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.
- Shah vs The StateK.L.R..1997 Criminal Cases 505 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-02Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Khan vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Okara and 61997 MLD 173 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-25Read full judgment →
- Shah Jewana Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore" vs Federal Government of1995 CLC 413 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
- Shah Hussain vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, a mini-bus driver convicted under Section 320 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following a fatal accident. The core legal question before the High Court of Sindh was whether a convicted appellant of a bailable offence is entitled to bail as a matter of right during the pendency of their appeal. The Court held that because the offences under which the appellant was convicted are bailable, the provisions of Section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are attracted even after conviction. Consequently, the Court suspended the sentence and granted bail. The key principle laid down is that a convicted person whose appeal has been admitted is entitled to bail as a matter of right if the underlying offence is bailable.
Questions settled- Is a convicted appellant entitled to bail as a matter of right during the pendency of an appeal if the underlying offence is bailable?
- Do the provisions of Section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to post-conviction bail applications under Section 426 of the same Code where the offence is bailable?
- Can the sentence of a person convicted under Section 320 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be suspended as a matter of right pending appeal?
- Shah Din vs The State and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 688 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Shah Behram and 2 others vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 610 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
- Shah Ali vs The StateK.L.R.1997 Criminal Cases 402 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-26Read full judgment →
- Shagufta Perveen And 2 Other vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, MultanK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 497 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shafqat Ullah Khan vs Naveed Shahbaz and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1868 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner-father seeking the custody of his minor son from the respondents, alleging illegal removal. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court should interfere under its summary habeas corpus jurisdiction to recover a minor child who was residing with his natural mother, particularly when guardianship proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 were already pending before a Guardian Judge. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that habeas corpus proceedings are summary in nature and not intended to resolve complex guardianship disputes or replace the ordinary remedy available before the Guardian Judge. The Court emphasized that a mother's custody of a tender-aged child is natural and primary, that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands by omitting the mother as a party and relying on disputed documents, and that questions regarding the welfare of the minor and the forfeiture of Hizanat must be properly adjudicated by the competent Guardian Judge.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recover the custody of a minor when guardianship proceedings are already pending before a Guardian Judge?
- Are the remedies under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 mutually exclusive?
- What is the scope of the summary jurisdiction of the High Court in habeas corpus petitions involving the custody of a minor?
- Whether a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable when the minor is residing with the natural mother?
- Shafqat Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 475 · Other · -Read full judgment →
- Shafiqur Rahman vs Haji Agha Hassan1995 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a landlord's petition for ejectment against a tenant regarding commercial premises. The core legal question was whether the premises, operated as a restaurant or cafe, constituted a 'hotel' and were thereby excluded from the ambit of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the High Court could entertain this plea when it was neither pleaded nor argued before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in allowing the appeal on this ground. The Court clarified that a 'hotel' necessarily implies an establishment providing residential accommodation to travelers, whereas a restaurant or cafe merely provides refreshments. Consequently, the premises were not excluded from the Ordinance. The Court further emphasized that appellate courts should not decide cases on points not raised in the pleadings or before the trial forum. The judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for a decision on the merits of the original ejectment grounds.
Questions settled- Does a restaurant or cafe constitute a 'hotel' under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Can an appellate court allow an appeal based on a legal plea that was neither raised in the pleadings nor argued before the Rent Controller?
- What is the essential distinction between a 'hotel' and a 'restaurant' in the context of rent control legislation?
- Shafique Ahmad vs Muhammad Ramzan and another1995 SCMR 855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby respondent Muhammad Ramzan was acquitted of charges under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a four-year-old child. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with an acquittal judgment, particularly regarding the evaluation of ocular testimony, unexplained injuries on the accused, and competing versions of the incident. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court provided sound, cogent, and supportable reasons for acquittal, notably because the eye-witnesses suppressed injuries sustained by the respondent and lacked corroboration. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal by a competent court unless there are very strong, exceptional, and compelling grounds showing the judgment to be perverse or unreasonable.
Questions settled- What grounds are required for an appellate court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Does the suppression of injuries on the accused by eye-witnesses affect the credibility of the prosecution case?
- Whether leave to appeal against acquittal should be granted when the High Court has given sound and cogent reasons for acquitting the accused?
- Shafique Ahmad vs I.G.P. Punjab, Lahore And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service Cases 199 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
- Shafi Muhammad vs The General Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank1995 PLC 362 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
- Shafaqat Ali Alias Fatta vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 128 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
- Shadman vs Karachi Transport Corporation through Chairman and another1995 CLC 986 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-03Read full judgment →
- Shad Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 275 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
- Shabbir vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 301 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Shabbir Khan and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 239 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
- Shabbir and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 117 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ali vs The Sessions Judge, Jhelum and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 245 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a High Court judgment maintaining the appellant's conviction and sentence for murder. The prosecution alleged the appellant shot and killed the deceased during a dispute over a watercourse. The appellant admitted the occurrence but pleaded self-defence, claiming an exchange of fire occurred where the deceased was accidentally hit. The core legal question was whether the appellant's statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. should be accepted in its entirety, specifically regarding his plea of self-defence, and whether the prosecution's ocular account was reliable. The Supreme Court held that while an accused's statement should generally be read as a whole, the court is not bound to accept exculpatory parts if the prosecution provides clear, cogent, and reliable evidence. The Court found the defence plea to be a fabrication, noting the lack of injuries on the appellant and his failure to report the incident. The conviction was upheld, establishing that where prosecution evidence is robust, the court may reject an accused's self-serving exculpatory version while relying on the inculpatory facts.
Questions settled- Must an accused's statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
- Can a court reject the exculpatory portion of an accused's statement if the prosecution evidence is reliable?
- Does the mere existence of a defence version require the court to accept it over the prosecution's case?
- Shabbir Ahmad and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
- Sh. Sharif Ahmed vs The State1995 MLD 1821 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muzaffar Ali vs Haji Jehangir Khan And Another1995 MLD 73 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Aslam and others vs Shaukat Ali alias Shoka and others1995 PLD Supreme Court 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal petition for leave to appeal arising from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, convicted of murder, sought to compound the offence based on a compromise reached with some, but not all, of the deceased's legal heirs. Specifically, the mother of the deceased refused to waive her right of Qisas, while the widow and minor children agreed to the compromise. The core legal question is whether, in a case where punishment is awarded by way of Ta'zir, the principle of Section 309 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860—which allows for the waiver of Qisas by some heirs while entitling others to Diyat—is applicable. Furthermore, the Court identified a broader issue regarding whether an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be compounded under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if not all legal heirs consent to the compromise. Due to the general importance of these questions, the Court issued notices to the Attorney-General and Advocates-General and appointed amicus curiae to assist in the final determination.
Questions settled- Can the principle of Section 309 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to cases where punishment is awarded by way of Ta'zir?
- Can an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if not all legal heirs of the victim agree to the compromise?
- SH. Muhammad Aslam and Other vs Sameera Amir. Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 146 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
- Sh. Manzoor Ahmad vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 59 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arose from a Service Tribunal decision dismissing the appellant's challenge to a retrospective government notification. The notification, issued under Section 22 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act 1976, retrospectively regularized the appointment of a co-respondent as Sub-Judge/Magistrate, thereby adversely affecting the appellant's seniority. The core legal questions were whether the Government's residuary powers under Section 22 could be exercised retrospectively to the detriment of another civil servant's seniority, and whether a regular appointment could be made without Public Service Commission selection. The Supreme Court, by majority, accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned notifications and the Service Tribunal's order. The Court held that Section 22 powers must be exercised in a 'just and equitable' manner and cannot be used to grant retrospective seniority that violates the vested rights of other regularly appointed civil servants. Furthermore, the Court established that regular appointments to Grade-16 and above require Public Service Commission selection, which cannot be bypassed using Section 22.
Questions settled- Can the Government exercise its residuary powers under Section 22 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act 1976 retrospectively if it adversely affects the vested seniority rights of another civil servant?
- Is an ad hoc civil servant entitled to claim seniority from the date of their ad hoc appointment once they are regularized?
- Can the Government bypass the requirement of selection by the Public Service Commission for regular appointments in Grade-16 and above by invoking Section 22 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act 1976?
- Is a civil servant required to separately challenge a subsequent seniority list if they have already challenged the underlying retrospective notification affecting their seniority?
