four factors to fix fair rent, provided the determination is otherwise based on a just and fair evaluation of the evidence.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for a Rent Controller to consider all four factors listed in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 when fixing fair rent?
- Must all four grounds for fair rent fixation under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 co-exist in every case?
- Can a Rent Controller fix fair rent if only some of the factors mentioned in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 are present?
- Shakar Ganj Sugar Mills Ltd. through General Manager (Admn.) vs Superintendent of Police, Jhang and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 845 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Zahid Bashir vs Sarkar and another1995 P Cr. L J 877 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Rashid Ahmad vs Lutf Ali Malik and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 717 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-28Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Mushtaq Ali vs MRS. Rajat AbbasK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 32 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
- Shahid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 714 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
- Shahid Nadeem vs Mst. Farzana Zaheer And Another1995 MLD 218 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
- Shahid Mansoor Bodla vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and another1995 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the regularization of service benefits for a former Statistical Officer. The petitioner, initially appointed to a short-term vacancy, challenged the termination of his services and the subsequent treatment of his intervening period of service by the departmental authority. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having been appointed against a specific short-term vacancy, possessed a legal entitlement to have the entire intervening period of his unemployment treated as duty with full pay, despite the Tribunal's previous compassionate accommodation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having been appointed against a temporary vacancy, had no valid legal claim to continued employment or specific treatment of the intervening period beyond what the department had already granted. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that appointments against short-term vacancies do not confer a right to permanent absorption or automatic salary entitlements for periods where no service was rendered, particularly when the department has already acted to accommodate the individual on compassionate grounds.
Questions settled- Does an appointment against a short-term vacancy confer a legal right to be accommodated against other available posts upon the expiry of that vacancy?
- Can a civil servant claim salary for an intervening period of unemployment following the termination of a short-term contract?
- Is a departmental authority obligated to treat an intervening period of service as 'on duty' for a temporary employee whose contract has expired?
- Shahid Jan Khattak vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 537 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
- Shahid Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 276 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-10Read full judgment →
- Shahid Iqbal vs Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary, Establishment Division and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 143 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Shahid Iqbal vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another1995 SCMR 660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a permanent employee of the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) sent on deputation, sought leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court vacating an interim status quo order in his writ petition. The petitioner challenged his repatriation to his parent department, contending he had been permanently absorbed into the Senate Secretariat with the concurrence of the CBR. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had made out a prima facie case regarding his permanent absorption to justify the continuation of interim relief, considering the jurisdictional bar regarding civil servants. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the documents on record—showing no-objection letters from the CBR and requests to remove the petitioner's name from the CBR's officer strength—established a prima facie case that the absorption was done with competent consent. Furthermore, Senate employees do not fall within the category of civil servants under Article 87(3) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the status quo.
Questions settled- Whether the vacation of an interim status quo order by a High Court was justified when documents prima facie established the permanent absorption of a deputationist?
- Do employees of the Senate Secretariat fall within the category of civil servants under the Constitution?
- Whether an interim injunction should be restored when a prima facie case and official regularity are demonstrated on the record?
- Shahid Hayat Khan and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 287 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
- Shahid Durrani vs The State1997 MLD 1901 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
- Shahid and 2 others vs The State and another1995 SCMR 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court's Judge in Chambers, which had set aside their acquittal by the trial court and remanded the case for retrial under section 302/34 P.P.C. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's acquittal judgment in revision without establishing misreading of evidence or perversity. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence for the safe administration of criminal justice, ordering that proceedings before the trial court remain stayed pending the disposal of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted to examine whether an appellate or revisional court properly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside an acquittal without identifying material perversity or complete misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can a revisional court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Whether failure of the trial court to give independent reasons for disbelieving ocular evidence justifies setting aside an acquittal.
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the reappraisal of evidence in criminal matters where acquittal is reversed?
- Shaheen Airport Services through Manager, Admin. Terminal No, 1, Karachi vs Muhammad Taufeeq Mughal, Karachi1995 PLC 102 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Shahbaz and Pearl, facing trial for murder under sections 302/114/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants sought bail on the grounds of statutory delay under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following the dismissal of their previous bail application on merits. The core legal question was whether the delay in the trial proceedings could be attributed to the accused, thereby disentitling them to relief, or whether the prosecution's failure to produce necessary evidence and expert reports warranted the grant of bail. Upon reviewing the case diaries, the Court observed that adjournments were largely due to the non-production of police papers, expert reports, and the unavailability of trial court time, rather than the conduct of the accused. The Court held that the policy of the law mandates speedy trials and that an accused should not suffer for delays attributable to the prosecution. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the root cause of trial delays must be examined rather than merely assigning blame to the defence.
Questions settled- Does the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail when trial delays are caused by the prosecution?
- Should a court examine the root cause of trial adjournments when determining bail applications based on statutory delay?
- Can an accused be denied bail on the ground of statutory delay if the defence counsel requested some adjournments, but the prosecution was not ready to proceed?
- Shahadat Ali vs The State EtcK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Shahadat Ali vs The State and others1995 MLD 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Shahadat Ali vs The State And Another1995 MLD 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Shahadat Ali alias Shahadat vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 636 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-24Read full judgment →
- Shahabuddin vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 328 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
- Shahab-Ud-Din and others vs Mst. Mariam Bibi and others1995 MLD 45 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-23Read full judgment →
- Shahab Ud Din And Others vs Mst. Mariam Bibi And Other1995 MLD 45 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-23Read full judgment →
- Shah Zaman vs Mst. Mussarat Begum1995 SCMR 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition against the concurrent judgments of three lower forums decreeing the respondent's suit for cancellation of a registered sale-deed and for possession of a disputed house. The core legal question concerns whether the lower courts misread the evidence, particularly regarding the expert findings on the disputed thumb-impressions and the execution of the sale-deed. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the fraudulent nature of the sale-deed and the lack of proper identification and execution were based on a proper assessment of the evidence, with expert testimony indicating tampering and failure to verify thumb-impressions. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual findings supported by evidence will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by three lower forums regarding the cancellation of a fraudulent sale-deed warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can a registered sale-deed be set aside when expert evidence establishes that the thumb-impressions of the executant were either tampered with or not proved?
- What is the effect on a party's case when a key marginal witness to a disputed sale-deed is not produced for further examination after allegations of impersonation?
- Shah Zaman and anothers vs Federal Government and another1995 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court order that dismissed their writ petition challenging the Federal Government's decision to transfer their double murder case from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, to a Special Court for Speedy Trials. The core legal questions were whether the Federal Government possessed the authority to transfer a pending criminal case to a Special Court, and whether the High Court correctly held that the writ petition was not maintainable given the constitutional bar on jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Federal Government is fully empowered under the Special Court for Speedy Trials Act 1992 to transfer cases involving gruesome, brutal, or sensational offenses to a Special Court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the constitutional provision barring jurisdiction in relation to proceedings before such tribunals is broad enough to preclude interference with the transfer of criminal cases. The judgment establishes that accused persons must raise their objections regarding the trial proceedings directly before the Special Court itself rather than through writ petitions.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Government have the authority to transfer a criminal case from an ordinary court to a Special Court for Speedy Trials?
- Does the constitutional bar on jurisdiction in Article 212-B(8) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the transfer of criminal cases to Special Courts?
- Can an accused challenge the transfer of their case to a Special Court through a writ petition in the High Court?