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.
- Manzoor Ahmad Akhtar vs The Special Judge, Central, Lahore and another1995 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses constitutional and quashment petitions filed by individuals facing trial before Special Judges (Central) for offences under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and the Passports Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether a Special Court constituted under section 24 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 is barred from taking cognizance of an offence upon a police report (challan) submitted by the Federal Investigation Agency, on the ground that section 24(10) requires a "complaint" and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 defines "complaint" to exclude police reports. The Lahore High Court held that the definition of "complaint" in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 does not apply to the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and that the term "complaint" in section 24(10) of the Ordinance is to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, which encompasses a written police report or challan. The Court established the principle that special statutes must be interpreted harmoniously with investigative frameworks like the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, avoiding absurdities such as routing complaints through Magistrates who lack jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a Special Court under section 24 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 can take cognizance of an offence upon a police report or challan submitted by the Federal Investigation Agency?
- Does the definition of "complaint" provided under section 4(1)(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979?
- Whether the term "complaint" under section 24(10) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 bears its technical statutory definition or its ordinary dictionary meaning?
- Manzoor Ahmad Akhtar vs The Special Judge, Central Lahore, EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Manzoor & Company and anothers vs Malik Muhammad Hanif1995 PLD Lahore 95 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mansoor vs Tassaddaque Ahmed Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 47 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
- Mansoor vs Tassaddaque Ahmed Khan and 27 others1995 PLD Karachi 197 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges the order of a learned Single Judge rejecting the appellant's application under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be joined as a defendant in a pending suit for specific performance filed by respondent No. 1 based on an agreement of sale. The appellant claimed an interest in the disputed land through a subsequent agreement of sale and alleged actual physical possession. The core legal question was whether a third party holding a subsequent agreement of sale and claiming physical possession is a necessary and proper party to be joined as a defendant in a part-decreed specific performance suit. The Sindh High Court held that since the suit was only partially decreed via compromise against some defendants and remained pending against others, and given the disputed questions of fact regarding physical possession and part-performance protection under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, the appellant's presence was necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication. The court laid down that a party asserting a competing agreement of sale and actual possession over property subject to a specific performance suit must be joined as a defendant to protect their rights regarding the undecreed portion of the suit.
Questions settled- Whether a third party holding a subsequent agreement of sale can be joined as a defendant under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. in a pending specific performance suit?
- Does the partial decree of a suit through compromise bar the addition of a necessary party to the remaining undecreed portion of the suit?
- Can a person claiming actual physical possession based on an agreement of sale invoke the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Is a person whose presence is required for the complete and effectual adjudication of a dispute a necessary party to a civil suit?
- Mangan vs The State1995 MLD 575 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-24Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited, Islamabad and another vs Muhammad Saleem1995 PLC 728 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, Multan Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs Muhammad1995 PLC 576 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
- Managing Director and another vs Muhammad Aslam and another1995 PLC 325 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
- Manager (Admn.) House Building Finance Corporation, Zonal Office, Multan vs Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur and others1995 PLC 44 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a service dispute where a driver employed by the House Building Finance Corporation was reverted to the post of Naib-Qasid following disciplinary action. He challenged his reversion by filing a petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was subsequently referred to the Punjab Labour Court. During the proceedings, the Labour Court dismissed the petition in default but later entertained a restoration application and granted an ad interim injunction staying the reversion order. The Corporation challenged these orders before the Lahore High Court, arguing inter alia that the Labour Court lacked competence to grant interim injunctions as the Code of Civil Procedure did not fully apply. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a Labour Court, while adjudicating industrial disputes, possesses the powers of a Civil Court under section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and is inherently competent to grant interim relief in aid of ultimate relief. The Court affirmed that the grant of temporary injunction is a matter of procedure rather than substantive law.
Questions settled- Whether a Labour Court is competent to grant ad interim injunctions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the power to grant temporary injunction form part of procedural law or substantive law for Labour Courts?
- Can a Labour Court revive an interim order that was operative prior to the dismissal of a petition for non-prosecution upon the filing of a restoration application?
- Mana Etc. vs Hussain Bukhsh Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 28 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mamy Beverage vs Naseem1995 PTD 91 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged orders passed by tax authorities demanding additional sales tax and penalty from the petitioner for late payment under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question was whether depositing sales tax within time but under a wrong head of account due to a typographical error constitutes a failure to pay tax attracting additional tax under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Lahore High Court held that the use of the expression 'shall be liable' in section 34 vests discretion in the adjudicating officer to levy or not to levy additional tax, which requires examining the reasons and circumstances of non-payment. The Court ruled that an inadvertent clerical error in mentioning the head of account when the tax has actually been deposited in the government treasury does not amount to a deliberate default or wilful evasion. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether depositing sales tax within the stipulated time under a wrong head of account constitutes a failure to pay tax under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
- Does the expression 'shall be liable' in section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, vest discretion in the authorities to levy additional tax?
- Is additional sales tax leviable in the absence of a deliberate failure or wilful evasion to pay the tax due?
- Can a penalty or additional tax be recovered mechanically without considering the reasons and circumstances provided by the taxpayer?
- Mamraiz Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 4 others1995 PLD Supreme Court 512 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition, filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court which had enhanced the petitioner's sentence from life imprisonment to death. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by a Special Court for Speedy Trials. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Appellate Court, established under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1992, possessed the authority to enhance a sentence upon a petition filed by a private party (the deceased's father) rather than by the state. The Supreme Court held that the Supreme Appellate Court, in exercising its appellate jurisdiction, is vested with all powers conferred on an appellate court under Chapter XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Supreme Appellate Court is empowered to enhance sentences, regardless of the competency of the private petition, as it functions with the full scope of appellate authority, including the power to alter the nature of a sentence to ensure justice.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Appellate Court have the authority to enhance a sentence from life imprisonment to death?
- Can the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to review an order of the Supreme Appellate Court?
- Does the Supreme Appellate Court possess the powers of an appellate court under Chapter XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the Supreme Appellate Court empowered to enhance a sentence even if the petition for enhancement was filed by a private party rather than the state?
- Malt-79 Manufacturers vs Collector1995 PTD 345 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax, which imposed additional tax under Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, due to the petitioner's deposit of sales tax under an incorrect head of account. The core legal question was whether the inadvertent deposit of tax under a wrong head of account constitutes a 'failure to pay' under Section 34, and whether the imposition of additional tax is mandatory or discretionary. The Court held that the term 'liable to pay' in Section 34 vests discretion in the adjudicating officer, meaning additional tax is not an automatic consequence of late payment but requires consideration of the circumstances. The Court determined that since the petitioner had deposited the tax amount in the treasury within the prescribed time, albeit under the wrong head due to a clerical error, there was no deliberate evasion or default. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, establishing that penal provisions require an examination of intent and that 'liable' implies a discretionary power rather than a mandatory obligation.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'shall be liable to pay' in a tax statute impose a mandatory obligation or vest discretion in the adjudicating authority?
- Does the deposit of sales tax under a wrong head of account constitute a failure to pay tax within the meaning of Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
- Is the imposition of additional tax under Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 contingent upon proof of wilful evasion or deliberate default?
- Malik Sabih Hussain vs The State1995 SCMR 1148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which had declined a request to modify the terms of bail regarding the number of sureties required. The core legal question concerned the appropriateness of the bail conditions imposed by the High Court, specifically the number of sureties. Upon review, the State counsel consented to an increase in the number of sureties. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, modifying the bail order to permit the petitioner to furnish four sureties, each in the sum of Rs. 250,000, in lieu of the single surety previously ordered. The judgment affirms the principle that bail conditions, particularly regarding the number and nature of sureties, may be adjusted by the appellate court, especially when the State does not oppose such modification to ensure the effective securing of the petitioner's attendance.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court modify the number of sureties required for bail if the State does not object?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal against a bail condition order maintainable if the State consents to the requested modification?
- Malik Nazar Hussain and 6 others vs Muhammad Inamulhaq and another1995 CLC 380 · Board of Revenue · 1994-07-27Read full judgment →
- Malik Nayyer Hussain vs Muhammad Saeed, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
- Malik Naseem Hassan, Civil Judge,First Class, Lahore vs Lahore High1995 PLC (C.S.) 1173 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 1995-04-27Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Yousafullah Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 502 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Yousafullah Khan vs The State and another1995 PLD Supreme Court 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the Peshawar High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail on medical grounds to an accused charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court had initially granted bail based on a Standing Medical Board report indicating that the accused's severe radial nerve injury required specialized surgical intervention unavailable in jail or local hospitals, and recommended treatment abroad to avoid permanent disability. However, the Sessions Court and High Court cancelled the bail, questioning the authenticity of the medical report and noting the absence of a bone fracture. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the High Court's order. The Court held that judges are not medical experts and cannot lightly brush aside a technical report from a properly constituted Medical Board without summoning the doctors or obtaining a counter-opinion. The key principle laid down is that the criteria for medical bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. is whether the ailment cannot be properly treated in custody and continued detention is hazardous to the accused's health, regardless of whether the injury involves a bone fracture.
Questions settled- What is the correct legal criteria for granting bail to an accused on medical grounds under Section 497 of the Cr.P.C.?
- Can a court disregard or brush aside the technical opinion of a properly constituted Medical Board in the absence of a counter-medical opinion?
- Does the absence of a bone fracture preclude an accused from being granted bail on the ground of sickness or infirmity under Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- What steps must a court take if it doubts or suspects the authenticity of a Medical Board's report regarding an accused's health?
- Malik Muhammad Riaz vs Government of Sindh through its Secretary, Home Department, Karachi and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1067 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Ramzan and others vs Punjab University, Lahore1995 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition challenging the expulsion of students from the Punjab University, Lahore. The core legal question concerned whether the expulsion orders could be set aside upon the petitioners' submission of an unconditional apology. The Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted the written unconditional apology tendered by the petitioners. In this undertaking, the petitioners committed to refraining from engaging in political activities or any conduct detrimental to the prestige of the institution, the Vice-Chancellor, or the university faculty. Consequently, the Court held that the expulsion orders were to be withdrawn, effective from the original date of expulsion. The principle laid down is that where students acknowledge their misconduct and provide a formal, unconditional apology coupled with an undertaking of future good conduct, the court may exercise its discretion to allow for the withdrawal of disciplinary expulsion orders, thereby facilitating the students' reinstatement. This decision reflects the court's approach to balancing institutional discipline with the educational interests of the students involved in such disciplinary disputes.
Questions settled- Can an expulsion order against university students be withdrawn upon the submission of an unconditional apology?
- Does an undertaking to refrain from political activity in an educational institution justify the reversal of disciplinary expulsion?
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz Khan and 9 Other vs The State and OtherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 105 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-12-14Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Mukhtar vs Province of Punjab through Deputy1995 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) as non-maintainable, which had been filed challenging an order passed in writ proceedings concerning property auction conducted by the Assistant Registrar under Martial Law Order 241 and the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966. The core legal question revolves around the maintainability of the ICA under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, specifically whether the statutory bar under the proviso to section 3(2) concerning revisions applied at the time the writ petition was instituted, given that the inclusion of revisions to bar ICAs was added by an amendment subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that arguable questions regarding the temporal application of the amendment introduced by Act VI of 1975 to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, required detailed examination, subject to verification of the exact date of filing of the writ petition.
Questions settled- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is barred under the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, where the governing statute provides for a revision rather than an appeal?
- Does the amendment adding revision and review to the proviso of section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, apply retrospectively to writ petitions filed prior to its promulgation?
- Whether an auction conducted by the Assistant Registrar under Martial Law Order 241 is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction when alternative remedies are allegedly available?
- Malik Muhammad Ishaq and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 933 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Iqbal vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Land1995 CLC 1561 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Ayub Awan vs Mrs. Shamim Dadi And Another1995 MLD 342 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
- Malik Moeenuddin Khan vs United Bank Ltd., Quetta1995 SCMR 450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's order rejecting his application to file an appeal in forma pauperis. The respondent bank had filed a recovery suit against the petitioner under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance for a secured loan. The trial court initially granted leave to defend conditionally, but realizing no formal application for leave to defend had been filed, corrected the order and decreed the suit in favor of the bank. The petitioner's application under Order XLIV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to appeal as a pauper was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Order XLIV, Rule 1, noting the statutory condition that an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must be rejected unless the court finds the impugned judgment and decree to be contrary to law or erroneous. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the decree—given that the petitioner defaulted on installment payments and failed to substantiate claims of interest waiver—the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an application for permission to file an appeal in forma pauperis requires the court to examine the legality of the impugned judgment and decree?
- Can an application to appeal as a pauper be maintained if the decree is not shown to be contrary to law or erroneous?
- What is the effect of failing to establish a waiver of interest on a loan recovery decree in proceedings for leave to appeal as a pauper?
- Malik Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1995 SCMR 1621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of his criminal revision petition, which had upheld a Special Judge's refusal to stay criminal proceedings against him pending the disposal of his civil suit. The petitioner, an Overseas Employment Promoter facing criminal charges under the Emigration Ordinance and Passport Act for allegedly defrauding four complainants, argued that the central receipt forming the basis of the criminal case was fraudulent and currently challenged in a civil suit, necessitating a stay of the criminal trial to avoid conflicting decisions. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of a related civil suit concerning the same document. The Supreme Court held that the criminal proceedings should not be stayed, reasoning that unlike cases where criminal liability wholly depends on civil title, the criminal trial involves ocular testimony from multiple witnesses and the trial court is fully competent to independently determine the genuineness of the document and the guilt of the accused. The key principle laid down is that civil court judgments are not admissible in criminal proceedings to establish the truth of underlying facts, and criminal courts must independently determine guilt based on evidence produced before them.
Questions settled- Whether criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the final disposal of a related civil suit involving the same subject matter?
- Is a judgment of a Civil Court admissible in a criminal proceeding to establish the truth of the facts upon which it is rendered?
- Does a trial court have the competence to independently determine the genuineness of a document and the guilt of an accused notwithstanding a pending civil challenge to that document?
- Malik Khizar Hayat vs Pa.C. Kamra, District Attock through Director-1995 P.L.C.(C.S.) 288 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
- Malik Imam Bux vs Mehrab1995 CLC 309 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
- Malik Ice Factory vs WAPDA1995 CLC 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
- Malik Ibrar Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2040 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-30Read full judgment →
- Malik Hayat vs Supreme Appellate Court of Sindhii at Karachi and 21995 PLD Supreme Court 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging his conviction by a Special Court for Speedy Trials and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court. The petitioner argued that his trial for an offence under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was coram non judice because that offence was not listed in the schedule of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act 1992. The Supreme Court observed that Section 2(c) of the Act empowers the Federal Government to transfer cases involving non-scheduled offences if they are deemed gruesome, brutal, or sensational. The Court held that the petitioner failed to raise this objection during trial and that the offence fell within the ambit of the Act's criteria for transfer. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Article 212-B of the Constitution bars interference with proceedings of the Supreme Appellate Court, which is the final forum under the special law, except in extraordinary cases of jurisdictional defects. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as non-maintainable.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to interfere with judgments of the Supreme Appellate Court constituted under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act 1992?
- Can the Federal Government transfer cases to a Special Court for Speedy Trials for offences not specifically mentioned in the schedule of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act 1992?
- Is a trial conducted by a Special Court for Speedy Trials coram non judice if the offence is not listed in the Act's schedule but meets the criteria for transfer under Section 2(c)?
- Does Article 212-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the Supreme Court from interfering in proceedings of the Supreme Appellate Court?
- Malik Gul Hassan & Co. vs Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad and 9 others1995 CLC 1662 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of construction contracts for the Bolan Medical College and the validity of the Bolan Medical College (Board of Governors) (Amendment) Ordinance and subsequent Act. The core legal questions concerned whether the petition was barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal, whether the court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction over complex contractual disputes, and whether the legislation was ultra vires or mala fide. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the matter was indeed hit by res judicata regarding issues previously adjudicated. Furthermore, the court ruled that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving factual controversies, such as performance delays and construction quality, which require evidence. The court also affirmed that legislative acts cannot be challenged on grounds of mala fides and that the petitioner’s conduct and prior notice of termination precluded discretionary relief. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and unsuitable for resolving complex contractual disputes requiring evidence, and that legislative instruments are generally immune from challenges based on mala fides.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata apply to a constitutional petition that was previously dismissed after a hearing on merits?
- Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to resolve complex contractual disputes that require the recording of evidence?
- Is it permissible to challenge the validity of a legislative enactment on the grounds of mala fides?
- Does the cancellation of a contract by a state entity without a hearing necessarily violate fundamental rights regarding property?
- Malik Ghulam Yusaf vs Pistric Magistrate, Attock1995 MLD 1510 · Peshawar High Court · 1968-03-26Read full judgment →
- Malik Ghulam Yusaf vs District Magistrate, Attock1995 MLD 1510 · Peshawar High Court · 1968-03-26Read full judgment →
- Malik Azam Jan vs Habib Bank Limited, Karachi and 3 others1995 CLC 234 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
- Malik Aslam Pervez vs Province of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 249 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
- Malik Asim Waqar vs Noor Elahi and 2 others1995 MLD 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-18Read full judgment →
- Malik Asim Waqar vs Noor Elahi And 2 Other1995 MLD 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-18Read full judgment →
- Malik Ali Bhatti vs Inspector, F.Ia., Bahawalpur1995 MLD 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
- Malik Ali Bhatti vs Inspector, F.Ia. Barawalpur1995 MLD 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
- Makhzan vs Western Pakistan Tanneries, Hyderabad1995 PLC 149 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
- Makhdoom Ahmed Mahmood vs Mrs. Fouzia Hussain and others1995 MLD 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Makhdoom Ahmed Mahmood vs Mrs. Fouzia Hussain And Other1995 MLD 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Makhdoom Ahmed Mahmood vs (Mrs.) Fouzia Hussain And OtherK.L.R, 1995 Civil Cases 62 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Major (Rtd.) Mushtaq Hussain Shah vs Lt.Col. (Rtd.) Fazal Akbar and 61995 P Cr. L J 1772 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Major (Retd.) Muhammad Ramzan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 745 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
- Major (Retd.) Mazhar Mahmood Khan vs K}Iushal Khan Jadoon1995 MLD 316 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
- Major (Retd.) Mazhar Mahmood Khan vs Khushal Khan Jadoon1995 MLD 316 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
- Majeedur Rehman vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 7 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
- Mai Nooran vs National Logistic Cell, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan through its Commander and 2 others1995 CLC 1969 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three consolidated suits arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a truck owned by the National Logistic Cell and a Suzuki van, resulting in the deaths of three individuals. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of the deceased, sought damages for pecuniary loss caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The core legal questions involved determining the liability of the defendants for negligence and calculating the appropriate quantum of damages for the dependents. The Court held that the evidence established the truck driver's negligence, rejecting the defense that the road was closed or that the Suzuki driver was at fault. Consequently, the Court decreed the suits against the truck owner and driver, jointly and severally, while dismissing the claim against the insurance company due to a lack of evidence regarding the insurance policy. The judgment establishes that in fatal accident claims, damages are to be assessed based on the deceased's proven income, expected working life, and the dependency of the legal heirs, with specific provisions for the investment of minors' shares.
Questions settled- Is the owner of a vehicle vicariously liable for the rash and negligent acts of its employee-driver?
- How should pecuniary loss be calculated in fatal accident claims involving multiple dependents?
- Can a court award damages for loss of pecuniary benefit if the insurance company fails to produce an insurance policy?
- What is the appropriate procedure for the investment of damages awarded to minor legal heirs in fatal accident cases?
- Mahnda and others vs Shamim, and others1995 CLC 908 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodulhassan Abbasi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 59 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Ahmed alias Sheeda vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1286 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Ahmad vs Secretary to Govtment of PunjabK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 368 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Ahmad and others vs The State1995 SCMR 1242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, facing trial under sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought leave to appeal against the High Court's order cancelling the bail previously granted to them by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question concerned the propriety of cancelling bail and the potential prejudice caused by strong observations made by the High Court during the cancellation proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to interfere with the cancellation of bail as the trial had already commenced and two witnesses had been examined, holding that it would be improper to consider the merits of bail at this advanced stage. However, the Court addressed the grievance regarding the High Court's uncautioned remarks, holding that such observations must be treated as strictly tentative and ad hoc, relevant solely to the bail matter. The key principle laid down is that observations made during bail proceedings must not influence the trial court in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, which must be decided entirely on the evidence adduced during the trial. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused with cautionary directions to the trial court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the cancellation of bail when the trial has already commenced and witnesses have been examined?
- Do observations made by a superior court in a bail matter prejudice the trial court's determination of guilt or innocence?
- How should a trial court treat observations made by an appellate or revisional court in a bail order during the ongoing trial?
- Mahboob Khan alias Maroof and 11 others vs Fazal Ellahi and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 1778 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the court challenges the High Court's direction to a Station House Officer to register a criminal case based on a report submitted by respondent Fazal Elahi under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir examined whether the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction. The Court found that the writ petition suffered from unexplained laches, as the respondent delayed filing it until after a challan had already been presented in a counter murder case and the trial was nearly complete. The Court held that issuing a direction for the registration of a fresh case at that advanced stage would prejudice the ongoing trial. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the High Court's order was set aside, and the broader legal question regarding the obligation to register a second counter-report was left open as it had become academic.
Questions settled- Does a writ petition seeking a direction for the registration of a criminal case suffer from laches if filed with unexplained delay after the submission of a challan in the primary case?
- Can discretionary and equitable writ jurisdiction be exercised to order the registration of a new case when it prejudices a pending trial nearing completion?
- Mahboob Ilahi Khawaja vs Mian Khadim Hussain and others1995 MLD 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mahboob Ilahi Khawaja vs Mian Khadim Hussain And Other1995 MLD 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mahammad Umar Gori vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 625 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-03Read full judgment →
- Magna Limited of Jersey, Channel Islandsthrough Their Agents M/s.1996 P.C.T.L.R. 150 · Other · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
- Madras High Court (India)] V.G. Santhosham vs V. Raghavan, Assistant1995 PTD 838 206 I T R 605 · Madras High Court · 1991-08-30Read full judgment →
- Madad'ichan vs Government of.N.W.F.P., through Home Secretary, N.W.F.P., Peshawar1995 PLD Peshawar 108 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
- Maazullah Khan vs Administrator, Islamabad Capital Territory, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 728 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- Malik Shahzad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
- M4. Kishwara and 6 others vs Sher Azam and 4 others1995 SCMR 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 20-3-1993, which dismissed their civil revision and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The core legal question concerns whether the lower courts committed misreading and non-reading of evidence while upholding an unregistered gift deed and subsequent mutation regarding the disputed land. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the three courts below were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, noting that the donor had validly executed the gift in favor of the respondents who had cared for her after she was turned out by her brother. Consequently, the Court found no ground of misreading or non-reading of evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming the validity of the concurrent findings upholding the gift transaction.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the execution of a gift deed can be interfered with on the ground of misreading of evidence?
- Does a gift executed by an unmarried sister in favour of her nephews in equal share, due to her brother's second marriage and neglect, constitute a valid transaction?
- Is an unregistered gift deed given effect through a revenue mutation legally sustainable when its execution is duly proved by evidence?
- M.D.Tahir vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 152 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Federal Government through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and another1995 CLC 443 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
- M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and another1995 CLC 1687 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses constitutional petitions challenging the government's policy decision to observe two weekly holidays (Friday and Saturday), which was alleged to be violative of Islamic injunctions and detrimental to the national economy and banking sector. The core legal questions involved whether declaring Friday and Saturday as weekly holidays contravenes the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, and whether socio-economic and political policy decisions of the executive are justiciable under the writ jurisdiction. The Court held that neither the Holy Qur'an nor the Sunnah explicitly prohibits declaring Friday or Saturday as holidays, noting that Islamic injunctions permit work after Friday prayers rather than mandating continuous labor. Furthermore, the Court held that policy decisions of a socio-economic and political nature taken by the executive fall outside the purview of judicial review unless proven to be mala fide, ultra vires, or in clear violation of law. The key principle laid down is that the judiciary will not sit in appeal over executive policy and political choices, and there is a presumption that government decisions are taken in the public interest.
Questions settled- Whether the government decision to observe two weekly holidays including Friday and Saturday is violative of the Injunctions of Islam?
- Can the superior courts interfere with socio-economic and political policy decisions of the executive in exercise of writ jurisdiction?
- Is there a legal presumption that a policy decision adopted by the Government is in the public interest?
- M.D. Tahir, Advocate anothers vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad1995 CLC 752 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-13Read full judgment →
- M.D. Tahir, Advocate and another vs Provincial Government through its1995 CLC 1730 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
- M.D. Tahir vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 206 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
- M.D. Tahir vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 CLC 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
- M.B. Abbasi vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 475 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
- M.A. Hakeem vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and 41995 PLC (C.S.) 926 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
- M. Y. Malik & Co. and 2 others vs Spendlours International1995 SCMR 922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissing a civil appeal concerning monetary claims in a commercial dispute. The core legal question involved whether the High Court and the Supreme Court had committed errors patent on the face of the record by overlooking material evidence while disallowing certain payments claimed by the petitioners, specifically amounts of Rs. 50,000 paid to Mrs. Azra Shaikh, Rs. 2,00,000 paid to Azam Qureshi, and Rs. 7,00,000 on account of pledged goods. The Supreme Court held that the review petition succeeded in part, finding that documentary and oral evidence regarding the payments to Mrs. Azra Shaikh and Azam Qureshi had indeed been overlooked, thereby establishing that those amounts were paid towards the discharge of the firm's liabilities. Consequently, the Court reviewed its earlier judgment, upheld the two disputed claims, and reduced the decretal amount accordingly, while affirming the disallowance of the claim for pledged goods. The key principle laid down is that a judgment is liable to review under established principles when material evidence patent on the record has been overlooked, resulting in an erroneous factual finding.
Questions settled- Can a judgment of the Supreme Court be reviewed when material evidence on the record has been overlooked?
- Whether payments made to third parties can be credited towards the discharge of a firm's liabilities upon proof of proper authorization?
- Is a review petition maintainable to correct factual misappreciations apparent from the record?
- M. Shahid Saigol vs The Controller of Capital Issues Corporate Law1995 MLD 1950 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-18Read full judgment →
- M. Shahid Saigol And Other vs M/s Kohinoor Textile Mills Limited AndK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 517 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M. Shahid Saigol and 16 others vs M/s. Kohinoor Mills Ltd. and 7 others1995 PLD Lahore 264 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under sections 161(8), 208, 217, and 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 challenged the notice of an Extraordinary General Meeting, its proceedings, and a special resolution passed by respondent No.1-Company authorizing additional investment in its associated company, Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited. The core legal questions involved whether minority shareholders could maintain the petition despite minor technical defects regarding minor petitioners, whether common directors were barred from voting, and whether the notice and resolution violated mandatory disclosure requirements. The Lahore High Court held that substantial compliance with Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cured any formal defect in naming minor petitioners through their natural guardian, that common directors as shareholders were not barred from voting, but that the notice and resolution violated sections 160(1)(B) and 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 by failing to disclose material facts and terms and conditions of investment, which prevented members from effectively exercising their rights. The court declared the notice and resolution invalid, directing a fresh meeting.
Questions settled- Whether a petition filed by minority shareholders is maintainable when minor petitioners are represented by their natural father as next friend without formal designation in the title?
- Are directors who hold shares in a company barred from voting as shareholders on a resolution concerning an associated company due to holding directorships in both companies?
- Does a notice for an Extraordinary General Meeting regarding investment in an associated company stand vitiated for failing to annex a statement setting out all material facts under section 160(1)(B) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Whether non-compliance with the mandatory disclosure requirements of sections 160(1)(B) and 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 prevents members from using their voting rights effectively?
- M. Rafique Malik vs Mst. Surriyya Khanum and 4 others1995 CLC 1933 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority directing the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the rented premises. The core legal questions concerned whether the Rent Controller is strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in procedural matters like closing evidence, and whether a tenant may challenge the landlord's title without surrendering possession. The Court held that a Rent Controller acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and is not strictly bound by the procedural rigors of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provided they maintain fairness and equity. Consequently, the Rent Controller’s decision to close the petitioner's evidence after multiple failed opportunities was upheld as lawful. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the established principle that a tenant is estopped from disputing the landlord's title without first surrendering possession of the premises. Finding no jurisdictional defect or illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower forums, the High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims while the landlady had sufficiently proven her case.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller strictly bound by the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a tenant challenge the title of the landlord without first surrendering possession of the rented premises?
- Does a Rent Controller act as a court or in a quasi-judicial capacity when exercising functions under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- M. Nazir Mughal and 5 others vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 205 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
- M. Musarat vs Air Comdr. Shafiq Hyder and 3 others1995 CLC 1323 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-06Read full judgment →
- M. Mohan Shet vs State of Karnataka and others1995 PTD 368 206 I T R 74 · karnataka High Court · 1993-09-08Read full judgment →
- M. Izharul Haq And Other vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 94 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M. Fahim vs Mrs. Shamim Tahira and another1995 CLC 1722 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi East, which struck off the appellant's defense and directed his eviction from the premises due to non-compliance with a rent deposit order. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller acted correctly in ordering eviction following the tenant's failure to deposit arrears and future rent as directed. The High Court held that the Rent Controller's order was justified. The court observed that the appellant failed to comply with the specific directions to deposit arrears and failed to pay future rent by the stipulated date. Crucially, the appellant offered no plausible explanation for this non-compliance. The court distinguished this case from precedents where technical defaults were excused, noting that here the default was substantive and deliberate. The key principle laid down is that where a tenant fails to comply with a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent without providing a valid justification, such non-compliance constitutes a deliberate default, rendering the striking off of the defense and the subsequent order of eviction legally sustainable.
Questions settled- Does the failure to comply with a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent warrant the striking off of a tenant's defense?
- Can a Rent Controller issue a single order directing both the payment of arrears and future monthly rent?
- Is a tenant's failure to deposit future rent by the specified date considered a default justifying eviction?
- M. D. Tahir vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 MLD 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- M. D. Tahir vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1995 MLD 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- M. Ashraf vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 15 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
- M. Ashraf vs Mst. Nusrat Sultana And Another1995 MLD 1217 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
- M. Ashraf Parwaz vs Prof. Asghar Ali Naaz1995 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the High Court, which upheld the trial court's decree in favor of the respondent. The respondent had filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the refund of a security deposit amounting to Rs. 30,000 deposited upon his appointment as a college principal. The petitioner failed to seek leave to appear and defend within the prescribed period and his belated application was dismissed as time-barred, supported by an inadequate medical certificate. The core legal question concerned whether leave to defend a summary suit could be granted upon a time-barred application without satisfactory explanation, and whether refund of security could be withheld pending a separate recovery suit. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly dismissed the time-barred application and that the respondent's undisputed security refund should not be delayed pending the outcome of the petitioner's separate embezzlement suit. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a belated application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit can be entertained without a satisfactory explanation and proper medical coverage for the relevant period?
- Can the refund of a security deposit, admitted to be refundable upon the termination of employment, be withheld pending the outcome of a separate recovery suit filed by the employer?
- M. Aram Amin vs Muhammad Ali Khan and another1995 CLC 1795 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Lahore, rejecting the appellant's objections and making an arbitration award a rule of the court. Differences arose between the appellant and respondent regarding a memorandum of understanding establishing a joint business division, leading to arbitration. When the arbitrators disagreed, an umpire was appointed, who issued an award in favour of the respondent concerning car export and auto rickshaw businesses. The appellant challenged the award on grounds of misconduct and total lack of evidence. The Lahore High Court examined the record and held that the umpire's award was not supported by any legal evidence or documents connecting the appellant to the alleged transactions or commissions, and that the award suffered from a total lack of evidence. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the arbitration award, and overturned the trial court's order making the award a rule of the court.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration award can be set aside when it is not based on any evidence on the record?
- Does an umpire have the power to make an award without supporting material evidence establishing the claims?
- Whether a trial court can make an arbitration award a rule of the court in the absence of valid proof supporting the arbitrator's findings?
- M. Anayat vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 569 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
- M. Alam Khan vs Jewan Khan and 5 others1995 PLD Lahore 181 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the judgments and decrees of the lower courts relating to the rejection of a plaint and the return of a memorandum of appeal due to deficient court-fee and lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The core legal questions involve the distinction between clauses (b) and (c) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the amendment of valuation and payment of court-fee, the effect of a trial court's procedural failure to amend the valuation in the plaint despite determining a higher value, and the competency of a civil revision when an appeal is available. The Lahore High Court held that while the trial court committed a procedural irregularity by not getting the relevant paragraph of the plaint formally amended alongside determining the higher valuation, this did not confer pecuniary jurisdiction on the lower appellate court, which rightly returned the memorandum of appeal. Furthermore, a civil revision is incompetent under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where an appeal is the proper remedy, and the petition was additionally barred by limitation pursuant to the statutory amendments introduced by Act VI of 1992. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- What is the distinction between clauses (b) and (c) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding undervalued plaints and insufficiently stamped paper?
- Does a trial court's failure to get the valuation paragraph of a plaint formally amended after determining a higher value vitiate subsequent proceedings or alter the proper forum of appeal?
- Is a civil revision petition competent against a trial court's judgment and decree when an appeal lies against the same before the High Court?
- What is the effect of the 1992 amendment prescribing a period of limitation for filing a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- M. Akbar Muggo vs Ghee Corporation1995 CLC 1939 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
- M. 11 Tahir, Advocate vs Provincial Government through Chief1995 PLD Lahore 308 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
- Lt.-Col. Mohsin Shah vs Mst. Qaseema Wahid and others1995 MLD 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- Lt. Colonel Mohsin Shah vs Mst. Qaseema Wahid And OtherK.L.R. 1997 CiviLCases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- Lt. Col. Noor Alam Lodhi and 2 others vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another1995 CLC 647 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →