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.
- Khalid Mahmood Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 669 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-04Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood Etc vs Small Business Finance Corporation Ltd.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 732 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood And Others vs The State1995 MLD 1539 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood Alias Baoo and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 144 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
- Khalid Khan vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue and others1995 SCMR 1817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the selection process for the post of Naib-Tehsildar under the West Pakistan Naib-Tehsildari and Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962. The petitioner, a Senior Clerk, challenged the selection of other candidates for the ministerial quota, alleging a lack of transparent criteria in the Departmental Promotion Committee's decision-making process. The core legal question is whether the selection on merit from the ministerial service is valid when the selecting authority fails to establish or apply manifest, standardized criteria for the comparative evaluation of candidates. Additionally, the petition questions the validity of age relaxation granted to a selected candidate when other eligible candidates were available. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the absence of minutes or records demonstrating that the Selection Committee's discretion was exercised through standardized, meaningful principles. The Court emphasized the principle that where legislative bodies delegate discretionary power to administrative authorities, those authorities must develop and apply manifest standards to confine their discretion, ensuring that selection processes are not arbitrary or devoid of objective evaluation.
Questions settled- Is a selection process for promotion valid if the selecting authority fails to establish and apply manifest, standardized criteria for the comparative evaluation of candidates?
- Does the delegation of discretionary power to administrative bodies require the development of manifest principles to confine that discretion?
- Can age relaxation be granted to a candidate for a promotional post when a sufficient number of eligible competing candidates are available?
- Khalid Javed vs Ansar Khan and others1995 SCMR 1846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed respectively by the convict against the High Court judgment reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life, and by the brother of the deceased seeking restoration of the death sentence. The petitioner was tried and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder. The core legal questions involved the determination of whether the plea of grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code was established, and whether the withholding of the true motive by the prosecution justified withholding the death penalty. The Supreme Court held that where an accused admits killing, the burden is upon him to prove diminished liability, which he failed to discharge as no evidence or surrounding circumstances supported his belated plea of provocation. Furthermore, the Court held that where the prosecution withholds the true motive for the crime, reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life is justified. Both petitions for leave to appeal were accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused when he admits to killing another person?
- Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation be accepted without supporting evidence or circumstances appearing from the prosecution evidence?
- Does the withholding of the true motive by the prosecution justify not imposing the extreme penalty of death?
- Khalid Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 269 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hussain alias Muhammad Khalid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 970 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hussain , vs The Chancellor (Governor of Punjab) and 4 others1995 SCMR 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition with special costs. The petitioner, an executive engineer at the University of Engineering and Technology, challenged a series of administrative orders that curtailed his delegated financial powers. The core legal question was whether an employee possesses a legally enforceable right in respect of administrative financial powers delegated to him. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and upheld the High Court's dismissal, holding that the petition was misconceived. The Court established that delegation of financial powers is merely an administrative arrangement intended to assist an employee in performing duties efficiently and does not confer any legal or quasi-legal right on the employee. Consequently, an employee cannot be considered an aggrieved person entitled to invoke constitutional jurisdiction when such powers are modified or withdrawn.
Questions settled- Does the delegation of financial powers to a public employee confer any legal or quasi-legal right on that employee?
- Can an employee challenge the curtailment or withdrawal of his delegated financial powers through a constitutional petition?
- Is an employee considered an 'aggrieved person' when administrative powers delegated to him for duty efficiency are curtailed?
- Khalid Amin vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 101995 PLC (C.S.) 340 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Khalid Altaf Hussain vs Mrs. Fahmida Malik and 3 others1995 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order passed by a Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, which had directed that an execution application be fixed for hearing on a specific date with the consent of all counsel, while also stipulating that no further adjournments would be granted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's procedural order fixing a date for the hearing of an execution application and denying further adjournments suffered from any legal infirmity or illegality. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner was unable to demonstrate any error, illegality, or infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. The court affirmed the High Court's discretion in managing its own docket and ensuring the expeditious disposal of execution proceedings. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with routine procedural orders of the High Court unless a clear legal error is established.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's procedural order fixing a date for the hearing of an execution application?
- Does a High Court have the authority to refuse further adjournments in an execution application?
- Khalid Alias Khaloo vs The State1995 MLD 1452 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
- Khalid Alias Khala vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 322 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Khair Din vs Reham DinK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 530 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-13Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs Ghulam Hussain and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain Qaiser, Advocate/Member, Punjab Bar Council, Gujrat vs The President, Bar Association, Gujrat and 5 others1997 MLD 156 · Punjab Bar Council · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 930 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
- Khadim Husain vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 43 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
- Khadija Bibi And Other vs Returning Officer_Asstt. Comm, and And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 50 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
- Kh. Muhammad Tariq vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Azad Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 679 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- KH. Haider Raza vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 303 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
- Kh. Allah Bakhsh and 5 others vs Ghulam Muhammad and 11 others1995 SCMR 747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court, which rejected the petitioners' plaint in a suit for declaration. The petitioners, claiming to be mortgagees of land previously owned by Hindus who migrated to India, sought a declaration that the mortgage was over 60 years old at the time of Independence, thereby extinguishing the mortgagors' rights through prescription. The land had been treated as evacuee property and transferred to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could establish that the mortgage was sufficiently aged to trigger prescriptive rights. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim regarding the age of the mortgage. Upon review, the Court found that the mortgage was created in 1910, meaning it was not 60 years old at the time of Independence. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the petitioners' assertion lacked factual foundation.
Questions settled- Does a mortgage created in 1910 satisfy the requirement of being 60 years old at the time of Independence in 1947?
- Can a suit for declaration regarding the expiration of a mortgage by prescription be maintained if the mortgage is not 60 years old at the time of Independence?
- Kerala Financial Corporation and others vs Commissioner of Income1995 PTD 1212 [210 I T R 129] · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Kauser Traders and others vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others1995 CLC 990 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-08Read full judgment →
- Kausar Parveen vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1861 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
- Kausar Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 31995 PLC (C.S.) 811 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
- Kaura alias Abdul Aziz vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
- Kashif Masud Qazi vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 85 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Karim Khan and others vs Gatron (Industries) Ltd.,1995 PLC 506 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
- Karim Development Corporation and anothers vs Razi Construction1995 PLD Karachi 153 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
- Karim Bux vs Chief Secretary, Govt. of Sindhh, Karachi And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 64 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
- Karim Bux Khuabro vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi1995 PLC (C.S.) 893 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh vs Senior. Member, Board of Revenue in Balochistan, Quetta And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 362 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others1995 MLD 1420 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta And 2 Other1995 MLD 1420 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh and others vs Ghulam Hussain and others1995 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order regarding a pre-emption dispute over agricultural land. The core legal question was whether a subsequent sale of land, executed after the filing of a pre-emption suit, could effectively improve the status of the vendees (petitioners) to match or exceed that of the pre-emptors, thereby defeating the pre-emption claim. The Supreme Court held that such a subsequent sale, made with the intent to defeat the rights of pre-emptors, does not constitute an improvement in status and is invalid under the relevant statutory provisions. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of sale consideration, noting that findings on market value not challenged before the High Court remain binding. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the pre-emption right but modified the decree to reflect the sale price determined by the appellate court, granting the respondents a specific timeframe to pay the balance amount. The key principle established is that a vendee cannot improve their status through a transaction executed after the initiation of a pre-emption suit to defeat the pre-emptor's superior right.
Questions settled- Can a vendee improve their status to defeat a pre-emption claim through a sale transaction executed after the filing of the pre-emption suit?
- Does a sale made with the specific object of defeating the rights of pre-emptors constitute a valid improvement of status?
- Are findings regarding sale consideration and market value that were not challenged before the High Court binding in subsequent appellate proceedings?
- Karamat U. Kazi vs District and Sessions Judge, Karachi and another1995 CLC 1168 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-04Read full judgment →
- Karam Khan and others vs Allah Bakhsh and others1995 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arose from a declaratory suit filed by plaintiffs claiming to be occupancy tenants (Taraddadkars) of land, seeking to invalidate a Settlement Authority order that transferred the land to an evacuee's transferee on the ground that it was exempt from allotment. The trial court and lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The appellants challenged these findings, contending that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under Sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Paragraph 31(ix) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, land held by Muslim occupancy tenants of non-Muslim evacuee landlords was specifically excluded from allotment. Because the D.S.C. lacked jurisdiction to allot such land, the allotment order was void and ultra vires. The High Court affirmed that civil courts, as courts of ultimate and general jurisdiction, retain jurisdiction to set aside orders passed by special tribunals that act without jurisdiction or beyond statutory powers.
Questions settled- Does the statutory bar of jurisdiction under Sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 prevent civil courts from reviewing orders passed by Settlement Authorities that are ultra vires or without jurisdiction?
- Whether land held by occupancy tenants under non-Muslim evacuee landlords is exempt from allotment under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Does a Taraddadkar tenant fall within the definition of an occupancy tenant under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887?
- Does Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts to set aside illegal orders passed by Settlement Authorities?
- Karam Khan And Others vs Allah Bakhsh And Other1995 MLD 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
- Karam Ellahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 513 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
- Karam Elahi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1661 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation through Principal Officer_ Secretary vs Mst. Qaisar Jehan and another1995 CLC 196 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a trial court judgment and decree awarding compensation to the heirs of a deceased victim of a fatal traffic accident involving a bus owned by the appellant. The core legal questions concern the determination of the deceased's monthly income, the assessment of his life expectancy for calculating damages, and the legality of awarding interest from the date of the suit rather than the date of the decree. The Court held that the accident was caused by the driver's negligence, rejecting the appellant's claim that the deceased was solely responsible. Regarding compensation, the Court reassessed the monthly contribution to the family, adjusting the figure based on evidence of the deceased's salary and personal expenses, and reduced the total compensation amount accordingly. The Court further held that interest on the decretal amount should be calculated from the date of the decree, not the date of the suit. The key principle laid down is that while assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the Court must arrive at a fair figure based on material factors, and interest on compensation should be awarded from the date of quantification.
Questions settled- Is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable when there is direct evidence regarding the cause of an accident?
- From what date should interest on a compensation award be calculated in a fatal accident suit?
- Can an appellate court in an appeal from an original decree consider both questions of fact and law?
- What is the standard for assessing compensation in cases under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and another vs Raheel Ghyas and 3 others1995 MLD 141 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
- Karachi Metropolitan Corporation And Another vs Raheel Ghyas And 3 Other1995 MLD 141 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
- Karachi Electric Supply Corporation vs Safiullah Siddiqui1995 CLC 634 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
- Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. and anothers vs Karachi1995 SCMR 1762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of imposing octroi duty on electricity by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. The Karachi Electric Supply Corporation challenged the levy, arguing that electricity does not constitute 'goods' subject to octroi and that the 1982 taxation proposal could not be revived in 1991 without fresh compliance with statutory procedures. The High Court previously held that while electricity constitutes 'goods', the 1982 proposal had been abandoned due to inaction, and the subsequent 1991 notification could not impose retrospective taxation. Both parties filed petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to examine whether electricity qualifies as 'goods' for octroi purposes and whether the local council possesses the authority to impose such taxes retrospectively under the relevant local government legislation. The case remains pending for final adjudication after the summer vacation.
Questions settled- Does electricity constitute 'goods' for the purpose of levying octroi duty?
- Can a local council impose octroi duty retrospectively under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979?
- Can a taxation proposal initiated in 1982 be revived in 1991 without fresh compliance with statutory procedures?
- Karachi Development Authority through Director-General vs Ghulam1995 PLC 619 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- Karachi Bus Owners Association and another vs Inspectorgeneral of Police and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 608 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
- Kanwar Khalid Younus and another vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 347 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a bail application moved on behalf of the applicants involved in Crime No. 29 of 1994 registered at Police Station Malir City under sections 435, 427, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail where one applicant was allegedly apprehended on the spot setting public property on fire during a political funeral, and whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused have been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the offence carrying a maximum sentence of seven years does not ipso facto entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right in non-bailable cases, and that the rule of consistency does not apply to benefit an accused who is clearly not entitled to bail based on direct spot-arrest involvement. The court laid down the principle that the mere fact a co-accused was improperly granted bail does not justify extending bail to another person otherwise not entitled to it, and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a maximum sentence of less than ten years ipso facto entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right in a non-bailable case?
- Does the rule of consistency justify granting bail to an accused person when a co-accused was improperly granted bail?
- Is an accused apprehended on the spot for torching public property entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Kanwar Intizar Muhammad Khan, Advocate vs Federation of Pakistan1995 MLD 1903 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
- Kamdar Khan and 6 others vs Qadeem Khan and 5 others1995 PLD Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
- Kamaluddin vs The Province of Punjab (Service through DistrictK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 490 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Kamaluddin vs The Province of Punjab (Service through District1997 MLD 21 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
- KALEEM/Accused vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 514 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Kabal Shah vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 2058 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Karachi South, directing the bifurcation of the trial of respondent No. 2 from his co-accused on the ground that he was a child, based on a Police Surgeon's certificate. The primary legal questions concerned the territorial applicability and enforceability of the Sindh Children Act, 1955 in Karachi, the jurisdictional competence of a Sessions Court exercising powers as a Juvenile Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Sindh Children Act, 1955, the determination of age through X-ray tests versus school certificates and marriage, and alleged repugnancy or conflict between federal and provincial enactments under Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Sindh High Court held that notifications issued under section 2 of the Sindh Children Act, 1955 validly brought the statute into force in Karachi Division, rendering previous contrary case-law per incuriam. The Court further held that the Sessions Court holds exclusive trial jurisdiction over offences under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code while simultaneously functioning as a Juvenile Court under section 8 of the Sindh Children Act, 1955. Resolving ambiguities regarding the accused's age in favour of the accused based on X-ray medical evidence and beneficial statutory construction, the Court dismissed the revision application and upheld the bifurcation of the trial.
Questions settled- Whether the Sindh Children Act, 1955 had been validly brought into force in the Karachi Division by virtue of government notifications?
- Does a Court of Session possess the jurisdiction to act as a Juvenile Court for the trial of a child charged with an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session?
- How is a doubt regarding the age of an accused claiming to be a child under the Sindh Children Act, 1955 to be resolved?
- Whether X-ray medical test reports are to be preferred over school leaving certificates for the determination of an accused person's age?
- K.N. Razdan vs Commissioner of Income Tax , . (1995 PTD 1110 20 I T R 827 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-08-11Read full judgment →
- K. N. Razdan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 234 204 I T R 83 · Calcutta High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
- K. Maracair and 3 others vs Abdul Ghafoor and 2 others1995 PLD Karachi 256 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
- Justice (Retd.) Qazi Abdul Ghafoor, Chairman, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Zakaat Council, Muzaffarabad vs The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad1995 MLD 2039 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
- Justice (Retd.) Qazi Abdul Ghafoor, Chairman, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Zakaat Council, Muzaffarabad vs The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Through Its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad1995 MLD 2039 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
- Justice (Retd) Qazi Abdul Ghafoor, Chairman Aj & K Zakaat Council, Muzffarabad vs The Aj & K Government through Its Chief Secretry, MuzafarabadK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 175 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
- Junaid Ahmad Khan vs Chief Engineer and others1995 SCMR 697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal and subsequent restoration applications for non-prosecution. The core legal question pertained to whether sufficient and unintentional grounds were shown for the absence of the petitioner and his counsel, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent orders of dismissal for default in a service matter involving seniority disputes. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was negligent in prosecuting his appeal and restoration applications, and no substantial question of public importance was involved to warrant interference under its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that habitual negligence in pursuing legal remedies before a service tribunal does not merit Supreme Court intervention.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution when the petitioner is found negligent?
- Does a service dispute regarding seniority alone involve a substantial question of public importance warranting Supreme Court jurisdiction?
- Judicial-II) Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Ismail1995 MLD 795 · Board of Revenue · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
- Jogat Mohan Kapur vs Wealth Tax Officer and others1995 PTD 1042 · Calcutta High Court · 1994-04-22Read full judgment →
- Jit Paul (Huf) and others vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1995 PTD 719 209 I T R 675 · Calcutta High Court · 1993-08-20Read full judgment →
- Jhangli vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 327 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- Jehangir Services (Private) Limited and anothers vs Mst. Bibi Rukhsana1995 PLD Karachi 329 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan, awarding Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, to the appellees for the death of their breadwinner caused by the negligent driving of a trailer. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants were liable for the fatal accident under the principle of negligence, the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and the correct method for assessing pecuniary compensation. The Sindh High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied since the vehicle was solely under the control of the appellants and the trailer's wheels parting from axles and causing death implied negligence. The Court modified the compensation amount, determining it by drawing guidance analogously from the Islamic law concept of Diyat under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, and apportioned the shares according to Islamic Shariat law while safeguarding the minors' portions. The key principles laid down include the applicability of res ipsa loquitur in fatal accident cases where direct eyewitness evidence is scarce, and the utilization of Islamic jurisprudence principles for assessing fair compensation.
Questions settled- Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in fatal accident cases where direct evidence of negligence is lacking?
- Can the principles of Diyat under Islamic law be used as a guiding foundation for assessing compensation in fatal accident cases?
- Whether the traditional multiplier method of assessing compensation is mandatory or if courts can apply natural justice and equitable principles?
- What is the extent of the burden of proof required from legal heirs in fatal accident cases involving moving vehicles under the sole control of the defendants?
- Jehandad vs Malik Altaf Hussain and 3 others1995 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order granting pre-arrest bail to respondents accused of criminal house trespass and outraging the modesty of women. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the absence of evidence suggesting mala fide intent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was unsustainable and set it aside, thereby restoring the Additional Sessions Judge's order that had dismissed the bail application. The Court established the principle that where serious allegations of criminal house trespass and outraging the modesty of women are involved, and there is no material on record to demonstrate that the FIR was based on ulterior motives or that the criminal justice machinery was invoked to disgrace or humiliate the accused for mala fide reasons, such a case is not a fit instance for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail requires clear proof of mala fides, which was absent in this matter.
Questions settled- Is a case involving allegations of criminal house trespass and outraging the modesty of women a fit case for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of evidence regarding ulterior motives or mala fide intent preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can the Supreme Court set aside an order of the High Court granting pre-arrest bail if the High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the allegations?
- Jehana and 4 others vs Mst. Parveen and 2 others1995 MLD 991 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
- Jehana And 4 Others vs Mst. Parveen And 2 Other1995 MLD 991 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
- Jawaid Shaikh vs Mst. Miratur Ruqquya through Legal Heirs1995 PLD Karachi 231 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
- Jawaid Atique and others vs The Presiding Officer, Fourth Sindh1995 PLC 99 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-10-23Read full judgment →
- Javid Iqbal vs Station House Officer, Police Station Factory Area, Sargodha and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1925 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
- Javid Iqbal Butt vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 295 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
- Javid Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-24Read full judgment →
- Javed SHUJAanothers vs Anjuman (Jamiat) Ahlehadis Masjid1995 CLC 1553 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
- Javed Shuja vs Auqaf DepartmentK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 453 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
- Javed Shuja vs Auqaf Department and others1995 CLC 1263 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
- Javed Nawaz vs The State1995 SCMR 1151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which rejected the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction. The core legal question concerns whether a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 had the jurisdiction to try the petitioner under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, given that the amending Ordinances including the said section in the Schedule had lapsed and were subsequently re-promulgated with retrospective effect. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly relied upon binding precedent holding that retrospective effect can be given to a re-introduced Ordinance from an earlier date and that the mere granting of leave to appeal in another case does not overturn existing binding judgments. The key principle laid down is that earlier authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court remain binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution until dissented from by a larger Bench, regardless of leave having been granted in a similar matter.
Questions settled- Whether a Special Court has jurisdiction to try an offense under an Ordinance that subsequently lapsed?
- Can retrospective effect be given to a re-introduced Ordinance from an earlier date?
- Does the granting of leave to appeal in another case affect the binding nature of an existing judgment of the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution?
- Javed Mahmood vs Principal, Islamia College, Civil Lines, Lahore1995 CLC 652 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
- Javed Iqbal Khawaja vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Its Chief Secretary, MuzaffarabadK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 133 , · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
- Javed Iqbal Khawaja vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and another1995 CLC 1362 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
- Javed Iqbal Khan vs District Collector and others1995 MLD 121 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
- Javed Iqbal Khan vs District Collector And Other1995 MLD 121 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
- Javed Iqbal alias Akhtar Shah vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 498 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
- Javed Hussain vs Hotel Pearl Continental, Peshawar through the General Manager and another1995 PLC 232 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
- Javaid Iqbal vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1838 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
- Javaid Iqbal and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court order that cancelled the post-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioners by an Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case involving charges under sections 324, 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's discretion to grant bail, given the nature of the injuries and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interference. The Court found that the trial court had exercised its discretion appropriately after a proper appraisal of the material on record. Furthermore, the Court accepted the contention that the offence, at its highest, likely fell under section 337 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a maximum sentence of three years and thus does not trigger the prohibitory clause of section 497. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the bail granted to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Does an offence punishable with three years' imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Under what circumstances should a High Court interfere with the discretion exercised by a trial court in granting bail?
- Is the cancellation of bail justified when the trial court has properly appraised the prosecution material on record?
- Javaid Hassan vs Abdul Latif1995 PLD Supreme Court 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that reversed a Rent Controller's order and granted an ejectment decree against the appellant-tenant on the grounds of wilful default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether a tenant could be held a wilful defaulter when ownership of the premises was transferred during pending litigation, but the transferor continued to assert ownership and pursue ejectment proceedings without disclosing the transfer. The Supreme Court held that the tenant was not a wilful defaulter. The Court reasoned that the previous landlord’s continued assertion of ownership and litigation created a bona fide confusion for the tenant regarding the rightful payee. Consequently, the tenant’s conduct lacked the necessary contumacy required to establish wilful default. The Court established the principle that where a landlord fails to disclose a transfer of ownership and continues to litigate, a tenant who remains confused and seeks judicial guidance on rent payment cannot be penalized for wilful default, distinguishing such cases from instances where a tenant ignores notice of transfer and acts contumaciously.
Questions settled- Can a tenant be held a wilful defaulter for non-payment of rent when the previous landlord continues to litigate ejectment proceedings without disclosing a transfer of ownership?
- Does the failure of a landlord to disclose the transfer of property to a tenant absolve the tenant of liability for wilful default if they continue paying the previous owner?
- Is a tenant's conduct considered contumacious if they seek court permission to deposit rent due to uncertainty regarding the identity of the rightful landlord?
- Januario Munes vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tirbunal, Karachi and 21995 PLC 544 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad vs The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha1995 MLD 1491 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad vs Settlement and Rehabilitation CommissionerK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 348 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-21Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad vs Abid Ali Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 717 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-19Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad and others vs Gaman Khan1995 P Cr. L J 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate in a private complaint under sections 506, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging criminal intimidation and unlawful assembly. The core legal questions involved whether a private complaint filed as a counterblast to a civil suit for jactitation of marriage constitutes an abuse of the process of the court, and whether the failure of a Magistrate to record preliminary evidence personally vitiates the proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution story was repellent to common sense, appeared to be a retaliation against the civil suit filed by the petitioner's minor daughter, and that recording evidence by a person other than the Magistrate is an illegality warranting quashment. The court laid down the principle that proceedings instituted as a mala fide counterblast to civil litigation, combined with procedural illegalities in recording preliminary evidence, amount to an abuse of the process of the court and are liable to be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether a private criminal complaint filed as a counterblast to an earlier civil suit constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?
- Is the failure of a Magistrate to record preliminary evidence personally an incurable illegality warranting quashment of proceedings?
- Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution story is repellent to common sense and unsupported by medical evidence?
- Jan Muhammad and 6 others vs The State1997 MLD 81 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad And 5 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1803 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
- Jamshed Aslam Khan vs Mrs. Azra Jawed and 2 others1995 CLC 436 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit for infringement of trademark, passing off, accounts of profits, and damages. The core legal questions involve whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed trademark, whether the proceedings of the suit should be stayed pending a rectification application before the court, and whether the interim ex parte order should be vacated. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff, being the registered proprietor of the trademark, established a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable loss, thereby confirming the interim injunction and dismissing the defendants' applications for vacating the injunction and staying the suit proceedings. The key principle laid down is that as long as a trademark remains registered in a party's name, that party is entitled to protect its goodwill and business reputation against infringement, and a subsequent application for rectification of the trademark register by the defendant does not automatically warrant a stay of the infringement suit.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff seek a temporary injunction for trademark infringement while the defendant has filed an application for rectification of the trademark register?
- Whether the balance of convenience in a trademark infringement suit lies in favour of the registered proprietor of the trademark?
- Should a civil suit for trademark infringement be stayed pending the decision of a judicial miscellaneous application filed under section 46 of the Trade Marks Act?
- Is a registered proprietor entitled to protect their business reputation and goodwill against imitation as long as the trademark registration stands in their name?
- Jamshed Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 130 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →