Latest 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.

• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs M/s. Asif1995 CLC 1024 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-06
  arbitration agreementstay of suitsummary suitpromissory notearbitration clausemaintainability of applicationscope of arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order passed by a Single Judge of the Sindh High Court, which had stayed a summary suit for recovery of money filed by the appellant, Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., against the respondents. The Single Judge had granted the respondents' application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940, effectively staying the suit pending arbitration. The core legal question was whether the dispute, which arose from a promissory note and a claim for recovery of an advance payment, fell within the scope of the arbitration clause contained in the parties' agreement. The High Court held that in deciding an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940, the court must look exclusively at the pleadings in the plaint. Upon review, the Court determined that the suit was based on a promissory note and did not involve a dispute touching the terms and conditions of the agreement, thus rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Consequently, the Court set aside the stay order, holding that the application under Section 34 was not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Must a court look exclusively at the plaint when deciding an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does a suit based on a promissory note necessarily fall within the scope of an arbitration clause covering disputes touching the terms and conditions of a supply agreement?
  • Is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 maintainable if the underlying dispute does not relate to the terms and conditions of the agreement containing the arbitration clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Controller of Patents and Designs, Karachi and others vs Muhammad1995 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-31
  patent registrationgovernment prerogativediscretionary powernatural justiceright of hearingpublic interestjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court judgment declaring the Federal Government's decision to withhold a patent for a uranium separation process as unlawful. The core legal questions centered on whether the Federal Government possesses any 'prerogative' powers under Section 79 of the Patents and Designs Act 1911 in a constitutional democracy, and how such powers are to be exercised. The Supreme Court held that while conventional, unbridled royal prerogatives do not exist in Pakistan, the term 'prerogative' in Section 79 must be interpreted as a statutory discretionary power exercisable in the public interest. The Court ruled that the Government has the authority to withhold a patent on grounds of public interest or national security under this provision, and that such decisions are subject to judicial review. However, the Court laid down the principle that any exercise of this statutory discretion to the prejudice of an applicant must comply with the principles of natural justice, specifically requiring that the affected party be afforded a fair opportunity of being heard before a final decision is made.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government of Pakistan possess conventional royal prerogatives, or are its powers strictly derived from the Constitution and statute?
  • How is the term 'prerogative' used in Section 79 of the Patents and Designs Act 1911 to be interpreted and applied?
  • Is the exercise of statutory discretionary power under Section 79 of the Patents and Designs Act 1911 subject to judicial review?
  • Can the Federal Government withhold or refuse the grant of a patent in the public interest without affording the affected applicant a right of hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Continental Beverages (Pvt.) Limited. vs The Collector (Appeal),CentralPTCL 1995 CL. 10 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Consolidation)/Chief Settlement Commissioner Allah Ditta and others vs1995 CLC 1620 · Board of Revenue · 1994-12-28Read full judgment →
• Consolidation) Bashir Ahmad vs Nazir Ahmad and others1995 CLC 250 · Board of Revenue · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs V. S. Meenakshi Achi1995 PTD 356 205 I T R 260 · Madras High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Urmila Rungta1995 PTD 989 208 I T R 552 · Calcutta High Court · 1992-02-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Trivandrum Club1995 PTD 1317 [211 I T R 448] · Kerala High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs T. Ramachandran1995 PTD 965 206 I T R 322 · karnataka High Court · 1993-09-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Suresh Mohan Thakur1995 PTD 1027 [211 I T R 811] · Patna High Court · 1994-09-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Sri Jagdish Prasad Choudhary1995 PTD 1341 [211 I T R 472] · Patna High Court · 1994-05-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Suguna Mahendran and others1995 PTD 958 [2091 T R 684] · Madras High Court · 1993-07-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Shirin Paul1995 PTD 143 205 I T R 596 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-02-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Jyotsana Baid1995 PTD 1089 20 I T R 767 · Rajasthan High Court · 1993-11-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Asha Mittal1995 PTD 713 209 I T R 368 · Rajasthan High Court · 1993-10-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Sint. Aruna Paul1995 PTD 722 209 I T R 405 · Calcutta High Court · 1993-08-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Shri Jagdev Inder Singh1995 PTD 707 [209 I T R 169] · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Seth Gokuldas Pradeep Kumar (No,2)1995 PTD 1218 210 ITR 403 · Rajasthan High Court · 1993-11-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Seth Gokuldas Pradeep Kumar (No,1)1995 PTD 1207 · Rajasthan High Court · 1993-10-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Raj Kumari Bhubaneshwari Kumari D.B.1995 PTD 1221 210 I T R 711 · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs R.D. Shah1995 PTD 834 207 I T R 27 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Parsuram Chouthmal (Huf)1995 PTD 1284 [211 ITR 57] · Gujarat High Court · 1994-03-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Parshottamdas M. Dhamanwala (Huf)1995 PTD 1326[211 I T R 772] · Gujarat High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Muhammad Farooq1995 PTD 393 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Mrs. Lucy Kochuvareed1995 PTD 1289 [211 I T R 792] · Kerala High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Miss Dr. Vinay Rae1995 PTD 1296 · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Mannalal Soorana1995 PTD 1304 · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Man Bahadur Singh1995 PTD 732 208 I T R 658 · Rajasthan High Court · 1993-10-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Maharani Yogesh Kumari1995 PTD 1320 [211 T R 766] · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-04-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs L.K. Kasliwal1995 PTD 1323 [211 I T R 153] · Rajasthan High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Kanchan Bai Bader1995 PTD 960 206 I T R 285 · Rajasthan High Court · 1992-05-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Gopi Chand Awat and others1995 PTD 979 [206 I T R 415] · Rajasthan High Court · 1992-08-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs E.K. Mathew1995 PTD 970 [207 I T R 71] · Kerala High Court · 1993-07-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs B. Imran Hussain1995 PTD 1300 · Madras High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Amar Singh Rathore1995 PTD 728 209 I T R 467 · Rajasthan High Court · 1993-11-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Aditya Vikram Birla1995 PTD 841 209 I T R 558 · Calcutta High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs A.S. Rathore1995 PTD 1274 · Rajasthan High Court · 1993-09-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies-II, Karachi vs Messrs1995 PTD 612 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd.1995 PTD 372 206 I T R 25 · Calcutta High Court · 1993-02-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Tribeni Tissues Ltd.1995 PTD 385 206 ITR 92 · Calcutta High Court · 1992-02-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Ram Kumar Aggarwal1995 PTD 194 205 I T R 25 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Radomir Dzelatovic ,1995 PTD 1197 206 I T R 320 · Bombay High Court · 1993-09-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs P.J. Chemicals Ltd. , 503, 920, 1660, 2399, 2402, 2650, 2686, 2716, 2906, 35651995 PTD 931 20 I T R 830 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs N.C. Budharaja & Co. and another1995 PTD 95 204 I T R 42 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-11-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Modi Industries Ltd. ,1995 PTD 920 [210 I T R 1] · Delhi High Court · 1994-04-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Mazagaon Dock Ltd.1995 PTD 377 206 ITR 260 · Bombay High Court · 1993-07-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Maharaja Daljitsinhji Trust , .1995 PTD 220 204 I T R 35 · Gujarat High Court · 1992-11-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. (and other1995 PTD 166 204 ITR 644 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-01-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs M.R. Doshi1995 PTD 1270 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Lallubhai Nagardas and Sons , .1995 PTD 242 204 I T R 93 · Bombay High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Kamalini Khatau1995 PTD 690 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Garware Synthetic Bristles1995 PTD 204 205 I T R 426 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-09-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Dr. A.K. Sharma1995 PTD 252 204 I T R 62 · Rajasthan High Court · 1992-12-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Bihar Alloy Steels Ltd.1995 PTD 1189 206 I T R 350 · Patna High Court · 1993-07-21
  income from other sourcescapital work-in-progresspre-commencement periodtaxable incomededuction of expenditurecapital expenditureinterest income
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application before the Patna High Court concerned whether interest earned by a company on short-term bank deposits during its pre-commencement construction period constitutes taxable income, and whether such interest could be set off against capital expenditure. The assessee, a company under construction, deposited surplus share subscription money in banks, earning interest which it adjusted against 'capital work-in-progress'. The Income-tax Officer treated this as 'income from other sources', rejecting the deduction of interest paid on borrowings. The Tribunal, however, allowed the set-off based on commercial accounting practices. The High Court held that the interest earned is indeed taxable as 'income from other sources' under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It ruled that the application of income—even for capital construction—does not exempt it from tax. Furthermore, the Court held that interest paid on borrowings for construction is capital expenditure and cannot be deducted under Section 57(iii) of the Act, as it was not incurred exclusively to earn the interest income. The Court affirmed that tax liability is governed by statutory provisions, not commercial accounting principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interest earned on surplus funds deposited in banks during the construction phase of a company constitutes taxable income?
  • Can interest income earned by an assessee be set off against capital expenditure incurred during the construction of a factory?
  • Does the application of income towards capital construction exempt such income from taxation under the Income-tax Act, 1961?
  • Is interest paid on borrowings for construction purposes deductible under Section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against interest income earned from bank deposits?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Ahmedabad Cotton MFG. Co. Ltd. and others1995 PTD 176 205 I T R 63 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-10-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Addl.) vs Jeevan Lal Shah1995 PTD 188 205 I T R 244 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-09-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, Lahore vs Capt. (Retd.)1995 PTD 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-01
  income tax referenceadvisory jurisdictionquestion of lawIncome Tax Appellate Tribunalstatutory interpretationtax assessmentHigh Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns tax references filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question is whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act to adjudicate a new question of law that was neither raised before the Tribunal in a Section 66(1) application nor addressed by the Tribunal in its order. The Court dismissed the references, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain questions not previously raised before or considered by the Tribunal. The Court affirmed that its jurisdiction under Section 66 is advisory, not appellate or revisional. A question of law 'arises out of the order' of the Tribunal only if it was raised before and dealt with by the Tribunal, or raised but not dealt with, or not raised but dealt with by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court cannot address issues outside the scope of the original reference, as its authority is strictly limited to answering questions properly referred to it.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act to decide a question of law that was not raised before or dealt with by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal?
  • What constitutes a question of law arising out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the purposes of a reference under the Income Tax Act?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 66 of the Income Tax Act appellate, revisional, or advisory in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Company II vs Instruments Krafts Pvt Ltd.K.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 1 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Income Tax vs Gauhar AyyubK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 76 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
• Commiss4oner of Wealth Tax vs Sobhag Family Benefit Trust D.W.1995 PTD 1295 [211 I T R 289] · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-03-04Read full judgment →
• Colonies) Nasrullah and 2 others vs Muhammad Aslam and others1995 MLD 246 · Board of Revenue · 1994-08-03Read full judgment →
• Collector, Land Acquisition, Peshawar and others vs Rokhan and others1995 PLD Peshawar 78 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-20
  land acquisitioncompensation enhancementmarket valuepotential valueone yearly averagecompulsory acquisition chargesstatutory interestLand Acquisition Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arose from cross Regular First Appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Collector and landowners against a decree of the Additional District Judge, Peshawar (Referee Judge), which had enhanced compulsory land acquisition compensation from Rs.994.94 to Rs.2,291 per marla along with compulsory acquisition charges and 10% interest. The acquiring authority challenged the enhancement, while the landowners sought a further increase based on one-year averages and potentiality. The High Court affirmed that relying solely on a one-year average price schedule or classification of land (such as banjar qadim) is improper if the land possesses high potentiality, strategic location, and neighbourhood advantages for future commercial and residential development. To prevent unnecessary remand delays, the High Court took judicial notice of surrounding developments, averaged three one-year price schedules on record, and enhanced compensation to Rs.5,056 per marla plus 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Furthermore, the court corrected the interest calculation under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, awarding 8% compound interest up to 22-5-1983 and 6% simple interest thereafter until payment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the potential value and location of acquired land can be considered over its revenue classification when determining market value under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is the one-year average price schedule the sole criterion for determining compensation for compulsory land acquisition?
  • How should statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be calculated when compensation is enhanced by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector, Land Acquisition, Mansehra and 2 others vs Kala and others1995 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-23
  land acquisitionmarket value determinationcompensation enhancementReferee Judgeleave to appealinterest on compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Mansehra, challenging a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad. The High Court had dismissed the petitioners' Regular First Appeals, affirming the findings of a Referee Judge regarding compensation for acquired land, with a minor modification granting the respondent simple interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of possession until payment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Referee Judge erred in determining the market value of the acquired land by relying on a specific average of land mutations (Exh. PW2/1) rather than alternative averages or previous municipal acquisition rates. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no legal flaw in the Referee Judge's assessment, noting that the judge had properly considered the evidence, the location of the land near the General Bus-Stand and cattle market, and the relevant averages. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that the determination of market value based on evidence of location and comparable transactions was legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court's determination of market value for acquired land be set aside if the court considered relevant evidence regarding location and comparable mutations?
  • Is a Referee Judge's reliance on a specific average of land mutations for compensation assessment legally sustainable if it is supported by the record?
  • Does the appellate court have the authority to modify a compensation award to include interest on the enhanced amount from the date of possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector, Dera Ismail Khan and others vs Mst. Shahzad Bibi and 71995 CLC 1843 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• Col. (Retd.) Ghazanfar Ali Khan vs The State1995 MLD 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Cibageigy (Pak.) Limited vs Muhammad Safdar1995 CLC 461 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-06
  dismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of suitsufficient causelimitation periodframing of issuescondonation of delaydiligence in litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the restoration of a suit dismissed for non-prosecution on March 14, 1993. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the Court was duty-bound under Order XIV, Rule 1, sub-rules (5) and (6) to frame issues regardless of the parties' presence, and that Order XVII, Rule 2 was inapplicable. The Court rejected these contentions, holding that the duty to frame issues under Order XIV requires the presence of parties for necessary examination, and that Order XVII, Rule 2 applies only to adjourned hearings, not the initial date fixed by the roster. The Court further observed that the application for restoration was filed nearly one and a half years after the dismissal, far exceeding the thirty-day limitation period prescribed by Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908. As the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient cause for non-appearance or request condonation of the substantial delay, the Court dismissed the application, emphasizing the plaintiff's duty to pursue litigation diligently.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Court's duty to frame issues under Order XIV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 override the requirement for parties to be present?
  • Is Order XVII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to a suit dismissed on the date fixed for the settlement of issues where no prior adjournment was granted?
  • What is the limitation period for filing an application to set aside an order dismissing a suit for default of appearance?
  • Can a court restore a suit dismissed for non-prosecution if the application for restoration is filed after the limitation period without a request for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• CI-Iaman Baig vs Karachi Transport Corporation through its1995 CLC 171 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chutta And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 316 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Chutta and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 755 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-31
  murdercommon intentionocular testimonybenefit of the doubtimposition of finepenal statute strict constructioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Usta Muhammad, whereby the appellants Chutta, Acher, and Ghulam Haider were convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Nouroz and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness and police testimonies, the applicability of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the legality of imposing a fine under Section 302 following the promulgation of the Qisas and Diyat laws. The Balochistan High Court held that the ocular testimony of the complainant, corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries, sufficiently established the guilt of Chutta and Ghulam Haider, whose appeals were dismissed. However, the prosecution failed to prove a pre-arranged plan or common intention as to Acher, who was granted the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. Furthermore, the court held that since Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 no longer provides for a sentence of fine, the imposition of a fine was unlawful and set aside. The key principle laid down is that penal statutes must be construed strictly, and no penalty or fine can be imposed by implication if omitted from the substantive penal provision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated statement of an eyewitness can form the basis of a murder conviction when it remains unshattered during cross-examination?
  • Can joint liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of proof of a pre-arranged plan or common intention?
  • Does Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 empower the court to impose a sentence of fine after the promulgation of the Qisas and Diyat amendments?
  • How should penal statutes be construed regarding the imposition of penalties and fines not expressly provided in the text?
  Read full judgment →
• Chiraghuddin vs Muhammad Ibrahim and others1995 CLC 1632 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-03
  civil reviewscope of reviewre-argument of casenon-joinder of necessary partycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil review application filed under section 151 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897, seeking review of a judgment passed in a civil revision. The core question before the court was whether the grounds urged by the applicants fell within the limited scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, particularly where the counsel merely re-argued points already considered and decided in the original judgment, and raised matters not pleaded in the written statement or outside the purview of review. The Sindh High Court dismissed the review application, holding that review cannot be granted to re-examine previously evaluated arguments, and that a party cannot re-litigate a matter or seek re-hearing under the garb of a review petition. The key principle laid down is that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked to re-argue a case on merits or raise new pleas not taken at the proper stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether review of a judgment can be granted to re-examine the same arguments already discussed and determined?
  • Can a party raise new pleas and arguments in a review application that were neither pleaded in the written statement nor argued during the original hearing?
  • Does a suit fail for non-joinder of persons against whom no relief is prayed?
