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.
- M/s. Ghulam Muhammad Dosal Engineering Limited, Karachi vs1995 PLC 178 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Fatima Girls School, Multan Road. Lahore & Two Other vsK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 405 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Faisal Plaza through Mr. Saleem Khalid, Member of Association of1995 PTD 850 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
- M/s. Diamond Indus. (Pvt.), Ltd. vs Govt of Pakistan and othersPTCL 1995 CL. 74 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
- M/s. Dawood Cotton Mills Limited, Karachi vs Amanul Haque1995 PLC 623 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
- M/s. Daewoo Corporation vs Government of Punjab and others1995 SCMR 977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petitions challenging the levy of excavation, quarrying, and exit taxes by the Zila Councils of Attock and Rawalpindi. The High Court had dismissed the petitions on the ground that the petitioners failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of revision available under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 before invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The petitioners contended that the revision remedy was illusory because the revisional authority was the same official who had previously dismissed their statutory appeal, thus creating a bias. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the contention regarding the adequacy and efficacy of the statutory remedy of revision, specifically where the revisional authority is the same person who decided the appeal, raises a substantial legal question requiring further consideration. The Court thus set the stage to examine whether the exhaustion of such a remedy is mandatory when the remedy itself is alleged to be ineffective or biased.
Questions settled- Does the failure to exhaust a statutory revision remedy render a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan premature?
- Can a statutory remedy be considered illusory if the revisional authority is the same person who decided the initial appeal?
- Is it mandatory to exhaust all statutory remedies before challenging a tax levy in a writ petition?
- M/s. Dadabhoy Investments (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi through Abdullah1995 PLD Karachi 33 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court seeking to restrain the Privatization Commission from re-auctioning the shares, assets, and management of Javedan Cement Limited, and to finalize the transfer of the same in favor of the petitioner, who was the highest bidder and had complied with the condition to raise its bid to ninety percent of the reference price. The core legal question was whether the executive authority could arbitrarily and without assigning reasons reject the petitioner's bid after inviting and securing its revision in accordance with departmental directives, and whether constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked against such arbitrary executive action. The Court held that while the Government possessed discretionary powers to accept or reject bids, such discretion must be exercised justly, fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with principles of equity, rather than arbitrarily or at the whims of the authority. The Court ruled that the rejection of the petitioner's bid without a sound and just basis was unlawful, and consequently allowed the petition, directing the respondents not to re-auction the unit or negotiate with any other person.
Questions settled- Whether an executive authority can reject the highest bid in a privatization process without assigning valid, just, and reasonable grounds?
- Does a constitutional petition lie to challenge the arbitrary and unreasonable rejection of a bid by a public authority, or is it barred as a matter involving the enforcement of contractual obligations?
- How must discretionary powers conferred upon public functionaries be exercised when affecting private rights and public interests?
- Whether inviting and securing a revised bid from the highest bidder creates a legitimate expectation or obligation on the part of the government to finalize the transaction upon compliance?
- M/s. Caltex Oil Pakistan Limited, Karachi through Human Resources1995 PLC 280 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
- M/s. Azhar Asia Shipping Agency and anothers vs Ghaffar1995 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-09Read full judgment →
- M/s. Associated Cement, Wah vs Hassan Din and 2 others1995 PLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
- M/s. Allied Bank Ltd. vs (M/s.) Rahmat Sons LtdK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 115 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. ALanothersRUKIYA Traders vs Central Board of Revenue,1995 CLC 1456 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court challenging the confiscation of a consignment of imported iron and steel scrap/broken auto parts by the Customs Authorities, who had classified parts of the consignment as serviceable auto parts. The core legal questions involved whether the confiscated goods constituted scrap or serviceable items, whether the mandatory requirement of issuing a show-cause notice under the Customs Act was fulfilled, and liability for demurrage charges. The Court held that the confiscation order, consisting merely of a single word without a show-cause notice or expert examination regarding serviceability, was illegal and in violation of mandatory statutory provisions. The Court set aside the confiscation order, remanded the matter to the Customs Authorities for fresh decision with the assistance of experts, and ruled that the petitioner would not be liable for demurrage charges from the date of confiscation. The key principles laid down are that the serviceability of broken auto parts must be determined through expert opinion rather than arbitrary assessment, and failure to issue a mandatory show-cause notice within the statutory period invalidates the seizure.
