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.
- Naveeda Naz vs Arshad Mehmood and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 1106 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-28Read full judgment →
- National Refinery Limited vs M/s. Apparels (Pvt.) Limited and 2 others1995 CLC 1344 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
- National Highway Authority vs M/s. Daewoo Corporation1995 SCMR 1221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from a dispute regarding the summoning of an Arbitrator in legal proceedings. The core legal question concerned whether the trial Court should be directed to summon the Arbitrator as a witness or if such a decision should be left to the trial Court's discretion after hearing the parties. By consent of the parties, the Supreme Court held that the decision regarding whether to summon the Arbitrator must be determined by the trial Court itself, following the recording of any necessary evidence and after hearing the parties. Consequently, the High Court's order dated 21st December 1994 was upheld, subject to the deletion of the specific paragraph mandating the summoning of the Arbitrator and imposing conditions thereon. Additionally, the Supreme Court ordered the deletion of observations in the trial Court's order dated 31st July 1994, which had prematurely accepted an application filed under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The petition was disposed of in these terms, affirming the trial Court's authority to manage its own evidentiary process regarding the Arbitrator.
Questions settled- Should the decision to summon an Arbitrator be determined by the trial Court after hearing the parties?
- Can a High Court order mandating the summoning of an Arbitrator be modified by consent of the parties?
- National Engineering Services Pakistan (Private) Limited, Karachi1995 PLC 625 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
- National Cement Employees' Cooperative Housing Society Limited, KARACHIanothers vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 2 others1995 CLC 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
- National Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Additional Secretary, Federation of Pakistan And Other1995 MLD 831 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
- National Bottlers (Pvt) Ltd vs Additional Secretary, Federation of Pakistan and others1995 MLD 831 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Presiding Officer, Special1995 PLD Karachi 320 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-07Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Mir Hasan Bughio1995 PLC 634 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Habibullah1995 PLC 283 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Ghulam Murtaza1995 PLC 6 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Chairman, Sindh Labour1995 PLC 500 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Hyderabad vs Abdul Jabbar1995 PLC 724 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs The Presiding Officer, Special CourtK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 103 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Nazir Ahmed alias Kashif Nadeem1995 SCMR 669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the National Bank of Pakistan against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the conviction of the respondent for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The High Court had acquitted the respondent on the ground that the Special Court (Offences in Banks) lacked jurisdiction, reasoning that the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was not a scheduled offence under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984. The core legal question was whether the offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was a scheduled offence triable by the Special Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred because a Federal Government notification dated 28th April 1985 had explicitly added offences punishable under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 to the First Schedule of the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the appeal, and remanded the case for a decision on merits, affirming that the Special Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is an offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 a scheduled offence under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
- Does the Special Court (Offences in Banks) have jurisdiction to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Hashim Khan1995 CLC 88 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a trial court decree awarding damages and interest to the respondent, Hashim Khan, against the National Bank of Pakistan. The respondent had previously filed a suit for the recovery of funds deposited via pay-in-slips, which was settled out of court, leading to the withdrawal of the suit and payment of the principal amount. Subsequently, the respondent filed a new suit claiming additional damages and interest for the period the funds remained blocked. The core legal question was whether this subsequent suit was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata, Order II, Rule 2, and Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the suit was barred, as the plaintiff had failed to include all claims and reliefs arising from the same cause of action in the initial suit and had withdrawn the previous suit without seeking liberty to file a fresh one. The Court emphasized that a party cannot split claims or vex an opponent twice for the same cause of action.
Questions settled- Does the omission to include all reliefs flowing from the same cause of action in a suit bar a subsequent suit for the omitted reliefs under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a plaintiff institute a fresh suit for the same subject matter after withdrawing a previous suit without obtaining the court's permission under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a settlement and withdrawal of a suit for a principal amount preclude a subsequent claim for interest or damages related to the same transaction?
- Is a court required to consider the issue of limitation even if it has not been specifically raised by the defendant?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate1995 SCMR 690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, National Bank of Pakistan, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed its constitutional petition challenging the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal's order declaring the dismissal of respondent No. 3 (a messenger) from service as illegal. Respondent No. 3 had been dismissed following an inquiry into allegations of misappropriating customer funds. His grievance application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was allowed by the Labour Court, and the Appellate Tribunal upheld it, holding that the inquiry was wrongly initiated under the Rules of 1980 instead of the Rules of 1973. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that there was no material difference between the two sets of rules to cause prejudice, that a conflict of opinion existed on the issue, and that respondent No. 3 did not qualify as a 'worker' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the inquiry proceedings were vitiated merely due to the reference to the Rules of 1980, and whether the grievance petition was maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether an inquiry proceeding is vitiated merely because it was initiated under the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules of 1980 instead of the Rules of 1973?
- Whether a bank employee dismissed for misappropriation falls within the definition of worker under the Industrial Relations Ordinance for maintaining a grievance petition under section 25-A?
- Does the invocation of a different set of departmental rules cause material prejudice to an employee when the procedure and punishments under both sets of rules are substantially the same?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Banking Tribunal No.1 for Karachi And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 153 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan Karachi vs General Tractor & MachineryK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 354 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan and another vs Malik Manzoor Ahmad1995 CLC 267 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-08Read full judgment →
- Nathey Khan vs Khanu alias Khan and others1995 SCMR 980 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a private complaint before a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed specifically under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for an alleged offence committed on July 11, 1987, given that Section 365-A was only incorporated into the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, on September 3, 1989. The Supreme Court held that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction because the alleged offence occurred prior to the enactment of the relevant provision, and the offence was not a scheduled offence at the time of its commission. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the complaint should have been maintained under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, noting that the complaint was specifically framed under Section 365-A and no request for amendment or substitution of the charge had been made before the trial court.
Questions settled- Does a Special Court have jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the alleged offence occurred before the section was incorporated into the Code?
- Can a private complaint filed under a specific section of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained under a different section if no request for amendment was made before the trial court?
- Is a Special Court's cognizance of a complaint valid if the offence alleged is not a scheduled offence at the time of its commission?
- Nasrullah vs The State1995 MLD 515 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah Virk vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 143 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah Khan vs Mst. Bas Khandana and anothers1997 MLD 2071 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-11Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah Khan vs Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Gujranwala and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 941 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah Khan through his Legal Heirs and others vs Mst. Quresha1995 SCMR 1521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the appellate court's judgment setting aside a trial court decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had instituted a suit for declaration of ownership of a house based on a family arrangement and partition deed, alleging the defendant's husband was a tenant. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed it upon evaluating additional evidence and records, finding the plaintiff failed to establish ownership of the Abadi Deh property, which was not part of Shamilat Deh or owned by the village proprietary body. The core legal question concerned the proof of ownership and possession in declaratory suits involving Abadi Deh properties. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving ownership and that the partition document relied upon was ambiguous and unsupported by independent evidence. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums and refused leave to appeal, laying down that a plaintiff seeking a declaration of ownership in Abadi Deh must establish clear title and possession without relying on ambiguous partition deeds not binding on the contesting party.
Questions settled- Does a plaintiff seeking a declaration of ownership of a house situated in Abadi Deh bear the burden of proving title and physical or constructive possession?
- Can an ambiguous partition document not signed by the contesting party serve as sufficient proof of ownership without independent corroborative evidence?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property ownership supported by evidence on record?
- Nasrullah And 2 Others vs Muhammad Aslam And Other1995 MLD 246 · Board of Revenue · 1994-08-03Read full judgment →
- Nasir-Ud-Din vs The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore Division, Lahore and 2 others1995 PLC 145 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
- P vs 'R'K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 287 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmed vs The State1995 MLD 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
- Nasir-Ud-Din Malik vs Chairman, Railway Board, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Railways and 2 others1995 PLC 528 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
- Nasir Nawaz vs Director of Elementary EducationK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Sen ice Cases 202 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
- Nasir Mahmood vs District Magistrate and others1995 MLD 1766 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Nasir Mahmood vs District Magistrate And Other1995 MLD 1766 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Nasir Ahmad vs The General Manager/Zonal Head, State Life Insurance1995 PLC (C.S.) 138 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
- Nasir Abbas vs The State1995 SCMR 1333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal case where the petitioner, Nasir Abbas, along with co-accused, was convicted under sections 302/34, 307/34, and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code for house trespass and causing death and injuries following a family dispute. The Lahore High Court maintained the convictions while modifying certain sentences. The core legal questions involved the effect of the petitioner's alleged minority, the reliability of the First Information Report despite purported delays, the evidentiary value of police opinion regarding innocence during investigation, and the presence of the accused at the crime scene. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had attained sufficient maturity at the time of the incident, that the First Information Report was not unduly delayed given the circumstances of transporting the injured to the hospital, and that the police's opinion on guilt or innocence is irrelevant and inadmissible before the court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the opinion of a police officer regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused admissible in evidence during trial?
- Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution's case when satisfactorily explained by the time taken to transport injured persons to the hospital?
- Whether an accused person who has reached the age of maturity and understanding can claim leniency on the ground of minor age during a pre-planned assault?
- Nasir Abbas and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1671 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
- Nasimullah vs Board of Revenue, N.W.F.P, Peshawar and 2 others1995 SCMR 1545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's appeal seeking regularization of his service under the North-West Frontier Province Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act 1987. The appellant, originally appointed as a Patwari and later selected as a regular Qanungo, had been promoted on an ad hoc basis to the post of Naib-Tehsildar. The core legal question was whether a civil servant promoted from a lower cadre to officiate on an ad hoc basis is entitled to regularization under Section 3 of the 1987 Act read with the definition of 'ad hoc appointment' under Section 2(a) of the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act 1973. The Supreme Court held that the 1987 Act was intended to regularize only those persons appointed on an ad hoc basis through initial recruitment, and its benefits do not extend to civil servants promoted from a lower cadre to officiate on an ad hoc basis. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the North-West Frontier Province Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act 1987 apply to civil servants promoted to officiate on an ad hoc basis from a lower cadre?
- Can a civil servant who is promoted on an ad hoc or temporary basis claim the benefit of regularization under Section 3 of the North-West Frontier Province Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act 1987?
- Is regularization under the North-West Frontier Province Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act 1987 restricted exclusively to persons inducted through initial recruitment?
- Nasimul Haque Malik vs Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh and 41995 SCMR 872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had declared respondents Nos. 4 and 5 senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies. The petitioner, a direct recruit appointed in 1981, challenged his junior status, arguing that the respondents' promotion was irregular because it occurred against the quota reserved for direct recruits, rendering their appointments ad hoc rather than regular. The Chief Secretary had initially accepted the petitioner's departmental representation, finding no vacancy existed in the promotee quota at the time of the respondents' promotion. The Service Tribunal reversed this, finding that the respondents' earlier ad hoc appointments were regularized in 1977 when vacancies were available. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying a significant question of law regarding whether the respondents' 1977 promotion violated established principles concerning the filling of direct recruitment vacancies by departmental promotees, specifically referencing the rule laid down in Federation of Pakistan v. Azam Ali and others.
Questions settled- Does the promotion of a departmental candidate against a vacancy reserved for direct recruitment constitute an ad hoc appointment?
- Whether the regularization of ad hoc appointees in the presence of available promotee quota vacancies violates service rules regarding seniority?
- Can a service tribunal's finding of fact regarding the availability of vacancies be challenged when documentary evidence suggests otherwise?
- Naseem vs The State1997 MLD 275 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-20Read full judgment →
- Naseem Ahmad Chaudhry vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate1995 SCMR 1655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the dismissal of a bank employee and the subsequent limitation period for filing a grievance petition. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court properly exercised its discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court’s decision to condone the delay was neither arbitrary nor illegal, as it was based on the prevailing legal uncertainty regarding the jurisdiction of Labour Courts over nationalized bank employees, which was only resolved by the Supreme Court’s decision in Iftikhar Ahmed v. President, National Bank of Pakistan. The Court ruled that the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court erred by misinterpreting the timeline and failing to recognize that the appellant was pursuing a remedy in the High Court during a period of legal ambiguity. The principle established is that an appellate court should not interfere with a lower court's discretionary decision to condone delay unless that discretion was exercised arbitrarily or in violation of law.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with a lower court's discretionary decision to condone delay under the Limitation Act?
- Does legal uncertainty regarding the jurisdiction of a forum constitute a valid ground for condoning delay in filing a grievance petition?
- Are employees of nationalized banks entitled to approach a Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance for individual grievances?
- Naraindas vs Muhammad Ali ChandK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 193 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
- Nan FUNGDecreeHolder vs H. Pir Muhammad Shamsdin1995 PLD Karachi 421 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the dismissal of objectors' applications under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arising from execution proceedings initiated by the decree-holder to recover a decretal amount through the attachment and sale of immovable property. The core legal questions involved whether the objections were barred by time under the proviso to Order 21, Rule 58(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether a valid oral gift and subsequent memorandum of gift of the attached property had been established by the objectors. The Sindh High Court held that the objections were filed beyond the statutory limitation period and were unnecessarily delayed, and further found that the alleged oral gift and memorandum were fictitious, unproven, and actuated by mala fides to obstruct execution. The court laid down the principle that the proviso barring delayed objections is mandatory and cannot be bypassed once it applies, and that substantial costs must be imposed to discourage frivolous and vexatious proceedings aimed at delaying execution.
Questions settled- Whether objections to the attachment of property in execution proceedings are barred if filed beyond one year from the date of first attachment?
- Does the commencement of an investigation into a claim or objection under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render the limitation proviso irrelevant?
- Whether an oral gift of immovable property is validly established when contradicted by the donor's subsequent contemporaneous conduct and written declarations?
- Can objections filed without bona fides and solely to delay execution proceedings be dismissed with substantial costs?
- Najaf vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
- Naik Alam And Other vs Mohammad Yaseen And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 105 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
- Nahid Akhtar, S.S. (Math), Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, FaridK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 159 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
- Nahid Akhtar, S.S. (Math), Government Girls Higher Secondary1995 PLC (C.S.) 820 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
- Naheed Ahmad vs Muhammad Asif Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 214 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
- Nafees Bakers vs The Govt. of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir 2 And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 54 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
- Naeem Qadir Hashmi vs The State1995 MLD 781 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
- Naeem Hussain Chattha vs CH. Tawakal Ullah Virk, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 567 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
- Naeem and others vs The D.I.G. and others1995 P Cr. L J 961 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-04Read full judgment →
- Naeem Ahmad vs Rana Muhamamd Majeed and others1995 SCMR 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had quashed criminal proceedings against the respondent, a police inspector. The petitioner, the complainant, had alleged offences under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Investigating officers had previously recommended the cancellation of the case against the respondent due to a lack of evidence regarding the demand or acceptance of a bribe. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its inherent powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to quash proceedings at an initial stage where no evidence of the alleged offence existed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court rightly quashed the proceedings as the prosecution failed to establish any evidence of the respondent demanding or accepting a bribe. The Court affirmed that continuing such proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the court, emphasizing that trial courts must independently appraise evidence without being prejudiced by the quashment of proceedings against co-accused parties.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings at an initial stage under its inherent powers when no evidence of the alleged offence is made out?
- Does the quashment of proceedings against one accused person necessarily prejudice the trial of co-accused persons?
- Is a trial judge required to independently appraise evidence regardless of the status of proceedings against other co-accused?
- Nadir vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 292 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
- Nadir Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 929 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- Nadir Khan vs Muhammad Aslam1995 SCMR 1074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision application and maintaining concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal questions involve whether the statutory requirements of 'Talabs' under pre-emption law were duly fulfilled, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether the plaintiff possessed the requisite qualification of being a contiguous owner at the relevant time. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three lower courts regarding the making of 'Talabs' and limitation were unexceptionable, as no misreading or non-consideration of evidence was established. The Court affirmed that a cause of action for exercising a right of pre-emption arises from the date of attestation of the mutation rather than prior negotiations, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the cause of action for exercising a right of pre-emption arises from the date of attestation of the mutation or from prior negotiations?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the making of Talabs under pre-emption law be disturbed in civil revision or leave to appeal?
- Whether a suit for pre-emption is rendered time-barred when a transaction originally styled as an exchange or gift is found to pertain to a sale?
- Nadir Khan and others Nosheen ZAIDLand others vs Principal, Khyber1995 SCMR 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court's dismissal of writ petitions filed by medical students. The students sought directions to be promoted to the next academic year of their M.B.,B.S. programs despite failing certain subjects. The core legal question was whether the college prospectus rule, which denies promotion to students failing any subject, was discriminatory or inconsistent with the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) regulations. The Supreme Court held that the college prospectus rule was not in conflict with PMDC regulations. The Court affirmed that PMDC Regulations 6 and 21, framed under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962, are binding on all medical colleges in Pakistan. These regulations mandate that a student must pass all subjects of the previous class to be promoted to the next higher class. Consequently, the Court ruled that the college authorities acted within their jurisdiction in denying promotion to the failed students. The petitions were dismissed, establishing that PMDC regulations provide a uniform standard for medical education that overrides any alleged local inconsistencies.
Questions settled- Are the regulations framed by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council binding on all medical colleges in Pakistan?
- Does a medical student have a right to be promoted to the next academic year if they have failed in one or more subjects?
- Is Rule 16 of the Prospectus of Medical Colleges in N.-W.F.P. inconsistent with the regulations of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council?
- Nadeem Arshad vs The State1995 MLD 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 626 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Ahmed and Other vs Pakistan International Airlines Corp. and OtherK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Services 79 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nabi Sarwar and 2 others vs Zaman Khan and 7 others1995 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
- Naazar Hussain and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 406 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
- N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and anothers vs Dr. Irfan Mir and 21995 SCMR 1690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals challenged N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal judgments regarding the promotion of medical officers from Grade-17 to Grade-18. The core legal question was whether the Diploma in Public Health (D.P.H.) requirement, stipulated in the West Pakistan Health Service (Class I) Rules, 1969, remained a mandatory prerequisite for promotion, and whether possessing this qualification entitled junior officers to supersede senior colleagues. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal’s finding that the D.P.H. requirement had effectively fallen into disuse and was impliedly abolished long before the promotions in question. The Court held that when a statutory qualification rule has practically lapsed, it cannot be selectively revived to grant preferential treatment to junior officers. The Court established that merit for promotion is a composite concept including seniority, experience, and service record, not merely academic credentials. Consequently, the mere possession of a qualification that has been ignored in practice does not provide a legal basis for superseding senior, experienced civil servants, as doing so would constitute unfair and unjust discrimination.
Questions settled- Does the possession of a specific academic qualification grant a preferential right to promotion over senior colleagues if the rule requiring such qualification has fallen into disuse?
- Can a statutory requirement for promotion be considered impliedly abolished if it has been consistently ignored by the government in practice?
- Does the concept of merit for promotion purposes include factors other than academic qualifications, such as seniority and experience?
- Is it legally permissible to selectively revive a dormant service rule to favor specific candidates over their seniors?
- M/s.) Usman Enterprises vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1143 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- M_S.) Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. And Others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secy. M_O. Finance, Islamabad And Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 845 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns 294 appeals challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 80C, 80CC, and 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which introduced presumptive and minimum tax regimes. The core legal questions addressed whether the legislature was competent to enact these provisions under Entry 47 of the Federal Legislative List, whether they violated fundamental rights under Articles 4, 18, and 25 of the Constitution, and whether they were confiscatory. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of these provisions, ruling that the legislature possesses plenary power to impose taxes, and presumptive or minimum tax regimes are valid legislative measures to broaden the tax base and curb evasion. The Court held that Entry 47, read with Entry 52, provides sufficient legislative competence. The key principles laid down include that fiscal statutes are subject to a presumption of constitutionality, economic regulations are viewed with greater judicial latitude, and presumptive taxation is a valid mechanism for revenue collection, provided it is not patently discriminatory, arbitrary, or confiscatory in nature.
Questions settled- Is the imposition of presumptive income tax on the basis of declared turnover a permissible exercise of legislative power under the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the legislature have the competence to enact presumptive tax provisions under Entry 47 of the Federal Legislative List?
- Are the presumptive tax provisions in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, violative of fundamental rights regarding equality and the right to carry on business?
- Does the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, prevail over the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, regarding tax exemptions?
- M/s.) Bankers' Equity Limited, And 5 Others vs (M/s.) Baluchistan1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1115 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. United Commercial Corporation (Pvt.), Ltd., Karachi vs M/s. Sindh1995 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
- M/s. United Bank Limited, Karachi and 2 others vs Muhammad Ishaque1995 PLC 97 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
- M/s. Textile Winding Machinery Company (Pvt.)1995 CLC 1922 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
- M/s. Taj Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited, Faisalabad vs To Circle-VI,1997 P.C.T.L.R. 214 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
- M/s. Sports World and others vs Latees Fabrics and others1995 MLD 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-29Read full judgment →
- M/s. Sports World And Others vs La Tees Fabrics And Other1995 MLD 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-29Read full judgment →
- M/s. Shafsal Enterprizes, Government Contractors- vs Province of1995 SCMR 708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the execution of an arbitration award. The petitioner, having obtained an arbitration award made rule of the court, faced an appeal by the respondents in the Lahore High Court, where the execution of the decree was stayed. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Order XLI, Rule 5(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in staying the execution of a money decree without sufficient justification, thereby depriving the decree-holder of the fruits of the judgment. The Supreme Court held that the execution should not be stayed unconditionally. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that a decree-holder should not be reduced to holding a mere 'paper decree' while the judgment-debtor appeals. The Court allowed the appeal, directing that the execution shall not be suspended, provided the respondents deposit the awarded amount. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the deposited funds upon furnishing security for reimbursement, ensuring the interests of both parties were balanced pending the final outcome of the appeal.
Questions settled- Under what conditions can a court stay the execution of a money decree pending an appeal?
- Is a decree-holder entitled to the fruits of a decree despite a pending appeal by the judgment-debtor?
- Can a court allow the withdrawal of a deposited decretal amount by a decree-holder pending an appeal?
- M/s. Sandoz (Pakistan) Ltd., Jamshoro, District Dadu vs Muhammad1995 PLC 184 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
- M/s. Sandoz (Pakistan) Ltd., Dadu through its Director Personnel1995 PLC 721 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-15Read full judgment →
- Nazir Alias Jerra vs The State1995 MLD 1436 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
- M/s. Pragma Leather Industries vs Mrs. Sadia Sajjad1995 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller and the High Court of Sindh, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment for the period between July 1984 and December 1984. The petitioner contended that the parties had an established practice of paying accumulated rent in lump sums via cheques, a practice previously accepted by the respondent without protest for five prior instances. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Rent Controller properly exercised discretion in ordering ejectment despite the history of lump-sum payments, and whether the legal precedent established in Mrs. Alima Ahmed v. Amir Ali (PLD 1984 SC 32) was correctly applied, or if the principles in Muhammad Yunus Malik v. Mst. Zahida Irshad and related cases were more applicable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the lower courts erred in their application of these precedents and the exercise of judicial discretion regarding the alleged default.
Questions settled- Does a history of accepting accumulated rent payments in lump sums preclude a landlord from seeking ejectment on the ground of default?
- Is the exercise of discretion by a Rent Controller in granting an ejectment order subject to review when there is evidence of a prior course of dealing between the parties?
- M/s. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation through its Directors vs1995 MLD 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Through Its Directors vs1995 MLD 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. Pak Chemical Limited, Karachi vs Umar Khitab and another1995 PLC 69 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-15Read full judgment →
- M/s. Nizami Electric Company vs C.I.T. Appe Als Zonne-111, Lahore1997 P.T.C.L.R. 123 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
- M/s. Naveed Impex, Karachi vs Mst. Siddiqa Begum and another1995 PLC 251 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
- M/s. National Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Additional Secretary, Federation1995 CLC 631 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. National Bottlers (Pvt.) lid. vs Government of Pakistan, Central Board ofPTCL1995 CL. 123 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Nadia Ghee Mill (Pvt.) Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan and1995 PTD 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. Muhammad Hussain and Lala Ram vs M/s. Mumtaz Ali and1995 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an ad interim order of the High Court of Sindh, which had suspended the Government of Sindh's confirmation of the petitioners' bid for the collection of Octroi Tax. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court of Pakistan should interfere with an ad interim discretionary order passed by a High Court. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The Court held that it is the settled practice of the Supreme Court to keep interference with discretionary interim orders passed by the High Courts to a minimum, and it will normally decline to interfere unless a grave illegality, a clear abuse of power, or a gross injustice is easily discoverable. Since the High Court had not yet taken a final view on the merits and the scope for consideration remained open, the petitioners were directed to agitate the matter before the High Court.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court of Pakistan interfere with an ad interim discretionary order passed by a High Court?
- Should a petitioner challenge an ad interim stay order in the Supreme Court before seeking its vacation in the High Court that issued it?
- M/s. MTM International Bearing Industry Ltd. vs Aizad Hasan and1995 SCMR 1004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents under sections 500 and 506/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The proceedings were quashed by the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the Magistrate had issued process but before evidence was recorded. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings at such an early stage, arguing that the determination of whether the respondents' actions—specifically the issuance of a letter containing imputations to the Central Board of Revenue—were bona fide or mala fide requires the recording of evidence. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the petitioner's submission that factual disputes regarding intent cannot be resolved on bald allegations without evidence, granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court's interference was premature and legally justified in the circumstances.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the recording of evidence when the issue of intent is in dispute?
- Is it appropriate for the High Court to determine the bona fides of a party's actions based solely on pleadings without recording evidence?
- M/s. Metro Textile Industries, Karachi through Export Officer vs The First1995 PLC 114 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
- M/s. Matiari Sugar Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through1995 CLC 1686 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
- M/s. M.Y. Electronics Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Manager., M/s. Dye- Cham Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Margalla Package and Allied Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Amazal Textile Mills Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Finance), Islamabad and 5 others., Federal Government of Pakistan andPTCL 1995 CL 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of constitutional petitions by the Peshawar High Court, which had challenged the withdrawal of tax and customs duty exemptions previously granted to industries established in the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate. The Government of Pakistan had initially provided these incentives via notifications to encourage investment in this backward area, subject to specific conditions including deletion programmes. Subsequently, the government withdrew these exemptions, prompting legal challenges based on the doctrines of promissory estoppel, locus paenitentiae, and legitimate expectations. The petitioners argued that the withdrawal was unjustified, particularly given their adherence to the five-year deletion programmes. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine significant constitutional and fiscal questions. The Court specifically identified issues regarding the interpretation of fiscal statutes, the scope of the Customs Act, 1969, and the constitutional validity of amendments made via Money Bills. The Court ordered that the previously granted interim relief remain in force pending the final adjudication of these matters, while noting the government's stated intent to restore the exemptions.
Questions settled- Whether the words 'charged and paid' in Section 6 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 incorporate the entire Customs law?
- What is the scope of a Money Bill and can amendments to fiscal laws be made through such bills without Senate approval?
- Do cases involving the withdrawal of industrial exemptions fall outside the scope of Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 by invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectations?
- M/s. M.A. Khan & Co. vs (M/s.) Pakistan Railway Employees, Co-K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases l2 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
- M/s. Lucky Textile Mills, Karachi vs Mahtab1995 PLC 653 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
- M/s. Lone China (Pvt.) Ltd vs Additional Secretary to the Government ofPTCL 1995 CL. 415 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Lodigiani S.Pa., Karachi vs Liaquat Ali1995 PLC 74 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
- M/s. Lahore Textile and General Mills Ltd. vs Province of Punjab and1995 CLC 659 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Kohat Cement Company Limited. vs Pakistan, through SecretaryPTCL 1995 CL. 355 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Khyber Traders. vs Central Board of Revenu, Islamabad throughPTCL 1995 CL. 129 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Khyber Agro (Pvt) Limited vs Assistant Collector Customs,1995 CLC 1853 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of writ petitions filed by industrial units operating in the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate, challenging the imposition of regulatory duty on imported raw materials. The petitioners, who were granted tax and duty exemptions by the government to incentivize investment in a former poppy-cultivating region, argued that regulatory duty constitutes a form of customs duty and is therefore covered by the exemption granted under Notification No. S.R.O. 517(i)/89. The core legal question was whether regulatory duty falls within the ambit of customs duty and thus qualifies for the exemption provided by the notification. Relying on established precedent from this Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the High Court held that regulatory duty is essentially customs duty. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners are exempt from paying regulatory duty for the period during which the exemption notification remained effective. The respondents were directed to refund any amounts collected as regulatory duty during that specific period, while the parties were left to bear their own costs.
Questions settled- Does regulatory duty constitute a form of customs duty for the purpose of tax exemptions?
- Are industrial units entitled to a refund of regulatory duty collected during the period an exemption notification was in force?
- Is the exemption from customs duty applicable to regulatory duty under Notification No. S.R.O. 517(i)/89?
- M/s. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan and 3 others vs M/s.1995 PLD Quetta 41 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals filed before a Division Bench of the Balochistan High Court challenging orders of a Single Judge that dismissed winding-up petitions under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question is whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable before a Division Bench against an order of a Single Judge passed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, or if such appeals must lie exclusively to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the appeals are not maintainable before the Division Bench. It reasoned that jurisdiction exercised under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, is statutory in nature, rather than 'original civil jurisdiction' as contemplated by Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Furthermore, Section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, establishes a specific appellate mechanism to the Supreme Court for orders passed under the Ordinance. The Court concluded that because the Companies Ordinance provides a distinct appellate forum, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an Intra-Court Appeal against orders passed by a Company Judge, thereby rendering the present appeals incompetent.
Questions settled- Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable before a Division Bench against an order of a Single Judge passed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Does the jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, constitute 'original civil jurisdiction' under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Does Section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, provide an exclusive appellate forum for orders passed under the Ordinance?
- M/s. Hatta Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Faisalabad1995 CLC 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeks revision of a trial court order dismissing an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The dispute arose after the respondents cancelled a construction contract due to the petitioner's alleged breach, re-allotted it to another firm, and sought to recover the differential cost as arrears of land revenue. The core legal question was whether the respondents could recover unadjudicated damages through coercive measures as arrears of land revenue, and whether the petitioner was entitled to a temporary injunction pending arbitration. The Lahore High Court held that where liability for breach of contract is yet to be determined by an arbitrator, the amount claimed as damages is not an amount 'due' under the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976, and cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The Court laid down that disputed damages arising from a contract must be adjudicated by a competent forum before becoming recoverable as arrears of land revenue, and allowed the petition by granting a temporary injunction subject to furnishing security.
Questions settled- Can unadjudicated damages claimed for breach of contract be recovered as arrears of land revenue?
- Whether a party is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining coercive recovery of disputed sums pending arbitration proceedings?
- What constitutes an amount 'due' under section 36 of the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976?
- Does a prima facie case for granting a temporary injunction exist when the liability of parties for breach of contract is yet to be determined by an arbitrator?