- SH. Khalil-Ur-Rehman, Lahore vs Ito Circle-06, Lahore.1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1192 · Income Tax Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sh. Haji Ijaz Ahmad vs Inam Naqshbandi1995 CLC 101 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house, where lower courts had rejected the plaint as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the suit was governed by the limitation period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and from what date such limitation should be computed. The High Court held that the suit was within time, as no specific date for performance was fixed in the agreement, and the defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence regarding the date of refusal. The Court clarified that a suit for specific performance is distinct from a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908, and the 30-day limitation period for the latter does not apply to the former. Furthermore, the Court established that trial courts must decide all issues in a suit rather than deciding cases in parts, a practice that causes inordinate delay and undermines judicial efficiency. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for a decision on the remaining issues.
Questions settled- Does the 30-day limitation period under Section 77 of the Registration Act 1908 apply to a suit for specific performance?
- When does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance begin if no specific date for performance is fixed in the contract?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to decide a suit based solely on a preliminary issue of limitation without addressing the remaining issues?
- Sh. Habib-Ur-Rehman vs Government of the Punjab through Chief1995 PLC (C.S.) 963 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
- Sh. Akhtar Ali vs The Federation of Pakistan1995 PTD 268 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, challenged the re-assessment order dated 17-6-1981 passed by the Income Tax Officer for the Assessment Year 1967-68 under section 34 of the repealed Income Tax Act, 1922. The core legal questions involved whether a re-assessment order passed without a valid notice and without the mandatory prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is lawful, and whether an Income Tax Officer can discharge quasi-judicial functions at the dictation of superior authorities. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned re-assessment order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect, as the original notice under section 34 was invalid, pertained to a different assessment year, lacked mandatory statutory approval, and the assessing officer failed to apply an independent mind, being unduly influenced by instructions from the Commissioner of Income Tax. The court laid down the principle that assessment proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, and while subordinate officers may seek guidance in complex matters, superiors cannot issue binding directives that dictate the outcome or render the assessee's statutory right of appeal illusory.
Questions settled- Whether a re-assessment order passed under section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, without a valid notice for the relevant assessment year is sustainable in law?
- Can an Income Tax Officer surrender their independent judgment and pass a quasi-judicial assessment order at the behest of superior administrative authorities?
- Does the existence of an alternative statutory remedy bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction when an impugned order is palpably without jurisdiction and mala fide?
- Whether prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is mandatory for initiating valid re-assessment proceedings under section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
- Sh. Abdul Sattar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone 'C' and 2 others1995 PTD 882 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
- Sh. Abdul Rashid, Magistrate Service Section 30, Okara vs The Reporting Officer and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 960 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
- SH. Abdul Rasheed vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 82 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
- SH Iraz vs Muhammad Ayub1997 MLD 115 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
- Senator Sultan Ali Lakhani vs Mir Shakil-Ur-Rahman & 4 Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 527 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-13Read full judgment →
- Senator Lt.General (Rtd.) Saeed Qadir vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
- Semco Salvage Pte Limited- vs M.V. Kaptan Yusuf Kalkavan Turkish and another1995 MLD 706 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
- Semco Salvage Pte Limited vs M.V. Kaptan Yusuf Kalkavan Turkish And Another1995 MLD 706 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
- Secretary, Finance Division Government of Pakistan and 2 others vs Ejaz Hussain Malik1995 SCMR 878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the decision of a Selection Board denying the respondent, a permanent BPS-18 employee, a move-over to BPS-19. The respondent had sought a move-over effective from December 1, 1992, but the Selection Board rejected his request, citing specific shortcomings, including the fact that he had been granted Selection Grade BPS-18 only on June 1, 1992, and had not completed the requisite one-year tenure at the maximum of his pay scale. The Tribunal subsequently declared the Selection Committee's recommendations discriminatory and unlawful. The petitioners, representing the Government, challenged this, arguing that move-over is a concession, not a vested right, and thus not justiciable before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the interpretation of the phrase 'subject to the condition that they fulfil other conditions according to the existing policy' contained in the Finance Division's Office Memorandum dated May 17, 1992, to determine the scope of eligibility for move-over concessions for federal civil servants.
Questions settled- Is the grant of move-over to a civil servant a justiciable matter before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Does the denial of a move-over concession constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of service?
- What is the legal significance of the condition requiring fulfillment of existing policy criteria for the grant of move-over?
- Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power1995 PLC 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 20th October 1993, which allowed a writ petition filed by work-charged tubewell operators previously employed by WAPDA and subsequently transferred to the Irrigation Department. The core legal questions involve whether work-charged employees are entitled to retain their higher previous pay scale upon transfer despite opting for a lower scale and acquiescing for years, and whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction in light of the bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider these questions regarding pay fixation upon departmental transfer and the jurisdictional bar of the service tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether work-charged employees could be held entitled to the same pay on their transfer and absorption in the same cadre of the Irrigation Department in NPS-2 after they had opted for it and acquiesced for years?
- As to whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction in the manner irrespective of the bar of Article 212(2) of the Constitution?
- Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore1995 PLC (C.S.) 108 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment that set aside the reversion of the respondent from the post of Accountant to Assistant Accountant. The respondent, initially promoted as an Accountant in 1980, was reverted in 1986 on the grounds of being non-qualified for failing to pass the S.A.S. Departmental examination. The core legal questions were whether the respondent's promotion was regular or merely officiating, whether his reversion without notice violated natural justice, and whether he was subjected to discriminatory treatment compared to other similarly situated employees who were granted exemptions. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the respondent had been promoted against a permanent vacancy and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the promotion was conditional. Crucially, the Court held that the respondent was subjected to discrimination, as other employees in similar circumstances were exempted from the examination requirement and retained their positions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the arbitrary reversion of a civil servant without notice, particularly when discriminatory, violates fundamental principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be reverted from a promoted post without a show-cause notice?
- Does the arbitrary exemption of some employees from a mandatory departmental examination while enforcing it against others constitute discrimination?
- Is a promotion made against a permanent vacancy considered regular even if the order uses the term 'officiating'?
- Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation1995 PLC (C.S.) 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which set aside the respondent's dismissal from service and ordered a fresh inquiry. The respondent, initially a confirmed Lecturer in the Education Department, was later appointed as an Excise and Taxation Officer in a temporary capacity while retaining his lien in the Education Department. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings for misconduct were initiated against him, culminating in his dismissal by the Secretary of the Excise and Taxation Department. The Punjab Service Tribunal allowed his appeal, holding that because his lien in the parent Education Department was never terminated, the competent authority to dismiss him was the Secretary, Education, and not the Secretary, Excise and Taxation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed this view, holding that the authority competent to dismiss a civil servant who retains a lien in a parent department remains the authority of that parent department. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, and the key principle established is that departmental dismissal of a civil servant holding an active lien must be executed by the competent authority of the department where the lien is retained.
Questions settled- Which authority is competent to dismiss a civil servant who retains a lien in his parent department?
- Whether the termination of a civil servant's lien is a prerequisite for a new employing department to exercise dismissal powers?
- Does the failure to terminate a lien in the parent department affect the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority in the new department?
- Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore and 2 others vs Abbas Anwar Qureshi1995 SCMR 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Education Department against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the penalty of censure imposed upon the respondent, a Lecturer, for alleged insubordination and misconduct. The core legal question involved the validity of disciplinary proceedings initiated through a vague charge-sheet and statement of allegations lacking specific instances, coupled with the failure of the Authorized Officer to examine the complainant Principal or seek comments on the respondent's explanation. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal committed no error in accepting the respondent's appeal, as the charge-sheet was entirely vague and the finding of insubordination could not be supported in the absence of proper inquiry and examination of evidence. The Court laid down the principle that disciplinary proceedings and penalties imposed on the basis of vague charges without affording a proper opportunity of refutation and inquiry are unsustainable in law.
Questions settled- Whether a charge-sheet and statement of allegations lacking specific instances of misconduct are legally sustainable?
- Can a finding of insubordination be upheld when the Authorized Officer fails to examine the complainant or seek comments on the accused's explanation?
- Did the Punjab Service Tribunal err in setting aside a penalty imposed through defective disciplinary proceedings?
- Secretary to Government of Punjab, Housingphysical &K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from the concurrent findings of the Lahore High Court and its Appellate Bench regarding the allotment of a residential plot to the respondent under a lawyers' quota in the Area Development Scheme No. II, Tehsil Samundri. The respondent was allotted a plot by the District Housing Committee, which was later found to be reserved for government servants. Before an alternate plot could be issued, the government changed its policy and abolished all quotas, leading the department to withhold further allotment. The respondent successfully challenged this refusal through a constitutional petition and subsequent Intra-Court Appeal. The core legal question addressed is whether a subsequent change in government policy can divest a right already accrued to an applicant upon the acceptance of their allotment application and determination of eligibility. The Supreme Court held that once a plot is allotted following the determination of eligibility, a vested right is created which cannot be taken away by a subsequent retrospective policy change, particularly when the government continued making allotments despite the new policy. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent change in government policy can take away a right to the allotment of a plot that had already vested in an applicant upon the acceptance of their application?
- Whether the recommendation and allotment of a plot by a District Housing Committee creates a binding obligation on the government?
- Can a government department refuse to honor an allotment on the basis of a policy abolition when it continues to make allotments under the guise of that same policy?
- Sdco vs Zulfiqar AliK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 47 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-23Read full judgment →
- Sayeeduddin Ahmed Khan vs Nawab Ali Akhtar and 3 others1995 PLD Karachi 277 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
- Sawab Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1351 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a bail application filed by Sawab Khan seeking pre-trial release in connection with F.I.R. No. 13 of 1993 registered under sections 489-A, 489-C, and 489-D/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Federal Investigation Agency, Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the alleged possession and circumstances of recovery of counterfeit US dollars attract section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or merely section 489-C, which is bailable. The Sindh High Court held that the applicability of section 489-B constituted a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling the applicant to bail. The court laid down the principle that where the applicability of a penal provision carrying a harsher sentence is debatable and requires evaluation of evidence at trial, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail, subject to cancellation if direct incriminating evidence subsequently surfaces.
Questions settled- Whether the possession of counterfeit currency notes near a marketplace constitutes trafficking or selling under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the mere recovery of forged bank notes without proof of sale or trafficking fall exclusively under the bailable offense of section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- When does a case qualify for further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warranting the grant of bail to an accused?
- Sarwar Ali vs The State1995 MLD 361 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
- Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 132 [204 1 T R 631] · Supreme Court of India · 1993-09-14Read full judgment →
- Sargodha Textile Mills Ltd., Sargodha through General Manager vs Fazal Muhammad and another1995 PLC 533 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-18Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz vs Sultan1995 MLD 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Khan vs Wali Dad and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1664 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
- Sardaro Alias Sardar Khan vs The State1995 MLD 91 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-27Read full judgment →
- Sardaraz Khan and 36 others vs Amirullah Khan and 34 others1995 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Peshawar High Court deals with an appeal arising from a dismissed partition suit and addresses the crucial question of whether the time spent prosecuting an appeal before a forum lacking pecuniary jurisdiction can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court held that where a party and its counsel act with gross negligence and fail to exercise due diligence and good faith—such as ignoring clear statutory provisions regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and the valuation of the subject-matter—the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. The court also clarified the meaning of the phrase 'unable to entertain it' under section 14, establishing that it does not impose a duty on the court to return a memorandum of appeal at the very initial hearing and that the time taken by the appellate court to determine its lack of jurisdiction cannot be shifted to blame the court. Furthermore, the court held that a memorandum of appeal returned for presentation to the proper forum is a public document that cannot be substantially altered or amended upon refiling. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as time-barred and not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether the time spent pursuing an appeal before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act where the appellant's counsel showed gross negligence?
- Does the phrase 'unable to entertain it' under section 14 of the Limitation Act require a court to return a memorandum of appeal at the very first or second hearing?
- Can a memorandum of appeal returned for presentation to the proper forum be substantially amended or altered before being refiled?
- Does the negligence of a senior counsel in calculating the valuation and court-fee constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Sardar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
- Sardar Naseer Ahmad Chief Officer, Zila Council, Narowal vs Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab Local Govt. & Rural Development Department_Chairman, Punjab Local Govt. Board, LahoreK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service Cases 6 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad vs Mushtaq Ahmed and others1995 MLD 448 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad vs Mushtaq Ahmed And Other1995 MLD 448 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad vs Muhammad Israr and 3 others1995 SCMR 1356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had reduced the sentences of three respondents convicted under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The trial court had initially sentenced the respondents to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment, whipping, and a fine. Upon appeal, the Federal Shariat Court, based solely on the consent of the parties' counsel, reduced the imprisonment to the period already undergone (approximately 56 days) and reduced the number of stripes. The Supreme Court examined whether the complainant had locus standi to appeal and whether the sentence reduction was proper. The Court held that the Federal Shariat Court failed to apply its judicial mind to the evidence and circumstances, relying improperly on the consent of counsel rather than an independent assessment of the record. The Supreme Court clarified that the ratio in PLD 1983 SC 233 does not restrict a complainant's locus standi to appeal against Federal Shariat Court judgments. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Does the ratio in PLD 1983 SC 233 restrict a complainant's locus standi to file an appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court before the Supreme Court?
- Is an appellate court permitted to reduce a sentence based solely on the consent of the parties' counsel without independently assessing the evidence and circumstances of the case?
- What is the obligation of an appellate court when reviewing a conviction and sentence?
- Sardar Muhammad Tariq vs P.T.C. and others1995 MLD 896 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Saeed Jaffar Pathan vs Chief Secretary, Punjab and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 267 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The State1995 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant, Shaukat Ali, for the murder of Abdul Zahir under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was upheld by the Balochistan High Court. The core legal question was whether it is safe to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence where the occurrence was unwitnessed at night. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's employment and residence with the deceased, his sudden disappearance from the crime scene, his subsequent arrest in another province, and the recovery of a blood-stained murder weapon at his pointing constitute an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively to his guilt. The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, when corroborated by recoveries and conduct, is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction even in the absence of direct eyewitnesses.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence in the absence of eyewitnesses?
- Does the sudden disappearance of an accused from the scene of the crime constitute incriminating circumstantial evidence?
- Whether the recovery of a blood-stained weapon at the instance of an accused provides sufficient corroboration to support a murder charge?
- Sardar Muhammad Adeel vs Sarfraz ButtK.L.R 1997 Criminal Cases 91 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
- Sardar Masih Alias Dara Masih vs The State1995 MLD 1143 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
- Sardar Mashi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 422 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 175 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-23Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan vs Suleman EctK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 489 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-14Read full judgment →
- Sardar Balbir Singh Jaggi vs The Evacuee Trust Properties Board and 31995 CLC 941 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1804 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ahmad vs Govt. of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service Cases 196 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-25Read full judgment →
- Saqib Nisar And Other vs Uaz Ahmad Chaudhary And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 263 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
- Santa Khan vs Sultan1995 MLD 490 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
- Santa Khan and others vs Muhammad Yousaf and others1995 MLD 499 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
- Santa Khan And Others vs Muhammad Yousaf And Other1995 MLD 499 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
- Sankar Narayan Gooptu vs Wealth Tax Officer and others1995 PTD 147 205 ITR 628 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
- Sandoz Limited and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 SCMR 1431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These direct appeals under Article 185 of the Constitution arise from a contractual dispute regarding the import and formulation of chemical pesticides. The core legal questions were whether the contract was bilateral or tripartite, whether the specified completion date was of the essence under Section 55 of the Contract Act, 1872, and the entitlement of the parties to damages under Sections 73 and 74. The Supreme Court held that the contract was bilateral between the Federation and the foreign supplier, with the local distributor acting as an agent. The Court further held that time was not of the essence of the contract, as the agreement contained provisions for liquidated damages and extensions of time, which militated against such an inference. The word 'positively' alongside the delivery date was insufficient to make time of the essence. Consequently, the Federation's unilateral refusal to accept late delivery constituted an invalid repudiation. The Court laid down that while time is generally of the essence in commercial contracts, this presumption is rebutted by clauses providing for penalties or extensions, and remote damages cannot be recovered under Section 73.
Questions settled- Does the inclusion of the word 'positively' alongside a delivery date in a commercial contract automatically make time of the essence under Section 55 of the Contract Act, 1872?
- How does the presence of a liquidated damages or penalty clause for delayed performance affect the determination of whether time is of the essence in a contract?
- Can a party recover damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 for expenses or freight differences that are deemed too remote and indirect to have naturally arisen from the breach?
- What is the relevant date of exchange rate conversion for a decree involving a foreign currency claim under Pakistani law?
- Sanaullah Khan vs Province of Balochistan1995 PTD 350 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a government employee posted in Dalabandin, a tribal area, challenged the deduction of income tax from his salary, arguing that the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was not extended to tribal areas and thus exempted him from such payments. The core legal question was whether government employees serving in tribal areas are exempt from income tax deductions on their salaries. The Court held that the liability to pay income tax on salary is determined by the source of the income, specifically whether it is paid by the Federal or Provincial Government or a local authority in Pakistan. The Court found that under Section 12(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, all such employees are liable to pay income tax regardless of their place of posting or residence. The key principle laid down is that the receipt of salary from the State exchequer automatically triggers tax liability under the Ordinance, irrespective of the locality or nature of duties, unless a specific exemption applies.
Questions settled- Are government employees serving in tribal areas exempt from income tax deductions on their salaries?
- Does the place of posting or residence affect the liability of a government employee to pay income tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Is income earned by a government employee from the State exchequer taxable regardless of the geographical location of the service?
- Sanaullah Khan Gandapur vs Advocategeneral, N.W.F.P. and others1995 SCMR 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition, which had challenged the acceptance of the nomination papers of respondents Nos. 3, 4, and 5 for the election of a Member of the Provincial Bar Council. The petitioner contended that the respondents' nomination papers were filed in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and only received by the Returning Officer after the prescribed deadline, rendering them invalid. The High Court had dismissed the petition as non-maintainable, ruling that election disputes must be referred to the Election Tribunal under Rules 61, 63, and 64 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, drawing analogies from Article 225 of the Constitution and Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when no specific statutory appeal mechanism against the acceptance of nomination papers is provided under the Bar Councils Act or its rules.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable to challenge the acceptance of nomination papers in a Bar Council election where no specific statutory appeal mechanism is provided under the relevant Bar Council rules?
- Can provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1976 be relied upon to determine the dispute resolution forum for Bar Council elections?
- Does the receipt of nomination papers by a court other than the office of the Returning Officer within the deadline constitute valid filing if they reach the Returning Officer after the deadline?
- Sanata Khan and others vs Ahmad1995 CLC 416 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
- Samiullah Khan vs The Divisional Superintendent, Divisional1995 PLC 59 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-19Read full judgment →
- Samiullah Khan Marwat vs The State1995 MLD 1443 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
- Salim Akhtar and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 233 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
- Salfi Textile Mills Ltd. and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan and 21995 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged a show-cause notice and a subsequent order issued by the Corporate Law Authority appointing an inspector to investigate the company's affairs under Section 265 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The petitioners argued that the company’s financial performance had improved and that the decision to modernize rather than distribute dividends was a valid business judgment. The Court examined whether the Authority was justified in its intervention given the company’s history of accumulated losses, negative equity, and failure to declare dividends for sixteen years. The Court held that the Authority acted within its statutory mandate, as the company’s financial position clearly met the criteria for investigation under Section 265. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the appointment order was invalid for lacking detailed reasoning, noting that the Authority had considered the relevant material. It also affirmed that, under Section 11 of the Ordinance, changes in the Authority’s composition did not invalidate the proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, upholding the Authority's power to investigate when sound business principles are not followed.
Questions settled- Can the Corporate Law Authority appoint an inspector to investigate a company's affairs if it has failed to declare dividends for an extended period?
- Does a change in the composition of the Corporate Law Authority invalidate proceedings or orders passed by it?
- Is an order appointing an inspector under the Companies Ordinance 1984 invalid if it does not explicitly detail the rejection of the company's reply to a show-cause notice?
- Salehoon vs The State1995 MLD 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
- Saleem vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1788 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Saleem Ullah vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1995 SCMR 1865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeals regarding seniority in the Police Service of Pakistan. The core legal questions involve whether a seniority list creates a vested right, whether the competent authority has the power to convert an officer's supersession into deferment, and whether the petitioner is entitled to seniority over the contesting private respondents who were originally senior in the lower rank. The Supreme Court held that a seniority list by itself confers no vested right unless backed by an order competently passed, that the competent authority is duly authorized under the rules to convert supersession into deferment, and that the respondents properly regained their seniority upon clearance and promotion. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and refused leave to appeal. The key principles laid down are that seniority lists do not confer vested rights in themselves, that supersessions can be converted to deferments by competent authorities under applicable administrative rules, and that initial seniority in lower grades carries forward when subsequent deferments are regularized.
Questions settled- Does a seniority list by itself confer any vested right to an employee?
- Is the competent authority authorized under the ESTACODE to convert an officer's supersession into deferment?
- Whether an employee can claim seniority over colleagues who were senior in the lower rank and whose subsequent regularization rectifies their position?
- Saleem Shahzad vs The Factory Manager, Berger Paints Pakistan Ltd., Karachi1995 PLC 7 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
- Salar Jang Khan and 4 others vs Khaleeo Ahmad Ansari and another1995 SCMR 726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing a civil revision regarding execution proceedings. The core legal question was whether the execution court erred in summarily dismissing the petitioners' objections—filed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908—concerning their alleged physical possession of the disputed property and their non-joinder in the original suit, without conducting a detailed inquiry. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the execution court had acted correctly by reviewing the relevant documents and hearing the parties before rejecting the objections. The Court found that the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest derived rights solely from the judgment-debtor, whose title was limited, and that the petitioners, as relatives residing in the property, were aware of the ongoing litigation. The key principle established is that an execution court is not required to hold an exhaustive inquiry when the record, including documentary evidence, sufficiently demonstrates that the objector's claims are derivative of the judgment-debtor's limited rights and that the objector had prior knowledge of the litigation.
Questions settled- Can an execution court summarily dismiss objections regarding possession if the record demonstrates the objector's rights are derivative of the judgment-debtor?
- Is an execution court required to hold a full inquiry into objections filed under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the documentary evidence contradicts the objector's claims?
- Does the failure to join a party in a suit invalidate a decree if that party's interest is derived from the judgment-debtor and they had knowledge of the litigation?
- Salamat Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 149 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
- Salamat Masih And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 178 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-23Read full judgment →
- Salamat Ali, Formerly Budget & Accounts Officer, NowK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 105 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Salamat Ali vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Home1995 PLC (C.S.) 673 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
- Salamat Ali Baig And Other vs Muhammad Asghar Chaudhry, S.O. Etc.KLR 1997 PSC 656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the regularization of Section Officers in the Office Management Group (OMG) who were initially appointed on an acting charge basis due to administrative shortages. The core legal question was whether the government could retrospectively regularize these promotees effective from 31.12.1989, thereby affecting the seniority of direct recruits. The Federal Service Tribunal had partially allowed the appeals of direct recruits, holding that while regularization was permissible, it could not be given retrospective effect without proof of available vacancies in the promotion quota on the specified date. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, affirming that the government failed to transparently demonstrate the existence of sufficient vacancies within the 1/3rd promotion quota on the retrospective date. The Court held that adherence to prescribed recruitment quotas is mandatory, and administrative regularizations cannot arbitrarily infringe upon the seniority rights of direct recruits. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, maintaining that retrospective regularization without clear vacancy justification is legally unsustainable.
Questions settled- Can the government regularize civil servants on an acting charge basis with retrospective effect without proof of available vacancies?
- Does the regularization of promotees against the promotion quota require strict adherence to the prescribed recruitment ratio?
- Can direct recruits challenge the regularization of promotees if such regularization adversely affects their seniority?
- Salahoon vs Abdullah and another1995 SCMR 996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal matter where the respondent was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Kalsoom Bibi. While the trial court sentenced the respondent to death, the High Court maintained the conviction but commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court reasoned that the attack was unpremeditated, suggesting the weapon used was picked up at the scene and the incident occurred due to a sudden provocation following a marriage refusal. The petitioner challenges this reduction, arguing that the High Court's finding that the origin of the attack was shrouded in mystery is not supported by the record and that the attack was, in fact, premeditated. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court properly exercised its jurisdiction in reducing the sentence based on the factual findings presented. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's interference with the trial court's sentencing discretion when the underlying factual premises regarding premeditation are contested.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court properly exercised its jurisdiction in reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the finding that the attack was unpremeditated?
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence based on factual findings regarding the nature of the attack that are not supported by the trial record?
- Salah-Ud-Din and others vs Avon Shoes Co.1995 MLD 185 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
- Salah Ud Din And Others vs Messrs Avon Shoes Co.1995 ML D 185 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
- Sakhi Muhammad Khattak vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 380 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
- Sajjan And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 379 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-23Read full judgment →