Questions settled- Whether broken and damaged auto parts imported as scrap can be confiscated as serviceable parts without expert examination?
- Does the failure to issue a show-cause notice under section 180 within two months of seizure under section 168 of the Customs Act entitle the owner to the return of the goods?
- Is an importer liable for demurrage charges during the period when goods are wrongfully confiscated by the Customs Authorities?
- M/s. Al-Faridia Industries vs M/s. Alfa Insurance Co. Ltd. and 4 others1995 SCMR 1063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment dismissing their appeal against an order staying proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The petitioner argued that the respondents, by repeatedly seeking adjournments to file a written statement, had taken 'steps in the proceedings,' thereby waiving their right to invoke the arbitration clause. The trial court and the appellate court had previously held that the respondents' conduct did not constitute a 'step in the proceedings' sufficient to disentitle them to arbitration, noting that the arbitration agreement was a condition precedent to any right of action. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying a significant legal question regarding whether seeking multiple adjournments to file a written statement constitutes a 'step in the proceedings' under the Arbitration Act 1940. Furthermore, the Court noted a potential issue regarding the stay of a suit involving multiple defendants where the arbitration agreement existed only between the plaintiff and two of the five defendants.
Questions settled- Does seeking adjournments to file a written statement constitute a 'step in the proceedings' under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Can a suit be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 when the arbitration agreement exists only between the plaintiff and some, but not all, of the defendants?
- Nazir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 74 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
- M/s. Aeg Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Iqbal Ahmad Khan and another1995 PLC 610 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
- M/s. A.E.G. Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Tariq Mehmood Mirza and1995 PLC 617 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
- M/s). Lahore Textile and General Mills Ltd. vs Province of Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 139 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
- M/s) E.F.U. General Insurance Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan & Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1020 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This batch of civil appeals by general insurance companies challenges the reopening of their past income tax assessments and the revision of tax rates applied to their dividend income. The core legal question is whether the tax authorities could lawfully reopen finalized assessments under Section 65 or Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, to tax dividend income at normal company rates rather than the lower preferential rates previously applied, relying on earlier judgments concerning general insurance profits. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court judgment, holding that neither the decision in Adamjee Insurance Company nor Central Insurance Company overruled the established principle in American Life Insurance Company that computation of insurance profits and determination of tax rates are distinct. The Court laid down that while general insurance profits are computed under the Fourth Schedule, general provisions of the First Schedule apply for tax computation, and insurance companies are entitled to lower tax rates on dividends unless specifically excluded by law. Furthermore, previous judgments on tax exemptions do not constitute 'definite information' to justify reopening assessments settled under long-standing departmental practice.
Questions settled- Whether the income tax authorities can lawfully reopen completed assessments of general insurance companies under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, on the basis of a judgment that dealt strictly with tax exemptions rather than dividend tax rates?
- Does the computation of profits and gains of general insurance business under the Fourth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, preclude the application of lower preferential tax rates on dividend income as provided in the First Schedule?
- Whether a binding judgment of a superior court that does not alter or overrule a long-standing interpretation regarding tax rates constitutes 'definite information' under Section 65(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Are insurance companies entitled to the benefit of lower rates of tax on dividend income contained in the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- M/s Zam Zam Traders vs Income Tax Officer1997 P.C.T..L.R. 109 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
- M/s Habib Bank Limited, Karachi vs Mst. Zohra Begum and 8 others1995 CLC 319 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
- M/s Afzal Construction Company and others vs The Chairman,1995 PTD 1248 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muzammilullah Khan vs Pakistan Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. and another1995 CLC 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, Pakistan Steel Mills, following the cancellation of an auction contract for heavy machinery. The plaintiff, having failed to pay the balance of the bid amount within the stipulated timeframe, alleged that a public holiday prevented timely payment and that a subsequent tender of payment was improperly rejected. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for specific performance and whether the balance of convenience warranted an injunction. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for specific performance, as the subject matter involved movable goods for which pecuniary compensation was an adequate remedy, failing the criteria set under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Furthermore, the Court determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable loss, noting that damages could be easily ascertained. The key principle laid down is that specific performance is generally unavailable for contracts involving movable goods where damages provide adequate relief, and bare assertions of irreparable loss without supporting evidence are insufficient to justify injunctive relief.
Questions settled- Can specific performance be enforced for a contract involving movable goods where pecuniary compensation is an adequate remedy?
- Is a bare assertion of irreparable loss sufficient to grant an interim injunction?
- Does the court grant a permanent injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation if the conditions for specific performance are not met?
- Muzaffaruddin vs The Provincial Chief, Allied Bank of Pakistan, Karachi ,1995 PLC 482 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Shah and anothers vs Mir Sarwar Khan and others1995 PLD Peshawar 96 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-30Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Shah and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 683 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Khan and 16 others vs Abdul Wahab and 31 others1995 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises out of a declaratory suit filed by the appellants claiming a share in the property left by Abdul Majid and Abdul Karim, asserting they were collaterals in the third degree through their common ancestor Azad Khan. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the lower appellate court dismissed the subsequent appeal. A revision petition in the High Court partly succeeded. The core legal question was whether the appellants successfully established their pedigree and relationship as brothers of the propositus's father based on revenue records and previous litigation judgments. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the subordinate courts regarding the pedigree table entries were correct and that previous litigation judgments did not prove the asserted brotherhood. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings.
Questions settled- Can revenue records and pedigree tables form the basis for concurrent findings regarding family relationships in inheritance matters?
- Do previous litigation judgments not explicitly establishing brotherhood suffice to overturn concurrent factual findings on pedigree?
- Mustafa Khan vs Member (Customs) C.B.R., Islamabad and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 328 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
- Mustafa Khan and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1084 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Muslim Shah and anothers vs Abdul Qayum1995 MLD 746 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
- Muslim Shah And Another vs Abdul Qayum1995 MLD 746 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq vs The State1997 MLD 79 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-04Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Hussain Shah vs Sanaullah EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 334 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq alias Shaman vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against his conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302, P.P.C., as upheld by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner challenged the conviction on three grounds: contradictions in ocular testimony, the interested nature of the eye-witnesses due to their relationship with the deceased, and a discrepancy between the number of wounds on the deceased and the marks on his clothing. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not automatically invalidate their testimony if their presence at the scene is natural and their account is corroborated. Regarding contradictions, the Court held that variations in testimony that do not pertain to the material or salient features of the prosecution case do not destroy the credibility of the witnesses. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a new factual argument, such as the discrepancy in clothing marks, cannot be raised for the first time at the Supreme Court level if it was not presented in the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does the relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Do contradictions in the testimony of eye-witnesses regarding non-material details necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can a party raise a new factual argument before the Supreme Court that was not presented in the trial or appellate courts?
- Mushtaq Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1350(2) · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmed Qadri vs Noor HussainK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 214 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-20Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmed Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 247 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad- vs Syed Abul Hasan Rizvi1995 MLD 422 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1995 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by the petitioner against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which maintained his conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possessing 2.5 kilograms of heroin. The primary legal questions concerned whether the raid conducted without a search warrant and without compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiated the conviction, whether police officials could serve as credible witnesses in the absence of independent witnesses, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused warranted the petitioner's acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction. The Court held that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony cannot be discarded absent proof of enmity, especially where a large quantity of contraband was recovered. Furthermore, the absence of a search warrant was justified by urgency and because the suspected offence fell under Article 3, making it cognizable under Article 16(1)(a) of the Prohibition Order, 1979.
Questions settled- Are police officials considered competent witnesses in narcotic recovery cases where no enmity against the accused is established?
- Does the failure to obtain a search warrant vitiate a raid and recovery when the police act on urgent secret information regarding a cognizable offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Does the acquittal of a co-accused on factual grounds automatically entitle another co-accused from whom contraband was recovered to an acquittal?
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Syed Abul Hasan Rizvi1995 MLD 422 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Muhammad Saleem and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 1900 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, who dismissed a private complaint regarding a murder case. The petitioner had filed a complaint after the police discharged one of the accused in the corresponding FIR. The trial court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that since a police challan had been submitted against other accused and the respondent was declared innocent in the police report, further proceedings might prejudice the case. The High Court held that the trial court's dismissal was legally flawed. It emphasized that an inquiry under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a preliminary stage to determine the truth of allegations, and the accused has no locus standi to participate or be heard at this stage. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the trial court should have proceeded with the complaint case. The principle laid down is that a complaint case and a police challan case should be consolidated, with the complaint case generally taken up first to ensure a comprehensive trial, allowing for the examination of all relevant witnesses.
Questions settled- Does an accused person have the right to be heard or participate during a preliminary inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should a private complaint and a police challan case involving the same incident be consolidated for trial?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to dismiss a private complaint solely because the police report declared the accused innocent?
- What is the correct procedure for a trial court when handling both a private complaint and a police challan case regarding the same offence?
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Jamal DinK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 560 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Jamal Din and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1899 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Director (Seed), Ghee Corporation of Pakistan1995 PLC 391 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Additional District. JudgeK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 429 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-07Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhry vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 657, 1995 SCMR 760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Balochistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition in limine. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the petitioners to a 20% Secretariat Allowance, a benefit reportedly enjoyed by their counterparts in other provinces and departments. The petitioners argued that because they were not drawing this allowance on 31st May 1994, they were excluded from the benefits conferred by the Finance Act of 1994. Upon consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the issue required further examination. As an interim measure, the Court directed that the petitioners be paid the 20% Secretariat Allowance effective from 31st May 1994, pending the final disposal of the case. This relief was granted subject to a condition of recovery: should the Court ultimately determine that the petitioners are not legally entitled to the allowance, the amounts paid during the pendency of the proceedings would be recoverable from them by the competent authorities.
Questions settled- Are employees entitled to the 20% Secretariat Allowance if they were not drawing it on 31st May 1994?
- Can interim relief be granted in a service matter subject to recovery if the final decision is adverse?
- Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhry and 574 others vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 136 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-01Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad And Others vs The State And Another1995 MLD 1005ed · Board of Revenue · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mushahid Hussain Syed vs The State and 2 others1995 MLD 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
- Mushahid Hussain Syed vs The State And 2 Other1995 MLD 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
- Mush'taq Ahmad and others vs The State and others1995 MLD 1005 · Board of Revenue · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
- Murad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1004 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
- Murad Shah and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-20Read full judgment →
- Muqaddar Ali, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 373 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-15Read full judgment →
- Munshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
- Munjri Khan and others vs Faridoon and 5 others1995 SCMR 678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning a suit for ejectment and recovery of produce filed by the respondent against the appellants. The core legal question involved whether tenants inducted by the landlord could deny his title or claim that the landlord's title had extinguished during the continuance of tenancy. The Supreme Court held that once a tenant is inducted into possession by a landlord, the tenant is estopped under section 116 of the Evidence Act from denying or repudiating the landlord's title so long as they remain in possession, and cannot avoid payment of lease money or rent. The Court further laid down that the rule of estoppel restricts the tenant from challenging the landlord's title at the beginning of the tenancy, and concurrent findings of fact by revenue courts regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be interfered with in revision without strong grounds of misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant inducted into possession is estopped from denying the landlord's title under section 116 of the Evidence Act?
- Can a tenant refuse to pay rent or lease money by pleading that the landlord's title has come to an end without surrendering possession?
- Whether the Board of Revenue can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by subordinate revenue authorities in the absence of misreading of evidence?
- What is the scope of revisional powers under section 56 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act 1950?
- Munir Latif Raja vs The Multan Development Authority and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 898 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-07Read full judgment →
- Munir Hussain vs Abdul HamidK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 83 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · -Read full judgment →
- Munir Hussain and anothers vs Abdul Hamid1995 MLD 1596 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
- Munir Hussain And Another vs Abdul Hamid1995 MLD 1596 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmed Shaikh vs Government of Sindh through Additional Chief1995 PLC (C.S.) 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Sindh Service Tribunal judgment regarding the determination of seniority between two civil servants in the Public Health Engineering Department. The core legal question was whether the government could retrospectively grant seniority to an employee transferred on his own request, effectively superseding the seniority of another civil servant regularized in the same cadre earlier by operation of law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the retrospective seniority order was illegal. The Court held that under Rule 12 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, a civil servant transferred on request ranks junior to those already in the cadre. Furthermore, while the government possesses plenary powers under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, to alleviate hardship, such powers cannot be exercised to impair the vested statutory seniority rights of other civil servants. The retrospective order was invalid as it prejudiced the respondent’s established seniority.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant transferred to a new department on their own request rank junior to those already serving in that cadre?
- Can the government exercise plenary powers under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 to grant retrospective seniority if it impairs the statutory rights of other civil servants?
- Is an order granting retrospective seniority valid if it is passed after another civil servant has already been regularized in the same cadre by operation of law?
- Munir Ahmad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1745 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs Teh StateK.L.R 1995 Criminal Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1995 CLC 838 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab -K.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 55 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 9 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 322 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, D.I. Khan vs Habibur Rehman1995 CLC 500 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, Abbottabad Through Chairman_ Administrator, Municipal Committee, Abbottabad And Another vs Sohban Bail1995 MLD 1338 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, Abbottabad through Chairman Administrator, Municipal Committee, Abbottabad and anothers vs Sohban Baig1995 MLD 1338 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
- M/s. Rashid & Company vs Punjab Government and another1995 CLC 1914 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision and connected matters arose from arbitration proceedings where a contractor sought to make an arbitral award a rule of the court. The trial court found the stamp paper on the award deficient under the Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by the Finance Act of 1990, and directed the petitioner to pay the deficient stamp duty along with a tenfold penalty. The core legal questions involved whether a provincial assembly could amend the federal Stamp Act, whether an award relating to money requires stamp duty, and whether a court can impound a document once it has been admitted into evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the provincial legislature was competent to amend the Stamp Act under the Concurrent Legislative List, that the stamp duty applies to monetary awards, and that under section 36 of the Stamp Act, a trial court cannot impound a document once it has been admitted into evidence. However, under section 61 of the Stamp Act, the High Court possesses revisional powers to declare the document improperly admitted and direct it to be sent to the Collector for recovery of deficient stamp duty and penalty.
Questions settled- Whether a Provincial Assembly has the power to amend the Stamp Act under the Concurrent Legislative List of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Whether an arbitration award concerning a money claim attracts stamp duty under Article 12 of the Schedule of the Stamp Act 1899?
- Can a trial court impound an instrument once it has already been admitted into evidence in view of Section 36 of the Stamp Act 1899?
- What is the scope of a High Court's powers under Section 61 of the Stamp Act 1899 to review decisions of subordinate courts regarding the sufficiency of stamp duty?
- Munawar Bibi vs Muhammad Amin and another1995 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court which had restored the order of the Guardian Judge denying her custody of her minor children. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved by Talaq in July 1992, after which the petitioner applied for the Hizanat (custody) of their five children. The Guardian Judge dismissed the application based on an allegation that the petitioner was living in an immoral union with her brother-in-law, a finding relied upon despite her acquittal of Zina charges. On appeal, the Additional District Judge granted custody of the daughters to the petitioner while leaving the son with the father. However, a constitutional petition filed by the respondent in the High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the Guardian Judge's dismissal. Upon petition, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court was justified in depriving the petitioner of the custody of her minor daughters, noting that her acquittal reinforced her presumption of innocence and that maintenance was the father's obligation.
Questions settled- Was the High Court justified in depriving the mother of the custody of her minor daughters based on allegations of an immoral union despite her acquittal?
- Does the pendency of an appeal against an acquittal for Zina destroy the presumption of innocence in child custody matters?
- Can a mother be denied the custody of her minor children on the ground of financial inability when maintenance is the father's legal responsibility?
- Mumtaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 340 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 272 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Khan vs Sindh Labour Court No. 5 Karachi and another1995 PLC 620 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Hussain vs The State1995 MLD 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Hussain And 4 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1686 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Bibi and others vs Ghulam Akbar1995 PLD Peshawar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from an order of the trial court dismissing an application under section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the petitioners to set aside a judgment and decree obtained by the respondent through alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of facts. The core legal questions involved whether the ex parte decree was secured through fraud and clandestine service, and whether the application under section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was barred by limitation. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondent deliberately concealed the defendant's abscondance and criminal proceedings, avoided normal service of summons by resorting to publication in a distant newspaper of limited circulation, and withheld himself from the witness box to evade cross-examination, thereby obtaining the decree fraudulently. The Court further held that the application was within time under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, computed from the date of knowledge. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the original suit was remanded to the trial court for retrial.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment and decree obtained through the concealment of material facts and evasion of proper service can be set aside under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the applicable period of limitation for filing an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure of a decree-holder to appear as a witness to be subjected to cross-examination raise a presumption of fraud in proceedings challenged under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mumtaz and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 297 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application arises from bail matters relating to competing first information reports and counter-versions regarding a custodial killing. The core legal question concerned whether bail principles applicable under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply equally to bail applications before a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. The Sindh High Court held that the principles governing the grant or refusal of bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply mutatis mutandis to cases under section 5-A(8) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, given the identical phraseology of the prohibitory clauses. The Court laid down the principle that the existence of exculpatory affidavits from material prosecution witnesses, the presence of counter-versions, and the remote likelihood of conviction render a case one of further inquiry under section 497(2), justifying the release of the accused on bail.
Questions settled- Are the principles for granting or refusing bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to cases under section 5-A(8) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975?
- Does the presence of exculpatory affidavits sworn by material prosecution witnesses constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting bail?
- How should a court handle competing first information reports and counter-versions involving police functionaries when considering a bail application?
- Mumtaz Ali vs Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Labour Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar1995 PLC 738 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three connected writ petitions filed by employees of the National Radio TeleCommunication Corporation, Haripur, challenging the concurrent dismissal of their grievance petitions by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether employees of an establishment excluded from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 under section 1(3)(a) can invoke the jurisdiction of a Labour Court for the redress of individual grievances under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Peshawar High Court held that notwithstanding the exclusion of the establishment from the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, a workman aggrieved by dismissal or removal can seek remedy before the Labour Court by virtue of Standing Order 12(3) read with section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, as the Labour Court is competent to exercise powers conferred by other laws. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the Labour Court for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether the employees of an establishment excluded under section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can invoke the jurisdiction of a Labour Court under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Does the bar contained in section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 prohibit a workman from seeking redress of individual grievances under Standing Order 12(3)?
- Is a Labour Court competent to exercise powers conferred upon it by laws other than the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Mumtaz Ali Mangi vs National Bank of Pakistan and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 119 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging an order whereby the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Vice-President in the National Bank of Pakistan was cancelled. The core legal question was whether an order of promotion issued on the basis of a forged directive from political authorities could be rescinded by the competent authority without a show-cause notice, and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae barred such cancellation. The Sindh High Court held that the initial promotion was made in violation of statutory rules and relied upon a forged document, thereby lacking lawful authority ab initio. The Court ruled that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not protect or perpetuate illegal orders, and an authority is competent to rescind an order passed without the sanction of law. However, the Court protected the monetary benefits already received by the petitioner, holding that the bank could not recover the salary and allowances drawn during the period he remained on the post under a bona fide belief.
Questions settled- Whether an order of promotion passed on the basis of a forged directive can be rescinded by the competent authority?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to an illegal order passed without the sanction of law?
- Whether an employee is liable to refund the salary and benefits received under a promotion order that is subsequently found to be forged and illegal?
- Multiline Associates vs Ardeshir Cowasjee and others1995 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment ordering the demolition of a high-rise building in Karachi for alleged violations of building regulations. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court was bound by its own earlier precedent, the locus standi of the petitioners, the enforceability of building regulations, and the Chief Minister's authority to regularize building plans. The Court held that a High Court bench is bound by the judgment of an equal bench of the same court; if a contrary view is required, the matter must be referred to a larger bench. Furthermore, while locus standi in constitutional petitions is broad, discretionary relief should be denied where there is inordinate delay and the petitioner has acquiesced to similar constructions in the area. The Court clarified that subordinate regulations must yield to substantive law in case of inconsistency and affirmed the Chief Minister's statutory power to regularize building plans under the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance. Consequently, the Court set aside the demolition order, emphasizing that the petitioners' belated challenge, despite existing high-rise structures, precluded discretionary relief.
Questions settled- Is a Division Bench of a High Court bound by the judgment of an equal bench of the same court?
- Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge building construction if they have acquiesced to similar constructions in the same area?
- Does the Chief Minister have the statutory authority to regularize building plans under the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979?
- In the event of an inconsistency between an Ordinance and subordinate regulations, which prevails?
- Multiline Associates vs Ardeshir Cowasjee and 2 others1995 PLD Supreme Court 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, with leave of the Supreme Court, challenged a Sindh High Court judgment that allowed a constitutional petition, declaring a Ground plus Nine Floors construction violative of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations and directing its demolition. The Supreme Court considered four questions: the binding nature of an earlier High Court judgment, the locus standi of the respondents, the enforceability of building regulations, and the Chief Minister's power to permit deviation or regularization. The Court held that the High Court's Division Bench was bound by an earlier equal bench's finding that the Regulations were not in force, and a larger bench should have been constituted if a contrary view was intended. While acknowledging an extended scope of locus standi in public interest litigation, the Court found the petitioners acted belatedly, acquiesced to other similar constructions, and that discretionary relief should not have been granted, especially when third-party rights had accrued. The Court further held that the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 1979, were in force by virtue of Section 21-A(3) of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979, and that the Chief Minister's regularization order was a valid exercise of statutory power under Section 6 of the Ordinance, which, as substantive law, prevailed over any inconsistent regulations. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a Division Bench of the High Court is bound by an earlier judgment of an equal Bench of the same Court?
- Whether respondents have the locus standi to file a writ petition in circumstances where they are not immediate neighbours and have delayed raising objections?
- Whether the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 1979, were in force in the area at the relevant time?
- Can the Chief Minister or the Karachi Building Control Authority permit deviation from building regulations or compound an offence under the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979?
- Multan Khan vs Cantonment Board, Nowshera through Cantonment1995 CLC 1297 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-23Read full judgment →
- Mulazim Hussain vs The State1995 MLD 231 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
- Mulazim Hussain vs S.H.O., Police Station Shorkot, District Jhang and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These writ petitions challenged the authority of the police to conduct a reinvestigation into a case registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an earlier report submitted under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the case was marked as untraceable. The petitioners argued that the police could not reinvestigate without the Magistrate's permission after the previous order. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the police possess the inherent power to reinvestigate a case even after a report has been submitted, provided the F.I.R. has not been formally cancelled. The Court clarified that the terms 'discharge' and 'cancellation' are distinct, and an order passed by a Magistrate on a report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is administrative in nature. Consequently, such an order does not preclude the police from conducting further investigations or submitting subsequent reports in supersession of earlier ones. The judgment affirms that no legal bar exists preventing the police from investigating a cognizable offence multiple times to ensure justice.
Questions settled- Does an order passed by a Magistrate on a report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bar the police from conducting further investigation?
- Is an order of discharge by a Magistrate on a police report considered an administrative or judicial order?
- Can the police reinvestigate a case after a report has been submitted declaring the case untraceable?
- Are the terms 'discharge' and 'cancellation' of a case synonymous under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mulazim Hussain vs S.H.O. Shorekot, And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 175 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mulazim Hussain Shah and anothers vs Allah Bakhsh1995 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision and upholding the decree passed by the Additional District Judge in favor of the respondents. The respondents had sued the appellant for possession of a house, alleging that possession was handed over to the appellant on the condition that it would be vacated upon request, which the appellant subsequently refused to do while claiming title. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding that the respondent failed to prove possession and that the appellant was a co-sharer in the Khata. However, the appellate court set aside the dismissal and decreed the suit, a decision maintained in revision. The core legal question concerns the rights of co-sharers regarding exclusive possession of specific portions of joint property and the proper appraisal of evidence by the lower courts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the co-ownership status and continuous possession require further consideration, and ordered that the status quo continue.
Questions settled- Whether a co-sharer can be dispossessed from a specific portion of joint property without a formal partition?
- Does a permissive user claim require proof of exclusive prior possession by the plaintiff?
- How should the courts evaluate the possessory rights of co-owners in a joint Khata?
- Mukhtiar Hamid Abid Tabassum vs Pakistan Engineering Council1995 SCMR 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions filed against the refusal of the Pakistan Engineering Council to register the petitioners' foreign engineering degrees obtained from a University in the Philippines, on the ground that the said University had been de-recognised. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the constitutional petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding that the respondent performed the impugned acts outside its territorial jurisdiction and no cause of action arose within it. Upon appeal, the core legal question before the Supreme Court involved the interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, specifically whether the performance of functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation within the territorial limits is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction regardless of the location of the office or cause of action. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these substantial questions of law concerning constitutional interpretation and High Court jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 over an authority performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation outside its physical territorial limits?
- Is the existence of an office or the accrual of a cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court mandatory for maintaining a constitutional petition under Article 199?
- Mukhtiar Ahmed Alias Mukhoo vs The State1995 MLD 371 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1995 MLD 2011 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad And Other vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Criminal Cases 527 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mukarram Khan vs S.H.O., Police Station, New Multan and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 2043 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
- Mujahid Pervez vs Sheraz and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 574 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
- Muharram Ali vs The State1995 SCMR 1157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 and section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908. The petitioner had been originally sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment for the arms offense and ten years for the explosive substances offense, with the sentences running concurrently. On appeal, the High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentence for the explosive substances offense to seven years and the fine to Rs. 5,000, while granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the reduced sentence of seven years for the explosive substances offense to be excessive. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and further reduced the sentence for the explosive substances offense to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The key principle affirmed is the appellate court's authority to exercise discretion in mitigating sentences deemed disproportionate or excessive relative to the offense.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence imposed by the High Court if it deems the punishment excessive?
- Does the appellate court have the authority to modify the quantum of sentence while maintaining the conviction?
- Muhammmad Ashraf vs Inspector-General, Pakistan Railway Police, Lahore and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 320 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammadsarwar vs The State1995 MLD 198 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zijiuiir vs Muhammad ZijiuirK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 446 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zayauddin vs Deputy Director (Locust), Department of Plant Protection, Sukkur and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 373 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed before the Federal Service Tribunal challenging the communication of Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.) remarks as adverse for the period 1-1-1992 to 1-12-1992. The appellant, an Entomologist (Aerial) in B-18, contended that the remarks were not truly adverse, noting that he was graded 'Good' in several columns and 'Average' overall, and was deemed fit for promotion. The core legal question was whether an 'Average' A.C.R. constitutes an adverse remark that warrants intervention by the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the reporting and countersigning officers had assessed the appellant as 'Average' and 'Fit for promotion,' which contradicted the department's classification of the report as adverse. The Tribunal held that an 'Average' report does not constitute an adverse entry. While acknowledging that an appeal against an 'Average' report is generally incompetent, the Tribunal ruled that because the department explicitly communicated the report as adverse and refused to expunge it, the court would clarify that no adverse inference could be drawn from the report, directing that it be treated as 'Average' and not used against the appellant.
Questions settled- Does an 'Average' grading in an Annual Confidential Report constitute an adverse remark?
- Can an 'Average' Annual Confidential Report be used against a civil servant for promotion or other career purposes?
- Is an appeal against an 'Average' Annual Confidential Report maintainable before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Muhammad Zaman vs The State1995 SCMR 824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed his appeal against a conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Sahib Khatoon. While the trial court acquitted five co-accused, it convicted the petitioner. The High Court rejected the prosecution's theory of an ambushed murderous assault but maintained the conviction, reasoning that the incident arose from a dispute over fetching water and that the petitioner was motivated by a desire to avenge a prior murder of one Saadullah. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the High Court's reasoning was factually incorrect because the incident occurred in August 1989, whereas the murder of Saadullah took place in January 1990, making the alleged motive impossible. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's reasoning was contrary to the record. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to reappraise the evidence to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on a motive that is chronologically impossible based on the trial record?
- Does a factual error regarding the motive for a crime warrant the granting of leave to appeal in a criminal case?