  • What is the permissible scope of a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Chiragh And Another Versus The State Chiragh And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 310 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Chiragh Ahmed vs Shaukat Iqbal and 6 others1995 CLC 602 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Chief Secretary, Punjab and 2 others vs Sardar Riaz Ali1995 PLC (C.S.) 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-15
  service tribunalsenioritycandidate listleave to appealnecessary parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the respondent was granted seniority from the date his name was placed on the list of Naib-Tehsildar candidates in the Old Bahawalpur State. The core legal question is whether an official can count seniority from the date of inclusion in a candidate list or only from the date of continuous holding of the post under the relevant rules, and whether an order affecting the seniority of non-party officers is sustainable. The Court held that the contentions raised in support of the petition require detailed examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal while suspending the operation of the Tribunal's order in the interim. The key principle laid down is that seniority cannot be granted from a date prior to continuous holding of the post if rules dictate otherwise, and orders adversely affecting unrepresented third parties warrant judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant count seniority from the date of inclusion in the list of candidates rather than the date of continuous holding of the post?
  • Does an order of the Service Tribunal disturbing the seniority of non-party officers require examination by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Enginner (Admn) Water And Other vs Manzoor Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labuor & Service Cases 88 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
• Chief Engineer (North), Public Health Engineering Department, Lahore1995 PLC (C.S.) 646 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04
  service appealunauthorized absencemajor penaltylimitation perioddepartmental appealabuse of authorityreinstatementback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which set aside the removal of the respondent from service and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The respondent had been removed for unauthorized absence from duty. The core legal questions were whether the respondent's service appeal was time-barred and whether the penalty of removal was disproportionate given the duration of the absence. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was not time-barred, as the respondent had the option to await the outcome of his departmental appeal rather than filing immediately upon the expiry of the 90-day waiting period. Regarding the merits, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the government's policy letter of 1971 mandated that unauthorized absences of less than one week should only attract minor penalties. Consequently, the imposition of the major penalty of removal for a short-term absence constituted an abuse of authority. The Court affirmed the principle that administrative penalties must align with established government policy regarding the duration and nature of the misconduct.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have the option to wait for a decision on a departmental appeal before filing a service appeal, or must they file immediately after 90 days?
  • Can a major penalty of removal from service be imposed for an unauthorized absence of less than one week in light of established government policy?
  • Is an appeal filed before a Service Tribunal barred by time if the appellant waited for the outcome of a pending departmental appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Engineer (North) and anothers vs Saifullah Khan Khalid1995 SCMR 776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04
  service appealunauthorized absenceremoval from servicelimitation perioddepartmental appealmajor penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which had set aside the removal from service of the respondent and reinstated him with back benefits. The core legal question involved was whether the respondent's service appeal before the Tribunal was barred by time and whether the penalty of removal from service was warranted for unauthorized absence of less than one week. The Supreme Court held that the respondent had the option to wait for the decision on his departmental appeal before filing the service appeal, and that under the government policy letter, unauthorized absence for less than one week does not warrant the major penalty of removal from service. The petition was accordingly found to be without merit and leave to appeal was refused. The key principles laid down are that a civil servant may await the outcome of a departmental appeal before approaching the service tribunal, and that a major penalty cannot be imposed for unauthorized absence lasting less than one week.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can wait for the decision on a departmental appeal before filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a major penalty of removal from service be imposed for unauthorized absence of less than one week under the applicable government policy?
  • When does time begin to run for filing a service appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal in the pendency of a departmental appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab vs Bashir Ahmad1995 PLC (C.S.) 43 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator Auqaf Sindh and anothers vs Muhammad Haroon1995 PLD Karachi 404 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Chenab Fabrics and Processing Mills Ltd. through Chief Executive1995 CLC 486 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Chenab Fabrics & Processing Mills Ltd vs Zila Council FaisalabadK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 27 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chaudhry Shujat Hussain vs The State1995 SCMR 1249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-31
  post-arrest bailscheduled offencesSpecial Court Banksreasonable groundsbank fraudtentative assessmentspecial law vs general law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order refusing post-arrest bail to an accused charged under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109 PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, in connection with an alleged banking fraud involving Phalia Sugar Mills and the Investment Corporation of Pakistan (ICP). The primary legal question concerned the standard and criteria for granting bail under Section 5(6) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, compared to Section 497 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court (by a majority) converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi establishes that while Section 5(6) of the Ordinance restricts discretion by prohibiting bail where reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is guilty of a scheduled offence, it does not completely oust the applicability of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The Court held that 'reasonable grounds' require tangible evidence beyond mere suspicion or allegations, and discretion must be exercised judicially rather than on tentative inferences or assumptions.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5(6) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 completely exclude the application of Section 497 Cr.P.C. in bail matters?
  • What constitutes 'reasonable grounds' for believing an accused is guilty when deciding a bail application under banking laws?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted for non-bailable scheduled bank offences when allegations rely primarily on documentary interpretations without tangible evidence of fraud?
  • How does a special provision restricting bail under a special law override general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Liaquat Ali vs State Bank of Pakistan and 3 other1995 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-18
  retrospective applicationpenal statutesex post facto lawcriminal liabilityBanking Companies Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the proceedings initiated against him, raising a fundamental question regarding the retrospective application of criminal law. The core legal issue presented for consideration is whether an individual can be lawfully charged under Section 27-A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, for alleged offences committed in 1987, given that the specific provision was only incorporated into the statute through an amendment enacted in 1990. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this constitutional and legal question, specifically focusing on the prohibition against the retrospective application of penal statutes. The Court's decision to grant leave indicates that the matter requires a definitive ruling on whether the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal legislation precludes the application of the 1990 amendment to acts committed prior to its commencement. The case essentially addresses the limits of legislative power in creating retrospective criminal liability and the protection afforded to citizens against ex post facto laws.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person be charged under a statutory provision for an offence committed before that provision was enacted?
  • Does the amendment of 1990 to the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 apply retrospectively to offences committed in 1987?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Khalil-Ur-Rehman vs The Registrar, Cooperative Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1995 MLD 732 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Khalil Ur Rehman vs The Registrar, Cooperative Punjab, Lahore And 2 Other1995 MLD 732 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Chartered Bank vs Shirin Bai Y. Sajjan and another1995 MLD 1054 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
• Changhatta Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 244 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Chand Textile (Spinning) Mills Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Taxes , .1995 PTD 360 · High Court of Bangladesh · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
• Chand Foundation vs Fedreation of Pakistan and OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
• Chamir Khan vs Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 385 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Islamabad vs Nasir1995 SCMR 1593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-14
  compulsory retirementnatural justiceIslamic Injunctionscivil servantde facto doctrinestatutory corporationservice tribunalmala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that set aside the compulsory retirement of an employee of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC). The core legal question was whether the Chairman of the PBC possessed the jurisdiction to compulsorily retire the respondent and whether such retirement, executed without prior notice or an opportunity to show cause, was legally valid under Islamic Injunctions and principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the order of compulsory retirement was void and of no legal effect. The Court affirmed that while the Chairman held the authority to pass such orders, the failure to provide the employee with notice and an opportunity to show cause rendered the action illegal. The key principle laid down is that any compulsory retirement order passed under regulations analogous to Section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, without affording the affected employee notice and a fair opportunity to respond, is repugnant to Islamic Injunctions and natural justice, and therefore, constitutes a violation of the employee's rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the de facto doctrine validate an illegal order passed without jurisdiction by a competently appointed officer?
  • Are employees of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation considered civil servants for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Is a compulsory retirement order passed under Regulation 3 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Employees (Retirement from Service) Regulations, 1980, valid if issued without notice or an opportunity to show cause?
  • Does the de facto doctrine apply when an officer's appointment is not challenged, but their jurisdiction to pass a specific order is?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others vs Maleha Ejaz and another1995 SCMR 1060 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-29
  Constitutional PetitionEducational BoardExamination EligibilityAttendance RequirementS.S.C. ExaminationHigh Court Jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a Constitutional Petition filed by respondent No. 1, Maleha Ejaz, before the High Court of Balochistan, challenging the refusal of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Balochistan, to allow her to appear in the S.S.C. Board Examination of 1994. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, directed the petitioners to permit the respondent to appear for the examination as a science student. The petitioners challenged this direction before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's order was legally valid, specifically considering that the High Court had issued its directive without addressing the mandatory requirement stipulated in Rule 2(4) of the Secondary School Examination Rules, which mandates a minimum of 75% attendance in each subject for a student to be eligible for the examination. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the High Court's failure to consider this specific regulatory attendance requirement rendered the impugned order legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court order directing an educational board to allow a student to sit for an examination without considering mandatory attendance rules constitute a valid exercise of jurisdiction?
  • Is compliance with the 75% attendance requirement under the Secondary School Examination Rules a mandatory condition precedent for appearing in the S.S.C. Board Examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Azad Jammu & Kashmir Council through Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, Islamabad and 2 others vs Raja Nisar Ahmad1995 CLC 1958 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-06-21
  extraditionlegislative competencevalidation clausedoctrine of necessityinterim constitutionwrit jurisdictionmootness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals against a High Court judgment that declared the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Act, 1984, void, citing the absence of a properly constituted Council at the time of enactment. The core legal question concerned the validity of the 1984 Act and the impact of the subsequent Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, 1995, on the pending litigation. The Supreme Court held that the promulgation of the 1995 Ordinance, which included a specific validation clause (Section 7), effectively cured any alleged defects in the 1984 Act. Consequently, the Court ruled that actions taken under the 1984 Act were deemed validly performed under the new Ordinance. The Court established the principle that intervening legislation with retrospective validation clauses can render previous challenges to the validity of an enactment moot, as the law effectively validates the challenged actions. Accordingly, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petitions and applications were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the promulgation of a validating ordinance during the pendency of an appeal render a challenge to the validity of the original act moot?
  • Can the validity of proceedings of the Council be challenged in a court of law under the Interim Constitution Act, 1974?
  • Does the absence of elected members in the Council invalidate legislation passed by the Council under the Interim Constitution Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shujaat Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 696 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-27Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sardar Muhammad and others vs Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department1995 SCMR 1038 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-23
  service tribunalseniority listgradation listcivil servantleave to appealprovisional seniority list
  Summary & questions settled

  The four petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal directing the Secretary of the Communication and Works Department to finalize a gradation list by a specific date, failing which a provisional list would be considered the seniority list. The core legal question concerned the competency of the Service Tribunal to issue directions on miscellaneous applications after an appeal had been consigned to the record, and whether such an order usurped departmental functions. The Supreme Court held that the order was passed on the undertaking of the Departmental Head, did not usurp departmental authority, and merely provided a timeline for expediting the finalization of the seniority list while leaving the department free to process representations. The Court concluded that the impugned order did not impinge upon the petitioners' rights or raise a question of law of public importance, and consequently refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal can issue directions to finalize a seniority list on the basis of an undertaking given by a departmental head after an appeal has been consigned to the record?
  • Does an order of the Service Tribunal treating a provisional seniority list as final upon failure to meet a deadline usurp the function of the departmental head?
  • Can a party maintain a petition for leave to appeal against an order that does not prejudice their legal rights and is not contested by the authority against whom it is directed?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sardar Muhammad and others vs Secretary to Government of Punjab Communication and Works Department1995 PLC (C.S.) 874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-23
  seniority listservice tribunaldepartmental undertakingcivil servantmiscellaneous applicationadministrative functionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had directed the Secretary of the Communication and Works Department to finalize a departmental seniority list by a specific date, failing which a provisional list would be deemed final. The petitioners, who were affected civil servants, argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to issue such directions via miscellaneous applications after the original appeal had been consigned to the record. They further contended that the Tribunal had usurped the administrative functions of the Departmental Head. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order was based on a voluntary undertaking given by the Departmental Head to resolve a long-standing service grievance. The Court found that the order did not usurp administrative authority but rather facilitated the expeditious resolution of seniority matters. It clarified that the Tribunal's direction did not foreclose the department's right to process representations but provided necessary interim relief. Finding no question of law of public importance, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the Tribunal acted within its discretion to ensure compliance with statutory duties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal issue directions to a department head based on a voluntary undertaking to finalize a seniority list?
  • Does a Service Tribunal usurp administrative functions by setting a deadline for the finalization of a seniority list?
  • Can a party challenge an interim order of a Service Tribunal that does not raise a question of law of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Pervez Ellahi vs The Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Interior,Islamabad And 3 Other1995 MLD 615 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-04Read full judgment →
• Ch. Pervez Ellahi vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others1995 MLD 615 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-04Read full judgment →
• CH. Pervez Elahi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 533 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Ch. Pervaiz Elam, M.Pa. vs S.H.O., Police Station Mla Gujar Singh and 41995 P Cr. L J 345 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• CH. Pervaiz Elahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 464 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →