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.
- Lt. Col. Mohsin Shah vs Mst. Qaseema Wahid And Other1995 MLD 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- Lt. Col. (Retd..) Mukhtar Ahmad Usmani and others vs Bal Miki Sabha1995 CLC 2028 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
- Liaquat vs The State and 2 others1995 MLD 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
- Liaquat vs The State And 2 Other1995 MLD 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ejaz vs The State1997 MLD 201 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-19Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1283 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, a former Finance Minister of Sindh, who was implicated in a case registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment regarding the alleged illegal advancement of agricultural Taqavi loans to relatives and other persons without fulfilling legal formalities. The core legal questions involved whether the applicant's alleged unexplained abscondence disentitled him to pre-arrest bail, and whether the material on record made out a case for further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant's failure to appear was sufficiently explained by circumstances and pending proceedings, and that the prosecution lacked direct evidence connecting the applicant to the commission of the alleged crime since the mere grant of a loan did not prima facie constitute an offense. The court established the principle that where abscondence is explained by surrounding circumstances, it does not act as an absolute bar to bail, and pre-arrest bail may be confirmed when the case against an accused requires further inquiry due to the absence of direct evidence.
Questions settled- Whether unexplained abscondence absolutely disentitles an accused person to the concession of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the mere allocation or grant of a government loan prima facie constitute a criminal offense under anti-corruption laws?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when there is no direct evidence connecting the accused to the commission of the alleged crime?
- Liaquat Ali Jatoi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1331 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali and 4 others vs Muller and Phipps Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi1995 PLC 18 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
- Liaqat vs The State1995 SCMR 858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the petitioner's convictions under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite acquitting him of other charges following a compromise. The core legal question is whether a defense counsel in a criminal case possesses the authority to withdraw an appeal or concede guilt on behalf of an accused, thereby binding the accused to that decision, particularly when the underlying offense is non-compoundable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether such a concession by counsel, made without the explicit authorization of the accused, is legally valid or if the court is obligated to decide the case on its merits regardless of the counsel's stance. The key principle to be determined is the extent of a defense counsel's authority to make concessions in criminal proceedings and whether such actions can prejudice the rights of the accused when they contradict the accused's interests or lack express authorization.
Questions settled- Can a defense counsel in a criminal case validly withdraw an appeal or concede the guilt of an accused without the accused's express authorization?
- Is a court obligated to decide a criminal appeal on its merits even if the defense counsel chooses not to press the appeal regarding specific convictions?
- Does a concession made by counsel regarding a non-compoundable offense bind the accused in criminal proceedings?
- Liaqat vs Province of Punjab and others1995 CLC 672 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Usman vs Muhammad Khalid, Advocate1995 CLC 2012 · Bar Council Tribunal · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
- Liaqat and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal petitions involving the interpretation of Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the suspension of sentences and grant of bail to convicts when appeals remain undecided beyond the statutory two-year period. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can deny bail under this provision based on the merits of the case or other discretionary factors. The Supreme Court held that Section 426(1-A) confers an independent statutory right to bail upon the expiry of the specified period, distinct from the court's discretionary power to suspend sentences on merits under Section 426(1). Consequently, the appellate court cannot deny bail under subsection (1-A) solely on the merits of the conviction. However, the court may still refuse bail for reasons unrelated to merits, such as the likelihood of the convict repeating the offence or if the appeal is imminent. The Court clarified that while the specific provisos of Section 497 do not apply to Section 426, the underlying principles regarding the prevention of further offences remain relevant considerations.
Questions settled- Does the expiry of the statutory period under Section 426(1-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, create an absolute right to bail?
- Can an appellate court deny bail under Section 426(1-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, based solely on the merits of the conviction?
- Are the considerations for refusing bail under the provisos to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, relevant when deciding bail applications under Section 426(1-A)?
- Does Section 426(1-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, apply to appeals involving a sentence of death?
- Liaqat Ali vs The State1995 SCMR 1310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a High Court judgment maintaining the appellant's conviction for murder and illegal possession of arms following a police encounter. The core legal questions were whether the absence of fouling in a recovered firearm negates credible ocular testimony, and whether the appellant's claim of being in prior police custody was substantiated. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that consistent ocular testimony from police witnesses, corroborated by the recovery of the weapon at the scene, outweighs technical evidence such as the absence of fouling in a firearm. The Court established that where prosecution witnesses lack personal animosity, their testimony regarding an encounter and apprehension at the spot is reliable, even if minor technical discrepancies exist. Furthermore, the Court held that inconsistent pleas by an accused regarding their arrest status undermine their credibility. The Court rejected speculative arguments regarding friendly fire, emphasizing that the prosecution's case was supported by overwhelming evidence of the appellant's participation in the occurrence and subsequent apprehension.
Questions settled- Does the absence of fouling in a recovered firearm necessarily negate the ocular testimony of eyewitnesses?
- Can an accused's inconsistent pleas regarding their arrest status undermine their defense?
- Is the testimony of police officials reliable in the absence of personal animosity against the accused?
- Does the recovery of a weapon at the scene of an encounter corroborate the prosecution's version of events?
- Liaqat Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment1995 PLC (C.S.) 383 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali Jatoi vs The State1995 SCMR 1082 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a Constitution petition under Article 186-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking the transfer of his bail-before-arrest application from the High Court of Sindh to another High Court. The petitioner alleged that he faced political victimization and feared for his life and liberty upon entering the Province of Sindh due to his political affiliation with the Muslim League (N) and his opposition to the provincial government. He further alleged that the Anti-Corruption Establishment had registered an FIR against him for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, leading to harassment of his family. The Supreme Court, noting the petitioner's apprehension and the assurance provided by the Advocate-General of Sindh that the petitioner would not be arrested, declined to transfer the case. Instead, the Court granted protective bail for a period of two weeks or until the petitioner surrendered before the High Court of Sindh, whichever occurred earlier, thereby enabling the petitioner to pursue his legal remedies in the appropriate forum without immediate threat of arrest.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court transfer a bail application from one High Court to another under Article 186-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is protective bail an appropriate remedy when a petitioner fears arrest while traveling to surrender before a High Court?
- Lehrasab Khan vs The State1995 MLD 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- Lawrancepur Woollen and Textile Mills Ltd., Dawoodabad, District1995 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a writ petition filed by an employer, Lawrancepur Woollen and Textile Mills Limited, challenging the reinstatement of an employee. The respondent employee had addressed a letter to the General Manager and Labour Department alleging that his transfer was a device to force his resignation. The management charged him with misconduct under clause (h) of sub-paragraph (3) of Standing Order 15 of the Schedule to the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and terminated his service. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement, which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations levelled by the employee against the management constituted an act subversive of discipline amounting to misconduct. Finding that the contentions raised require further examination in light of precedent, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether writing a letter of complaint by an employee to management and the Labour Department alleging unfair transfer practices amounts to misconduct as an act subversive of discipline?
- Does a charge sheet failing to disclose any misconduct vitiate the termination of an industrial worker?
- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing in limine the constitutional petition against an order of reinstatement of a workman?
- Lawerencepur Woollen and Textile Mills Ltd. vs Muhammad Riaz1995 PLC 582 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-07-13Read full judgment →
- Latifan Parveen vs Additional District Judge and others1995 CLC 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
- Latif Khan vs The Inspector-General of Police, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 124 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1994-07-12Read full judgment →
- Latif Asghar vs Government of the Punjab and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 221 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
- Langar, Etc. vs CH. Muhammad Shafi, And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
- Landmark Spinning Industries (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan1995 CLC 1128 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
- Land Reforms Commission, Punjab, Lahore and anothers vs Mst. Azra1995 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court, which admitted a Constitution Petition for regular hearing and granted interim relief to the respondents. The dispute originated from proceedings initiated by the Land Reforms Commission under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, regarding the respondent's land holdings and the failure to file a declaration by the statutory deadline. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision to admit the petition, arguing that the legal position was already settled by the Supreme Court in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's interim order, reasoning that since the petition was already admitted for regular hearing, the petitioners would have a full opportunity to present their arguments and cite the relevant precedent before the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, while expressing an expectation that the High Court would dispose of the pending Constitution Petition expeditiously.
Questions settled- Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order of the High Court admitting a constitutional petition for regular hearing?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal when the petitioner has the opportunity to argue the merits of the case before the High Court?
- Land Acquisition Collector vs Said Rehman and others1995 CLC 667 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
- Lal Shahbaz Nagar Association vs Messrs Democrat Construction1995 CLC 474 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal was directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court regarding a suit for declaration and permanent injunction involving a construction dispute. The appellant challenged an order that had adjourned the hearing of pending applications based on the respondents' assurance to complete construction work, with a conditional directive for the sale of property if the work remained incomplete. Upon review, the Division Bench observed that the impugned order was not a speaking order, as it failed to address critical conditions and considerations requiring judicial attention. The Court noted that the order lacked the necessary reasoning to justify the adjournment and the conditional directions issued. Consequently, the appellate court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the original side of the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law after providing all parties an opportunity to be heard. The principle affirmed is that judicial orders must be speaking orders, containing sufficient reasoning to demonstrate that the court has applied its mind to the relevant legal and factual considerations.
Questions settled- Is a judicial order that fails to address key considerations and lacks reasoning sustainable in law?
- Can an appellate court remand a matter for a fresh decision when the original order is found to be a non-speaking order?
- Lal Muhammad Abdul Sattar & Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 752 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference application under Section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to uphold additions made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the assessee's income regarding Phutti purchases, ginning and pressing expenses, and trading liabilities. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining these additions despite the assessee's verifiable accounts. The Court held that the ITO’s rejection of accounts and subsequent additions were based on conjecture, suspicion, and irrelevant material rather than tangible evidence. It was established that an ITO’s opinion must be based on solid material, and findings of fact by the Tribunal are reviewable as questions of law if they lack evidentiary support or ignore crucial facts. Regarding Section 10(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, the Court held that a trading liability can only be treated as profit if it was previously allowed as a deduction, which was not proven here. Consequently, the Court answered all referred questions in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee.
Questions settled- Can an Income Tax Officer reject accounts and make additions based on mere conjecture, suspicion, or lack of tangible material?
- Is a finding of fact by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reviewable as a question of law if it is based on no evidence or ignores relevant material?
- What are the necessary conditions for treating a trading liability as profit under Section 10(2-A) of the Income Tax Act 1922?
- Lal Khan. vs Imdad Hussain1995 MLD 737 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-08Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1995 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a security guard for misconduct involving the physical assault and verbal abuse of a co-worker. The petitioner challenged his dismissal on the ground that the Manager of Personnel and Administration, who appointed the inquiry officer and issued the dismissal order, was not the competent 'employer' under the law, arguing that only the Factory Manager possessed such authority. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the definition of 'employer' under Section 2(c) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and the procedural requirements of Standing Order 15(4). The Court held that the Board of Directors, as the owner of the establishment, had validly executed a power of attorney authorizing the Manager of Personnel and Administration to appoint inquiry officers and dismiss workmen. Furthermore, Standing Order 15(4) does not require the approval of the employer to be in writing, nor does it mandate that the inquiry officer be appointed directly by the employer, provided the employer's approval for dismissal is obtained. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a Manager of Personnel and Administration exercise the powers of an employer to dismiss a workman if authorized by a power of attorney executed by the Board of Directors?
- Does Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 require the employer's approval for dismissal to be in writing?
- Is it legally mandatory under Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 that the inquiry officer be appointed directly by the employer?
- Lal Khan vs Imdad Hussain1995 MLD 737 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-08Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1897 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
- Lal Hussain vs Muhammad Akber and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 946 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Muhammad Akbar, by an Additional Sessions Judge. The respondent was accused of defrauding the complainant by obtaining two vehicles under false pretenses, issuing a dishonoured cheque, and subsequently selling the vehicles to third parties using forged transfer documents. The core legal question was whether the lower court erred in characterizing the dispute as civil in nature and granting bail, despite evidence of forgery and the respondent's involvement in similar criminal cases. The High Court held that the lower court's assessment was misconceived. The court found prima facie evidence of fraud, noting that the respondent had used deception to deprive the complainant of property, a serious offence comparable in effect to 'Haraabah'. Given the respondent's history of similar offences and the evidence of forgery, the court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the bail granted to the respondent was cancelled, emphasizing that fraud involving deception to misappropriate property constitutes a serious criminal offence.
Questions settled- Can bail be cancelled if the lower court erroneously characterizes a criminal case of fraud as a civil dispute?
- Does the involvement of an accused in multiple similar criminal cases constitute a valid ground for the cancellation of bail?
- Is the use of forged transfer documents to sell misappropriated vehicles sufficient to establish a prima facie case of fraud?
- Lal Din, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 244 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-20Read full judgment →
- Lal Din vs S.H.O., P.S. Delhi Gate, Multan1997 MLD 246 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-04Read full judgment →
- Lal Bakhsh and 2 others vs The State1995 SCMR 1122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for the murder of two individuals. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the ocular testimony provided by prosecution witnesses regarding a night-time occurrence. The Supreme Court observed that the incident took place at 2:00 a.m. in the open, and the witnesses, who were at a distance or inside a locked shop, were unlikely to have identified the assailants in the dark. Furthermore, the prosecution materially improved its version of the motive at trial, and the recovery evidence was deemed unreliable by the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony lacked credibility and required independent corroboration, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where ocular evidence is suspect due to the circumstances of the crime, such as night-time visibility issues and distance, it cannot support a capital conviction without reliable corroborative evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the occurrence took place at night and the witnesses' presence is doubtful?
- Is independent corroboration required for ocular testimony when the circumstances of the crime make identification of the culprits unlikely?
- Can an appellate court rely on recovery evidence that the trial court rejected without providing sufficient reasoning?
- Laiq Ahmad vs Mst. Shamshad Anwar1995 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute between a tenant and a landlady regarding an eviction order based on default in rent payment. The landlady filed an application under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, alleging default in rent from July 1984 to January 1985. The tenant contended that rent for July, August, and September 1984 had been paid to the landlady's attorney, who failed to issue receipts, and that subsequent rent was sent via money orders. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application; however, the High Court reversed this decision, finding the tenant in default. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the tenant had sufficiently proven the alleged payments. The Court held that the burden of proof rested on the tenant to establish payment when the landlady denied receipt. The tenant failed to produce the intermediary witness (A. Rehman) or the postman to verify the money orders. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, ruling that the tenant failed to substantiate the plea of payment, thereby confirming the eviction order for default.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to the tenant to prove payment of rent when the landlord denies receiving it?
- Is the failure to produce a material witness who allegedly received rent on behalf of a landlord fatal to a tenant's plea of payment?
- Can a tenant rely on money order coupons as proof of payment if the addressee denies receipt and the postman is not examined?
- Lahore Race Club vs Deputy Director, E.O.B.I. and others1995 PLC 494 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
- Lahore Municipal Corporation Young Teachers Front through General1995 PLC 563 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
- Lahore Development Authority And Others vs Commissioner, Lahore1995 MLD 573 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
- Lachman Das vs Servanand and 66 others1995 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an Election Tribunal's decision that set aside the appellant's election to a reserved seat in the Provincial Assembly of Sindh and declared the respondent elected instead. The dispute arose from alleged arithmetical errors and miscalculations in the tabulation of votes by the Returning Officer. The Tribunal had relied solely on the Returning Officer's report without independently examining the underlying tally sheets (Forms XVI-B) to verify the accuracy of the vote counts. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly by deciding the matter without examining the primary documents, which were essential for determining the truth of the alleged miscalculations. The Court emphasized that in election disputes involving contested vote tallies, the Tribunal must satisfy itself through the examination of relevant records rather than relying exclusively on a report. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and remanded the case for a fresh determination, directing the Tribunal to re-examine the Returning Officer and the relevant documents to ensure a just and accurate resolution.
Questions settled- Whether an Election Tribunal can decide an election petition based on a Returning Officer's report without examining the primary tally sheets?
- Does an appellate court have the inherent power to consider documents necessary for the ends of justice even if not formally placed on record by a party?
- Is the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish miscalculation of votes in an election dispute?
- Labour Union Heavy Electrical Complex Hattar, Industrial Estate, Teh_fa6de42b1995 PLC 418 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
- Krishna Medical Stores and another vs Income Tax Officer and another1995 PTD 283 206 I T R 76 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
- Krishna Chandra Dutta (Cookme) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 215 · Calcutta High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
- Krishan Lal vs Imdad1995 P Cr. L J 300 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →
- Koochi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
- Koochi vs TH StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 302 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
- Kohitex (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Muhammad Mukhtar and 2 others1995 CLC 781 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller which recalled and modified a previous order regarding the determination of rent under Section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller possesses the inherent power to review an order passed under the said Act. The Court held that the Rent Controller lacks the power of review, as such power is a creature of statute and cannot be exercised unless specifically conferred by the legislature. Consequently, the impugned order, which substantially altered the previous rent determination, was declared without jurisdiction and a nullity in law. The Court established the principle that review is a substantive right that must be expressly granted by statute; in its absence, a tribunal cannot revisit its own orders. Furthermore, the Court affirmed its authority under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to interfere with and set aside interlocutory orders that are patently without jurisdiction, particularly to prevent the prejudice of limited appellate scope.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the inherent power to review an order passed under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to set aside an interlocutory order passed without jurisdiction?
- Is an order modifying a previous rent determination under Section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, considered a mere clerical correction or a review?
- Kohitex (Pvt.) Ltd. through Its Chairman vs Muhammad Mukhtar and 2K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 243 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Kohisar Flour Mills, Mansehra and others vs Government of N.W.F.P.1995 PLD Supreme Court 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a constitutional challenge to a government notification enhancing the octroi tax on grains. The petitioners, representing flour mills, challenged the government's action of increasing the tax rate from Re.0.50 to Rs.2 per quintal, arguing that the enhancement was ultra vires the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and the N.-W.F.P. Local Councils (Imposition of Taxes) Rules, 1980. The core legal question is whether the government was legally competent to revise the Octroi Schedule without adhering to the procedural requirements of previous publication and public notice mandated by the Ordinance and the Rules. The High Court had previously held that such procedural compliance was unnecessary as the action did not constitute a 'new' taxation proposal. The Supreme Court, finding a question of law of public importance regarding the scope of the government's power to modify existing tax rates without following statutory procedures, granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the notification and the applicability of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the relevant legislation.
Questions settled- Whether the government is legally competent to revise an Octroi Schedule without complying with the procedural requirements of section 135 of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance 1979?
- Does the enhancement of an existing tax rate require adherence to the procedures laid down in rules 3, 4, and 5 of the N.-W.F.P. Local Councils (Imposition of Taxes) Rules 1980?
- Kifayatullah vs Fidayat Shah, Executive Engineer, Peshawar and 51995 PLC (C.S.) 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order passed by the High Court of Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 449 of 1994. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition and passing the impugned order, given the constitutional and statutory bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 regarding matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants. Granting leave to consider this bar, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the interim order passed by the High Court shall remain operative until the final hearing of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is ousted in service matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition in service matters in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court over matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
- Kifayat Ullah vs Fidayat Shah and 5 others1995 SCMR 998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning an interim order passed by the High Court of Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 449 of 1994. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in passing the impugned order in view of the constitutional bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which restricts the jurisdiction of civil courts and high courts in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider this jurisdictional question and ordered that the interim order dated 27-9-1994 shall remain operative until the final hearing of the appeal. The principle laid down involves the delineation of the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunals vis-a-vis the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 212.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition in service matters in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
- Are the High Courts justified in passing interim orders in matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Khushi Muhammad Etc vs Muhammad Sharif EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 404 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad Deceased Rep. by L.Rs. vs Dost Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 89 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-17Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad and anothers vs Muhammad Sharif and 6 others1995 MLD 1042 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-03Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad And Another vs Muhammad Sharif And 6 Other1995 MLD 1042 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-03Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 512 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-12Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Alam and 3 others vs United Bank Limited and 7 others1995 PLD Karachi 409 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal in a recovery suit, as well as the constitutional vires of sections 6 and 9 of the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984. The core legal questions involved whether the procedure and appeal deposit conditions under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 are unconstitutional or harsh, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an adequate statutory remedy of appeal exists. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was not maintainable as a constitutional petition cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or revision when an adequate statutory remedy is available, particularly where the legislature has validly imposed a condition of depositing the decretal amount for filing an appeal. Furthermore, the court held that the provisions of the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 are protected and validated by Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and that the Banking Tribunal is lawfully established. The key principles laid down are that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory preconditions for appeals, and that laws protected under Article 270-A cannot be challenged regarding their vires.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a decree of the Banking Tribunal when an appeal is provided under section 9 of the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984?
- Whether the condition of depositing the decretal amount as a prerequisite for filing an appeal under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 is unconstitutional?
- Are the provisions of the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 protected under Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 from being challenged?
- Does the establishment of the Banking Tribunal violate Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Khurshid Alam and 3 Other vs United Bank Limited and 7 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 302 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmed Goreja vs The Appellate Authority through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his demotion from BPS-19 to BPS-18 by the Pakistan Council of Appropriate Technology (PCAT). The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who had previously served in the Telephone and Telegraph Department, retained the status of a 'civil servant' at the time of his demotion, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had voluntarily retired from his original civil service position in the Telephone and Telegraph Department in 1982, availing himself of pensionary benefits and severing his lien. Consequently, his subsequent employment with the Appropriate Technology Development Organisation (later PCAT) did not constitute civil service. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was not a civil servant at the time of the impugned order. The key principle established is that an individual who severs their lien with a government department through retirement and pension withdrawal ceases to be a civil servant, and subsequent employment in a statutory body does not restore that status for the purposes of Service Tribunal jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does an employee who retires from a government department and draws pensionary benefits retain their status as a civil servant?
- Can a Service Tribunal exercise jurisdiction over an employee who is not a civil servant at the time of the impugned order?
- Does continued service in a statutory body after retirement from a government department restore the original status of a civil servant?
- Khurshid Ahmed and 4 others vs Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad and 6 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1088 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad Lang vs The State And 6 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 613 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad Lang . vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 698 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
- Khudoo Alias Khuda Bux vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 260 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-18Read full judgment →
- Khudha Bakhsh vs A.C. and others1995 CLC 788 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khuda-E-Dad vs Bibi Naziran And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 200 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 166 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali1995 CLC 1860 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a voter challenging the election of a Member of the National Assembly, alleging the respondent was disqualified due to being a loan defaulter at the time of filing nomination papers and failing to disclose assets. The core legal question was whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable to challenge the election of a member of Parliament on grounds of disqualification, despite the existence of specific election petition remedies. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It ruled that while a writ of quo warranto does not strictly require the petitioner to be an 'aggrieved party,' it is discretionary and cannot be issued when the relevant statute provides an adequate alternative remedy. The Court emphasized that Article 225 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act 1976 provide a comprehensive mechanism for challenging elections through election petitions before a Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court cannot bypass this statutory framework to adjudicate election disputes via writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is a writ of quo warranto maintainable to challenge the election of a member of Parliament if the statute provides an adequate alternative remedy?
- Does the requirement of being an 'aggrieved party' apply to a petition for a writ of quo warranto?
- Can an election to the National Assembly be challenged in the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, or is it exclusively restricted to an election petition under Article 225?
- Is the issuance of a writ of quo warranto a matter of right or a discretionary power of the Court?
- Khizar Hayat vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
- Khizar Hayat Khan vs Nussarat Rabbani Group CaptainK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
- Khizar Hayat Khan vs Mussarat Rabbani1995 PLD Lahore 438 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Appeal from Order arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a plot of land. The trial court had allowed the appellant's application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating the suit property, but conditioned it upon the appellant depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,23,000 into the court. The appellant challenged this condition as onerous and arbitrary. The High Court examined whether a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance must always be conditioned upon the deposit of the balance consideration. The Court held that no such general rule exists; rather, the imposition of conditions depends on the facts of each case. If a plaintiff is ready and willing to perform their part and has derived no benefit, a deposit condition is generally unjustified. However, where the plaintiff's conduct is negligent or doubtful, such a condition is proper. Finding that the appellant had delayed the transaction due to a lack of funds, the High Court upheld the trial court's conditional order and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance must always and invariably be made subject to the deposit of the balance sale consideration by the plaintiff?
- What factors determine whether a court should impose a condition of deposit when granting a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance?
- Can a court justify imposing a condition of deposit of the balance consideration if the plaintiff has been negligent or delayed the completion of the sale?
- Khizar Hayat and others vs District Magistrate and others1995 PLD Lahore 433 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order of the District Magistrate refusing to direct a re-postmortem and exhumation of a deceased person's body. The core legal questions involved whether a District Magistrate must issue notice to the accused or prosecution before ordering an exhumation and post-mortem, whether such an order is judicial in nature, and whether a writ petition is competent or if the matter falls under criminal revision. The Lahore High Court held that an inquest and inquiry by a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure is a judicial proceeding requiring compliance with principles of natural justice, meaning notice to the affected parties is mandatory. Converting the writ petition into a criminal revision petition under its inherent powers, the Court set aside the District Magistrate's refusal order and directed a fresh exhumation and post-mortem examination by a medical board along with the preservation and chemical examination of viscera. The key principle laid down is that Magistrates conducting inquests or exhumation inquiries act judicially and must adhere to natural justice by hearing interested parties.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by a District Magistrate for the exhumation of a dead body and post-mortem examination is judicial in nature?
- Is it mandatory for a Magistrate to issue notice and hear the accused or the prosecution before ordering the exhumation of a body?
- Can a constitutional petition challenging an order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure be treated as a criminal revision petition by the High Court?
- What is the primary purpose of an inquest conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Khizar Hayat And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1220 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
- Khizar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 324 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
- Khivraj Motors Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1995 PTD 114 205 I T R 465 · Madras High Court · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
- Khawar and others vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 105 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 399 and Section 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for making preparation and assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity, along with connected arms offenses. The core legal question is whether the mere assembly of armed persons at a place, without independent evidence establishing that such an assembly was formed for the specific purpose of committing dacoity or making preparations therefor, can sustain a conviction under Sections 399 and 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the failure to record mandatory statements under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the trial. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of dacoity preparation or unlawful assembly for dacoity, and further ruled that omitting to record the accused persons' examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitutes a material irregularity that vitiates the trial. The court laid down the principle that mere assembly of five or more armed persons does not give rise to a legal presumption of an assembly to commit dacoity unless direct evidence substantiates the underlying intent, and that statements under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot substitute for mandatory examinations under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the mere assembly of five or more armed persons give rise to a legal presumption that they assembled to commit dacoity under Section 399 or Section 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can statements recorded on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be equated with or replace the mandatory statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to record an accused person's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
- Where initial burden of proof is shifted onto the accused under special legislation, what must the prosecution establish first regarding incriminating circumstances?
- Khawaja Mazhar Farid Kurfija vs Government of the Punjab through the Secretary, Auqaf, Lahore And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 CivirCases 600 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Mansoor Ahmad and anothers vs Panorama Enterprises Ltd.1995 CLC 998 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Ghulam Muhammad vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 699 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-06-01Read full judgment →
- Khan Zaman vs The State and anothers1997 MLD 2073 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
- Khan Zaman vs M/s. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited,1995 PLC 174 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 443 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad and anothers vs S.H.O., Police Station Phool Nagar1995 SCMR 1283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by a High Court Judge in a habeas corpus petition. The core legal question was whether a court, upon finding that a person was illegally detained by police without any record or justification, could properly direct that the person be taken into custody again to 'complete formalities' for investigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in issuing such a direction. The ratio of the decision is that once a court determines that detention is illegal and without justification, it must set the detenu free. The court cannot issue directions for future arrest or custody based on vague assertions by investigating officers, as this undermines personal liberty and prejudges the investigation process. The key principle laid down is that habeas corpus is a summary remedy to address illegal detention; courts must not be misled by unsubstantiated police claims to justify illegal acts and should instead hold delinquent officers accountable for violations of personal liberty.
Questions settled- Can a court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, direct that a detenu be taken into custody after finding the initial detention illegal?
- Is it permissible for a court to order the arrest of a person based on a vague statement by an investigating officer that the person is required for investigation?
- What is the scope of a court's authority in a habeas corpus petition when the detention is found to be without legal justification?
- Khan Attaullah Khan Tareen, Advocate vs District Magistrate._D.C., Multan and others1997 MLD 229 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
- Khaliq Dad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 339 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
- Khalil Yousuf and others vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 486 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
- Khalil vs Maulvi Miskeen and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1701 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmed and anothers vs The State and another1995 SCMR 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The first petition, filed by the complainant, challenged the acquittal of a respondent, while the second petition, filed by two convicts, challenged their conviction under Section 302/34 and Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as maintained by the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions concerned whether the delay in filing the complainant's petition was excusable and whether the conviction of the petitioners was supported by reliable evidence. Regarding the complainant's petition, the Court held that the 23-day delay was not satisfactorily explained and refused leave to appeal. Regarding the convicts' petition, the Court observed that the complainant's testimony was contradicted by documentary evidence regarding the deceased's previous criminal involvement and enmities. Additionally, the Court noted discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular testimony, alongside issues regarding the recovery of empties. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the convicts to allow for a full reappraisal of the evidence to ensure the proper administration of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Whether a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal that lacks a satisfactory explanation warrants the refusal of leave?
- Does a contradiction between ocular evidence and medical evidence necessitate a reappraisal of the entire evidence in a criminal case?
- Can the denial of facts by a complainant on oath, when contradicted by documentary evidence, constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal against a conviction?
- Khalil Ahmad vs Mst. Riaz Bibi And Another1995 MLD 216 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-22Read full judgment →
- Khalida Zafar vs Controller Nursing Examination BoardK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 468 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-16Read full judgment →
- Khalid Yousuf Malik vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 359 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-25Read full judgment →
- Khalid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 656 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-11Read full judgment →
- Khalid Siddique vs The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Excise1995 PLC (C.S.) 475 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
- Khalid Rashid vs Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Islamabad1995 PLC 751 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
- Khalid Nawaz Khan vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 5 others1995 PLC 228 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Khalid Nawaz and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1932 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, which dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall and re-examine prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, an eye-witness, a doctor, and the investigating officer. The petitioners sought re-examination based on a subsequent letter from the complainant and an affidavit from an eye-witness claiming they had been pressured or falsely involved. The core legal question was whether the trial court was obligated to recall these witnesses for re-examination under Section 540, Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion. The court established that Section 540 is not intended to facilitate the winning over of witnesses or to allow endless re-trials. It clarified that while the court may recall witnesses for the elucidation of evidence already recorded, it is not required to do so merely because a witness has resiled or provided an affidavit post-testimony, as such practices would impede the conclusion of criminal trials and undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
Questions settled- Is a trial court legally obligated to recall and re-examine prosecution witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 simply because they have provided post-testimony affidavits or letters contradicting their earlier statements?
- Does the power to recall witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to allowing the accused to confront witnesses with new documents obtained after the conclusion of their examination?
- What is the scope of the court's discretion to recall witnesses for the 'just decision of the case' under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Khalid Mehmood vs The District Judge, Dera Ismail Khan and 2 others1995 MLD 298 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mehmood vs The District Judge, Dera Ismail Khan And 2 Other1995 MLD 298 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mehmood vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujrat and 61995 P Cr. L J 351 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
- Khalid Maqsood alias Tiny vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-24Read full judgment →