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.
- Thal Development Authority through Administrator, Thal Bhakkar vs Khushi Muhammad and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 108 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
- Thal Development Authority Through Administrator, Thal Bhakkar vs Khushi Muhammad And Another1994 PLD Lahore 108 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
- Telephone Soap vs M/s. Lever Brother1994 CLC 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a trial court order granting a temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The respondent, manufacturer of 'Lifebuoy' soap, alleged that the appellant's 'Telephone Soap' utilized deceptively similar packaging and color schemes, causing confusion among consumers and damaging the respondent's commercial reputation. The appellant contended that the respondent was not the registered proprietor of the 'Lifebuoy' trademark and that the inclusion of a telephone image on their packaging sufficiently distinguished their product. The Lahore High Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the overall get-up and color scheme of the appellant's packaging created a prima facie case of passing off, regardless of minor differences. The Court held that an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss to the respondent's business reputation, which could not be measured in monetary terms. Furthermore, the Court clarified that observations made during interlocutory proceedings are tentative and do not constitute a final determination of the suit's merits, which must be decided upon full evidence.
Questions settled- Does the registration of a trademark by the defendant entitle them to use it if it constitutes an infringement of another's trademark?
- Can a party maintain a suit for trademark infringement if they are an authorized user rather than the registered proprietor?
- Do observations made by a trial court during the disposal of a temporary injunction application constitute a final expression of opinion on the merits of the suit?
- Is the overall get-up and color scheme of packaging a sufficient basis to establish a prima facie case of passing off?
- Technology and Resource Development (Pvt.) Ltd. vs E.M.E.1994 MLD 612 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
- Tayyab Siddiqi vs Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad1994 PLC (C.S.) 1508 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
- Tawakal Khan vs Dana Akhtar And Other1994 CLC 182 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
- Tauqir Ahmad Khan, And Other vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary Works And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 92) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Tauqir Ahmad Khan and 6 others vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Works, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and 6 others1994 MLD 1866 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple constitutional petitions challenging land acquisition notifications and proceedings concerning land in Dhana Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Lahore, initiated for constructing residential accommodation for Central Government Employees. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was published in October 1979, but subsequent notifications under Section 17(4) and Sections 6 and 7 were issued years later in 1983 and 1985 respectively. The petitioners contended that the proceedings lapsed as no notification under Section 5 or Section 17 was issued within the statutory timeframe. The High Court accepted this contention, relying on Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 and governmental instructions dated 15 June 1968. The Court held that if no notification under Section 5 or Section 17 is issued within one year, or at most one year and 60 days (with Board of Revenue extension), the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed. Consequently, all subsequent notifications under Sections 17, 6, and 7 were declared void and without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- What is the effect on land acquisition proceedings if a notification under Section 5 or Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is not issued within one year or the maximum extended period of one year and 60 days from the publication of the Section 4 notification?
- Can a valid declaration or notification under Section 17, Section 6, or Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be issued on the basis of a Section 4 notification that has lapsed under Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983?
- Whether subsequent land acquisition notifications issued beyond the statutory timeframe prescribed by the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 are void and without jurisdiction?
- Tasleem Ullah vs Khalida Khanum and others1994 PLD Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal (treated as a Constitutional petition) arose from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlady against the appellant-tenant on grounds of default, damage, nuisance, and personal use. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority both ordered ejectment on the ground of personal use. The appellant contended that the premises were let out for commercial purposes, rendering the ejectment petition for residential personal use incompetent. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that a second appeal was incompetent under Section 15(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 as the premises were residential. The High Court held that a composite building used for residential, office, and warehouse purposes must be treated as a residential building under the Ordinance. Furthermore, converting a residential building to a non-residential one without the written permission of the Rent Controller violates Section 11 of the Ordinance and is against public policy. Consequently, the second appeal was incompetent, and treating the matter as a Constitutional petition, the Court dismissed it on the merits.
Questions settled- Whether a composite building used for both residential and commercial purposes should be treated as a residential or non-residential building under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a tenant legally convert a residential building into a non-residential building without the written permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is a second appeal competent under Section 15(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 if the premises in dispute are determined to be residential?
- Tasawar Khalil And Another vs Matinur Rahman KhanK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 144 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
- Tarloki Nath Avinash Chander (Huf) vs Commissioner of Income-Tax199 4P T D 816 · Punjab and Haryana High CourtRead full judgment →
- Tariq vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 337 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
- Tariq Shah vs The Provincial Government Through Secretary, Education, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1230 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1993-09-29Read full judgment →
- Tariq Shafiq Khan vs Secretary, Commerce Division, Islamabad And 111994 PLC (C.S.) 19 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
- Tariq Mehmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 137 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
- Tariq Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
- Tariq Mahmood, Etc vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 142) · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
- Tariq Mahmood Khan vs Sultan Mahmood Khan and anothers1994 PLD Peshawar 268 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
- Tariq Mahmood Khan vs Sultan Mahmood Khan And Another1994 PLD Peshawar 268 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
- Tariq Mahmood And 3 Others vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf and Secretary to1994 CLC 547 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
- Tario Mahmood Bajwa vs Muhammad Afzal Sahi And Other1994 CLC 1366 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1 to the Provincial Assembly from Constituency No. PP-54 (Faisalabad-XII) during the general elections held on 9th October, 1993. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 for the dismissal of the petition due to non-compliance with section 55(3) regarding proper verification in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alongside a failure to append required affidavits. The core legal question was whether the provisions requiring signing and verification of an election petition are mandatory or directory, and whether non-compliance entails the mandatory dismissal of the petition. The Election Tribunal held that the provisions of section 55 are mandatory due to the penal consequence of dismissal expressly provided under section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Tribunal laid down the principle that statutory provisions coupled with an express consequence of nullity or dismissal upon default are mandatory, and a defective verification that fails to specify paragraphs on personal knowledge versus information, lacks an oath or affirmation, and misses required affidavits necessitates the dismissal of the election petition.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions relating to the signing and verification of an election petition under section 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are mandatory or directory?
- Does the failure to verify an election petition in accordance with Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 entail the dismissal of the petition under section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Can a defective verification in an election petition be cured by subsequent amendment despite express statutory penal provisions for non-compliance?
- Tanvir Iqbal Siddiqi vs The Principal, Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation1994 PLC (C.S.) 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Science Laboratory Assistant at the Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation (O.P.F.) Girls College, challenged the termination of his employment via a writ petition. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, ruling that the O.P.F., while an autonomous body, was not created by statute, and therefore, the petitioner could not invoke writ jurisdiction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the O.P.F. constitutes a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the O.P.F. is not a department of the Federal Government, was not created by statute, and does not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition was incompetent, as the petitioner's remedy lay in a civil suit rather than constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that an entity not created by statute and not performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation is not subject to writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is the Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation a statutory body subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does the Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is a writ petition competent against an autonomous body that is not created by statute?
- Tanvir Iqbal Siddiqi vs The Principal, Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation1994 SCMR 958 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order that dismissed the petitioner's writ petition against the termination of his employment as a Science Laboratory Assistant at the Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation (O.P.F.) Girls College. The core legal question is whether the O.P.F. constitutes a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the O.P.F. is not a department of the Federal Government and was not created by any statute. Consequently, the Foundation does not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation as contemplated by the Constitution. The Court held that because the O.P.F. lacks statutory status, the writ petition was incompetent, and the petitioner's appropriate remedy for challenging his termination lay in filing a civil suit rather than invoking constitutional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Is the Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation a statutory body amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does the Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for an employee of a non-statutory body challenging their termination?
- Tanvir Iobal Siddiqi vs The Principal, Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation1994 PLC (C.S.) 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Science Laboratory Assistant at the Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation Girls College, challenged the termination of his employment via a writ petition, which the High Court dismissed on the grounds that the Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation (O.P.F.) is not a statutory body and its employees are not civil servants. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against this decision. The core legal question was whether the O.P.F. performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, thereby rendering it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the O.P.F. is not a department of the Federal Government and was not created by any statute. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition was not competent because the Foundation does not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that writ jurisdiction is inapplicable to non-statutory bodies not performing governmental functions.
Questions settled- Is the Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation a statutory body amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the Overseas Pakistanis' Foundation perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation?
- Is a writ petition competent against a non-statutory body that is not a department of the Federal Government?
- Tanveer Hussain Shah And Another vs Rehmat Ali Shah And OtherK.L.R.1994 Civil Cases 303 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-04-08Read full judgment →
- Tanveer Akhtar Siddiqui and 6 others vs Qazi Naeem Jan and 10 others1994 SCMR 1881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld an eviction order passed by a Cantonment Rent Controller against the successors-in-interest of a tenant. The core legal questions involved whether an eviction petition is maintainable if not all landlords join as petitioners, whether the landlord's bona fide personal need was sufficiently established, and whether the acquisition of other commercial property by the landlords during the pendency of an appeal invalidates an existing eviction order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the objection regarding the non-joinder of all landlords was not raised at the appropriate stage and was legally settled by precedent. Regarding the personal need, the Court found that the tenant's vague denial in the pleadings and failure to cross-examine the landlord's witness on this issue rendered the contention meritless. Furthermore, the Court held that the acquisition of other property pending appeal does not invalidate an eviction order already obtained. The judgment reinforces that procedural objections must be raised timely and that a landlord's bona fide need, once established, is not automatically defeated by subsequent property acquisitions.
Questions settled- Is an eviction petition filed by some, but not all, landlords maintainable under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act?
- Does the acquisition of other commercial property by a landlord during the pendency of an appeal invalidate a previously obtained eviction order?
- Can a tenant challenge the bona fide personal need of a landlord if the tenant failed to cross-examine the landlord's witness on that specific issue?
- Tanveer Ahmad vs Muhammad Saqib and 2 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment granting bail to respondents accused of committing sodomy under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner challenged the grant of bail, arguing that the medical evidence sufficiently connected the accused to the crime and that the High Court had inconsistently evaluated the same medical evidence in a previous bail application for a co-accused. Furthermore, the petitioner alleged that one respondent had abused the concession of bail by murdering the petitioner's father following a refusal to compromise the case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its inconsistent assessment of medical evidence and failed to account for the misuse of bail. The Court affirmed the principle that bail is a concession contingent upon the accused not misusing their liberty; where an accused commits acts of violence against the complainant while on bail, the privilege is liable to be cancelled. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and cancelled the bail granted to the respondents.
Questions settled- Can bail be cancelled if an accused commits acts of violence against the complainant while released on bail?
- Is it legally permissible for a court to form contradictory opinions on the same set of medical evidence in bail applications for co-accused?
- Does the absence or long leave of a trial judge constitute sufficient grounds for granting bail based on inordinate delay?
- Tanveer Ahmad vs Muhammad Saqib And 2 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment granting bail to respondents accused of committing sodomy under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail despite medical evidence corroborating the prosecution's case and evidence of the accused misusing the concession of bail by committing a subsequent murder. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on the absence of physical marks of violence was inconsistent with the doctor's certification of sodomy, and that the accused had clearly abused the privilege of bail by committing a violent crime against the complainant's family. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and cancelled the bail. The key principle laid down is that bail in non-bailable offences is a conditional concession; where an accused person abuses this privilege by committing acts of violence against the complainant or witnesses, the bail is liable to be cancelled upon clear proof of such misuse.
Questions settled- Can bail be cancelled if an accused person commits a subsequent crime while on bail?
- Does the absence of physical marks of violence in a medical report automatically negate a charge of sodomy for the purpose of bail?
- Is the misuse of the concession of bail a valid ground for the cancellation of bail in non-bailable offences?
- Tanveer Ahmad vs Director-General, Pakistan Public Works1994 PLC (C.S.) 887 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain vs Yakta Engineering Co. and another1994 MLD 510 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain vs Superintending Engineer, Electricity, WAPDA, Vehari1994 PLC 747 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, challenging a show-cause notice issued by WAPDA management regarding his employment eligibility. The core legal question was whether the National Industrial Relations Commission possessed jurisdiction to intervene when the petitioner alleged victimization for trade union activities, despite the employer's action stemming from the discovery of a false affidavit submitted to secure employment. The Commission dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of unfair labour practice. It was determined that the Commission's jurisdiction is strictly confined to cases involving unfair labour practices as defined under Section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. General allegations of victimization, lacking specific details of trade union activities, are insufficient to invoke this jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Commission affirmed that equitable relief, such as an injunction, is denied to litigants who approach the court with unclean hands by concealing material facts, as the petitioner did regarding his eligibility for the employees' sons quota.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to entertain petitions involving grievances unrelated to unfair labour practices?
- Is a petitioner who conceals material facts to secure employment entitled to equitable relief from the Commission?
- What constitutes a prima facie case of unfair labour practice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can a general allegation of victimization for trade union activities suffice to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission under Section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Talib Hussain vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1994 CLC 1667 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain vs Director, Engineering Directorate General, Housing1994 PLC (C.S.) 472 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-07-27Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain and others vs Muhammad Afzal and others1994 MLD 394 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain and anothers vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 43 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain And Another vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 43 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
- Talehmand and others vs Mst. Aisha Bibi1994 PLD Lahore 399 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
- Talehmand And Other vs Mst. Aisha Bibi1994 PLD Lahore 399 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
- Talat Iftikhar And 6 Others vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore1994 CLC 2105 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-18Read full judgment →
- Tajul Mulk vs Mst. Zaitoon Bibi and 3 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit for possession by pre-emption brought against the petitioner in respect of agricultural land sold via mutation. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the pre-emptors, and the first appellate court as well as the High Court dismissed the subsequent appeals and revision petitions filed by the defendant vendee. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit in an oral sale begins from the date of the vendor's statement recorded in the mutation register or from the date of the formal attestation of the mutation. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action for a pre-emptor accrues upon the final attestation of the mutation, which completes the sale transaction, rather than upon the earlier recording of statements. The key principle laid down is that limitation for pre-emption in mutation cases runs from the date of attestation of the mutation, affirming that suits filed within one year thereof are within time. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- When does the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit begin in the case of an oral sale recorded through mutation?
- Does the admission of sale consideration in a statement recorded prior to the attestation of a mutation constitute the completion of the sale transaction for the purpose of limitation?
- Tajul Mulk vs Mst. Zaitoon Bibi And 3 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed revision petitions regarding a suit for possession by pre-emption. The petitioner (vendee) challenged the lower courts' decisions, arguing that the suit was time-barred. The petitioner contended that because the vendors had recorded statements in the mutation register acknowledging receipt of sale consideration and delivery of possession prior to the formal attestation of the mutation, the limitation period for the pre-emption suit should have commenced from the date of those statements rather than the date of attestation. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, affirming the established legal position that the cause of action for a pre-emption suit in cases of sale through mutation accrues only upon the attestation of the mutation, which constitutes the final order completing the sale transaction. Consequently, the Court held that a suit filed within one year of the attestation of the mutation is within the period of limitation, regardless of earlier statements recorded in the mutation register. The petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commence from the date of statements recorded in the mutation register or from the date of the attestation of the mutation?
- Is the attestation of a mutation considered the final order of completion of a sale transaction for the purpose of calculating the limitation period in pre-emption suits?
- Taj Wali vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad vs United Bank Ltd., Karachi1994 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad vs Town Committee, Fatehj~NG Through Chairman And 31994 CLC 2214 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of an Octroi Inspector in the Town Committee, Fatehjang, made under the directive of the Minister for Local Government. The core legal questions concerned the validity of an appointment dictated by a Minister, the requirement of mandatory experience under the West Pakistan Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, and the legality of retroactive rule relaxation. The Court held the appointment void, ruling that statutory power must be exercised by the designated authority without external dictation. The appointment violated the mandatory five-year experience requirement, and the subsequent government order relaxing this rule was invalid because it was retroactive, lacked stated reasons, and the relevant rule did not authorize relaxation for individual cases. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the petitioner's locus standi, noting that a candidate eligible for a post has a sufficient interest to challenge an illegal appointment process. The principle established is that administrative discretion cannot be exercised under the dictates of superiors, and rule relaxation cannot retroactively validate an appointment that was illegal at its inception.
Questions settled- Can a Minister for Local Government lawfully direct the appointment of a specific individual to a municipal post?
- Does the power to relax rules under the West Pakistan Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, extend to individual cases?
- Can a government order retroactively validate an appointment that was illegal at the time it was made?
- Does a candidate eligible for a post have the locus standi to challenge the illegal appointment of another person to that post?
- Taj Muhammad vs M.B.R.1994 CLC 906 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, which appointed the respondent as the Lambardar of a specific Chak, overturning the previous appointment of the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the appointment of a Lambardar should be based on caste or sub-caste affiliations, or whether the community as a whole should be the determining factor. The High Court upheld the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue, dismissing the petition in limine. The Court held that the Collector’s initial approach, which prioritized the petitioner based on his sub-caste (Baradari) and discriminated against the respondent for belonging to a different sub-caste, was legally flawed. The Court affirmed the principle that when appointing a Lambardar, the relevant consideration is the community as a whole, not the candidate's specific caste or sub-caste. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Board of Revenue, as the apex revenue authority, acted within its jurisdiction in correcting the Collector's erroneous legal approach, and the respondent was rightly preferred due to superior education, greater landed property, and social influence.
Questions settled- Is the appointment of a Lambardar legally permissible based primarily on the candidate's caste or sub-caste?
- Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to correct a Collector's decision regarding the appointment of a Lambardar?
- Should the appointment of a Lambardar be determined by the candidate's caste or by the community as a whole?
- Taj Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Munir1994 MLD 1943 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
- Taj Muahmmad vs Rana Zafar Iqbal And Other1994 CLC 167 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
- Taj Din vs The State1994 MLD 1035 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
- Taj Company Ltd. vs Collector of Customs And Other1994 CLC 1763 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
- Taihl Ram Issardas Sadarangani and others vs Ramchand Issardas1994 SCMR 227 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-10-16Read full judgment →
- Tahir Saeed Qureshi vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1994 CLC 1930 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
- Tahir Mehmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 445 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
- Tahir Mahmood Rana vs The Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab, Lahore And 2 Other1994 CLC 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from an appellate court decision vacating a temporary injunction that had been granted to the petitioner, a Senior Tourism Officer whose services were terminated by the Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab (TDCP). The core legal question was whether a temporary injunction for reinstatement could be granted in service matters governed by the master and servant principle, and whether the courts could restore status quo ante prior to the institution of the suit. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision in limine, holding that TDCP is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance whose service rules are non-statutory, thereby attracting the law of master and servant where the remedy for wrongful termination lies in damages rather than reinstatement. Furthermore, the court held that status quo under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be maintained as of the date of the suit's institution, and interim mandatory injunctions disturbing service status should not be issued lightly without compelling circumstances.
Questions settled- Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of the Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab?
- Can a court grant a temporary injunction for reinstatement in service matters governed by non-statutory rules?
- Whether status quo under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be extended to a point in time prior to the institution of the suit?
- Is a terminated employee of a non-statutory corporate body entitled to claim reinstatement or are their remedies restricted to damages?
- Tahir Lodhi alias Shaheen vs The State1994 MLD 2053 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
- Tahir Khan vs Ghulam Hussain1994 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of leave to appeal to examine whether the revenue record had been misread in determining that the disputed land sold was agricultural land and therefore subject to pre-emption. The core legal question revolved around the correct classification of the suit land as agricultural or urban immovable property based on its nature and cultivation status at the time of sale. The trial court, the district court, and the High Court concurrently found that the land was situated outside town committee limits, was actively under cultivation with crops like mungi and wheat as evidenced by the Khasra Girdawari, and lacked urban amenities, thereby establishing its character as agricultural land. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, holding that the revenue record and oral evidence were correctly appreciated and showed continuous agricultural use. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether land shown as continuously under cultivation in the Khasra Girdawari at the time of sale qualifies as agricultural land subject to pre-emption?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the nature of land be interfered with without showing a misreading of the record?
- Does the presence of isolated structures or surrounding commercial facilities alter the agricultural character of land for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Tahir Iftikhar Ahmad vs Speaker, Provincial Assembly And Others1994 PLC (C.S) 892 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
- Tahir Hussain Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
- Syeda Abida Hussain vs Tribunal for Na.69, Jhangiv and 2 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that upheld the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for a National Assembly seat. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a former Ambassador appointed on contract, was disqualified under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution for failing to observe a two-year cooling-off period after leaving the 'service of Pakistan.' The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the disqualification. The Court held that the definition of 'service of Pakistan' under Article 260(1) of the Constitution is broad and encompasses any post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, regardless of whether the appointment was contractual or governed by standard civil service rules. Consequently, an Ambassador holds an office in the 'service of Pakistan,' and the petitioner, having not completed the mandatory two-year waiting period after relinquishing her post, was ineligible to contest the election. The Court rejected the argument that contractual employment falls outside this constitutional definition or under the contract-related disqualification clause.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'service of Pakistan' under Article 260(1) of the Constitution include posts filled through special contract?
- Is an Ambassador considered to be in the 'service of Pakistan' for the purpose of election disqualification under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution?
- Does the disqualification under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution apply to a person whose employment was governed by a contract rather than standard civil service rules?
- Syeda Abida Hussain vs Na.69, Jhang IV And 2 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper for the National Assembly election. The Returning Officer and the Election Tribunal disqualified the petitioner under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, holding that a period of two years had not elapsed since she ceased to be in the service of Pakistan, having served as an Ambassador on contract. The core legal question was whether a person appointed to a post in connection with the affairs of the Federation under a special contract, rather than regular civil service rules, falls within the 'service of Pakistan' for the purpose of electoral disqualification under Article 63(1)(k). The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the post of an Ambassador is a post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, thereby falling within the constitutional definition of the 'service of Pakistan' regardless of the contractual nature of the appointment. The key principle laid down is that the method of appointment or the existence of a special contract does not exclude a government employee from the 'service of Pakistan' if the post is connected with the affairs of the Federation or a Province under Article 260(1).
Questions settled- Does a person appointed to a government post under a special contract fall within the 'service of Pakistan' under Article 260(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether the two-year restriction under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 applies to individuals whose government service was founded on a contract?
- Does a person need to be a 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act to be considered in the service of Pakistan for electoral disqualification purposes?
- Syed Zafar Ali Shah vs Federal Government of Pakistan And Another1994 CLC 5 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the authority of the Chairman of Senate to act as President of Pakistan and perform presidential functions following the resignation of the President, without taking a fresh oath of office as prescribed for the President in the Third Schedule of the Constitution. The core legal question addressed was whether the Chairman of Senate, upon stepping in to act as President under Article 49 of the Constitution, is constitutionally required to make a fresh oath of office as President before entering upon that office. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Acting President exercises all the powers of the elected President whose vacancy he fills, and that the various provisions of the Constitution must be harmonized to avoid conflict. The key principle laid down is that an Acting President assumes the full powers and functions incidental to the office of the President under the constitutional framework.
Questions settled- Whether the Chairman of Senate acting as President under Article 49 of the Constitution of Pakistan is required to take a fresh oath of office as President?
- Can an Acting President exercise all the powers and perform the functions of the elected President?
- Does a person entering upon the office of President under Article 49 need to make the oath set out in the Third Schedule of the Constitution?
- Syed Wasey Zafar and 4 others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance and others1994 PLD Supreme Court 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the "Yellow Cab Scheme," a government initiative facilitating vehicle imports for public transport, which was subsequently modified by the caretaker government, leading to disputes over customs duties and the delivery of imported vehicles. The core legal questions were whether the Supreme Court could entertain these petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and whether the government's obstruction of vehicle delivery violated fundamental rights. The Court held that while claims regarding the 90% loan component were purely contractual and not maintainable under Article 184(3), claims concerning the freedom of trade and property rights were maintainable. Applying Section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the Court ruled that property in the vehicles passed to the importers upon shipment. Consequently, the government could not arbitrarily obstruct the disposal of these vehicles. The key principle laid down is that while contractual disputes are generally outside the scope of Article 184(3), actions by the state that interfere with vested property rights and freedom of trade are justiciable under the Court's original jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Are disputes regarding the enforcement of contractual loan obligations maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- When does the property in unascertained goods pass to the buyer under Section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?
- Does government obstruction of the delivery of imported vehicles constitute a violation of the right to trade and property under Articles 18 and 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Syed Wasey Zafar And 4 Other vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Finance And Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns Constitution petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging the government's discontinuation of the "Yellow Cab Scheme" and subsequent obstruction of the delivery and customs clearance of imported vehicles. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of these petitions under Article 184(3) and whether the government's actions violated the petitioners' fundamental rights to trade and property. The Court held that while claims regarding bank loan disbursements were purely contractual and outside the scope of Article 184(3), the obstruction of vehicles where property had already passed to the importers under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, constituted a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 18 and 23 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court directed the release of the vehicles, subject to specific conditions regarding duty payments and the rights of the original applicants. The judgment establishes that once goods are unconditionally appropriated to a contract, property passes to the buyer, and state interference with such property rights, absent lawful justification, infringes upon protected fundamental rights.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to enforce purely contractual obligations regarding bank loans?
- When does the property in unascertained goods pass to the buyer under the Sale of Goods Act 1930?
- Does government obstruction of imported vehicles, where property rights have vested, constitute a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 18 and 23 of the Constitution?
- Can the government unilaterally alter the duty structure for goods already imported under a validly established letter of credit?
- Syed Usman Ali Shah And Others vs Muhammad Idrees And Other1994 CLC 1013 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
- Syed Tehreem Abbas and anothers vs Returning Officer, PP98, Mandi1994 MLD 439 · Election Tribunal · 1993-09-09Read full judgment →
- Syed Tarab Arif Fatimi vs President of Pakistan And Others.1994 PLC (C.S.) 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The present civil appeals are directed against the judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' service appeals on the ground that they were not civil servants and their appeals were incompetent. Leave to appeal was granted in light of the Supreme Court's prior ruling in Faseehuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt holding that Airports Security Force officers remained civil servants. Subsequently, the Airports Security Force (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, was promulgated, barring courts and tribunals from reviewing orders passed under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The core legal question concerned the effect and applicability of this new statutory amendment on pending service appeals. The Court held, with the concession of the Attorney-General, that the amendment lacked retrospective operation and did not apply to cases where the Tribunal had declined jurisdiction prior to its enactment. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's judgments, and remanded the matters for decision on merits, affirming that the ratio of Faseehuddin's case governed the proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether officers and members of the Airports Security Force are civil servants for the purpose of approaching the Service Tribunal?
- Does the Airports Security Force (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, operate retrospectively to bar pending appeals?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed by Airports Security Force personnel against retirement and termination?
- Syed Tarab Arif Fatimi vs President of Pakistan and others1994 PLD Supreme Court 562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil appeals against judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellants' service appeals on the ground that they were not civil servants and thus lacked standing. The core legal question was whether officers and members of the Airports Security Force retained their status as civil servants following amendments to the Airports Security Force Act, 1975, and whether the Federal Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate their service grievances. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent set in Faseehuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt and others, held that members of the Airports Security Force remained civil servants despite the amendments introduced by the Airports Security Force (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984. Furthermore, the Court noted that the subsequent Airports Security Force (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, which sought to oust the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals, could not operate retrospectively to affect the pending appeals. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgments and remanded the cases for decision on their merits, reaffirming the applicability of the established legal position regarding the civil servant status of these personnel.
Questions settled- Do officers and members of the Airports Security Force retain their status as civil servants despite the amendments made by the Airports Security Force (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984?
- Can the Airports Security Force (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, which restricts the jurisdiction of tribunals, be applied retrospectively to pending appeals?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals filed by members of the Airports Security Force regarding their retirement or termination?
- Syed Tarab Arif Fatimi vs President of Pakistan And Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from two civil appeals filed with leave of the Supreme Court against the judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the appellants' appeals against retirement and termination of service on the ground that they were not civil servants. The core legal question was whether officers and members of the Airports Security Force are civil servants entitled to approach the Service Tribunal, and the effect of subsequent statutory amendments on the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held, following its earlier precedent in Faseehuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt, that the appellants remained civil servants and that the subsequent amendment barring jurisdiction could not operate retrospectively to affect pending matters where the Tribunal had declined jurisdiction prior to the amendment. The appeals were accordingly allowed, the Tribunal's judgments set aside, and the cases remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether officers and members of the Airports Security Force are civil servants entitled to approach the Service Tribunal?
- Does the Airports Security Force (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 operate retrospectively to bar jurisdiction in pending matters?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeals against retirement and termination of service filed by members of the Airports Security Force?
- Syed Sultan Ali Shah and others vs Abdur Rehman and others1994 PLD Peshawar 253 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
- Syed Sultan Ali Shah And Other vs Abdur Rehman And Other1994 PLD Peshawar 253 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
- Syed Raheem And Other vs Messrs Industrial Chemical Limit Ed And Others1994 PLC 265 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
- Syed Qasim Ali Shah vs The Director Food, Punjab, Lahore And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal. The appellant, a Foodgrains Inspector, had been convicted by a Summary Military Court for misappropriation of government sugar and sentenced to a fine. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service without a show-cause notice under rule 9(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, as it stood prior to its 1982 amendment. The core legal question was whether a civil servant convicted on a criminal charge is entitled to a show-cause notice or a hearing before being dismissed under the unamended rule 9. The Supreme Court held that under the unamended rule 9, an opportunity of hearing is specifically excluded where a civil servant is dismissed on the ground of conduct which led to a sentence of fine or imprisonment, as the criminal trial already affords adequate opportunity to contest the charges. The Court concluded that as long as the conviction stands, no separate show-cause notice is required under the unamended rule, and dismissed the appeal, laying down that disciplinary removal following a criminal conviction operates by its own force without requiring additional procedural hearings.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant convicted of a criminal charge is entitled to a show-cause notice before dismissal under unamended rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
- Does the principle of natural justice require a separate departmental hearing when a civil servant's dismissal is based on conduct that led to a criminal conviction?
- Is rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, an enabling provision or does it apply of its own force?
- Syed Qasim Ali Shah vs The Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1994 SCMR 1001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal against his dismissal from service. The appellant, a Foodgrains Inspector, was convicted by a Summary Military Court for misappropriation of government sugar and sentenced to a fine. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service without a show-cause notice under rule 9(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, as it stood prior to its amendment on 1-4-1982. The core legal question was whether a civil servant convicted of a criminal charge leading to a sentence of fine or imprisonment is entitled to a show-cause notice or an opportunity of hearing under the unamended rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, before being dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank. The Supreme Court held that the unamended rule 9 specifically excludes the right of hearing and does not require a show-cause notice or inquiry when an employee's dismissal is based on conduct leading to a criminal conviction, as the trial itself affords sufficient opportunity of defense. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant convicted of a criminal offense is entitled to a show-cause notice under unamended rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 before dismissal?
- Does the principle of natural justice require a separate departmental hearing when an employee has already been tried and convicted by a competent court?
- Whether rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 is an enabling provision or applies of its own force?
- Syed Qamar Ahmad and another vs Anjum Zafar and others1994 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines the maintainability of a constitutional petition filed against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, where an alternative remedy of appeal was available. The appellant landlord had filed an ejectment petition against the respondents' predecessor, who denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller decided a preliminary issue of tenancy in favor of the landlord. Instead of filing an appeal under section 24 of the Act, the respondents challenged the order via a writ petition, which the High Court accepted. The Supreme Court held that where a statute provides an adequate, convenient, and effective remedy of appeal, the High Court should not bypass the special statute to exercise judicial review. On merits, the Supreme Court ruled that secondary evidence of a lost rent deed was rightly admitted by the Rent Controller and that a previous statement in a plaint could not be used in evidence against a witness without complying with section 145 of the Evidence Act by confronting him with it. The appeal was accordingly accepted, the High Court's judgment set aside, and the Rent Controller's order restored.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an order of a Rent Controller when an adequate and efficacious remedy of appeal is available under the statute?
- Under what circumstances is secondary evidence admissible for proving a lost rent deed in rent proceedings?
- Can a previous statement embodied in a document be used as legal evidence against a witness without complying with the requirements of section 145 of the Evidence Act?
- Is a party who approbates and re-approbates entitled to discretionary relief under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Syed Qalabihussain vs Administratorgeneral, Auqaf and others1994 PLD Lahore 241 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
- Syed Qaiser Hussain vs L.M.C.1994 CLC 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
- Syed Qaim Ali Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 49 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-12Read full judgment →
- Syed Nazir Hussain vs Fazal Rao1994 CLC 641 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
- Syed Nadeem Hassan Kazmi vs Disciplinary Committee1994 MLD 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
- Syed Mujahid Ali vs The Secretary, Education Department And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 897 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-12-27Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Yousaf Shah vs Azad Government of the State of Jammuand Kashmir Through Chief Secretary And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1214 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Yousaf Shah vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir And Another1994 CLC 188 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-10-09Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Raza vs General Manager, WAPDA and others1994 MLD 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the appointment of Accounts Assistants in the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) on the grounds that the Selection Committee unlawfully altered the recruitment criteria and ratio of marks for the written test and interview prescribed by the Authority. The core legal questions involved whether a selection committee or subordinate officer can vary the recruitment policy and ratio of marks laid down by WAPDA, and whether reserving an excessively high percentage of marks for interview is discriminatory and arbitrary. The Lahore High Court held that neither the Selection Committee nor the Manager (Finance) had the power to alter the ratio of marks established by the Authority under the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, and that reserving 50% of the marks for an interview lacking recorded reasons is arbitrary and unfair. The court laid down the principle that recruitment authorities must strictly adhere to prescribed policy guidelines and that disproportionately high interview marks, which invite subjective assessment and misuse of power, are unsustainable under the law.
Questions settled- Can a Selection Committee or Manager alter the ratio of marks for a written test and interview prescribed in recruitment policy guidelines issued by WAPDA?
- Whether reserving 50% of total selection marks for an interview is discriminatory and unfair?
- Does the Water and Power Development Authority Act empower subordinate bodies to vary the terms and procedure of appointment prescribed by the Authority?
- Syed Muhammad Nazir Shah vs Yasin1994 MLD 819 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Asadurrehman vs The University of Punjab through ViceChancellor and 2 others1994 MLD 714 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-21Read full judgment →
- Syed Minhajuddin vs Syed Beleighuddin through Legal Heirs and 101994 SCMR 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeal brought by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a Lahore High Court Division Bench judgment which affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's suit for partition and rendition of accounts regarding inherited property. The dispute centered on alleged transfers, gift/tamleek, and family settlements concerning the estate of deceased predecessor Syed Aziz-Uddin. During the hearing, the parties arrived at a comprehensive consensus to pool the entirety of the predecessor's estate as of May 1951 and divide it strictly amongst all legal heirs under Islamic personal law (Shariat). The parties further carried out partition by metes and bounds and submitted an agreed signed distribution report. The Supreme Court accepted the mutual settlement, incorporated the signed report as part of its final judgment and decree, declared the parties exclusive owners of their allotted portions, and exercised its inherent powers to waive the outstanding debt of the Custodian.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court exercise its inherent powers under Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules to waive a debt owed to the Custodian upon a comprehensive family settlement?
- Can a disputed inheritance claim be resolved by incorporating a mutually agreed partition report by metes and bounds into the final decree of the Supreme Court?
- Syed Mazhar-Ul-Hassan Hamdani And Another vs Zubina Nayyar And 101994 CLC 1428 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the legality of nominating a student to a reserved special seat in a medical college when that student possessed sufficient merit to qualify for a general quota seat. The core legal question was whether a candidate, eligible for a general quota seat based on merit, retains the option to choose a special seat reserved for educationally backward areas, thereby depriving other candidates of that concession. The Supreme Court held that the Nomination Board is obligated to prepare a merit list for general quota seats first. A candidate qualifying on merit for a general seat cannot opt for a special seat, as such seats are intended to support students who cannot otherwise secure admission on merit. Furthermore, the Court determined that an alternative remedy of appeal to the Government was not efficacious where the Government actively supported the appellant's position. The Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment on merits but modified the order regarding costs, ruling that the respondent was not entitled to costs in the circumstances.
Questions settled- Can a candidate eligible for a general quota seat opt for a special seat reserved for educationally backward areas?
- Is a writ petition maintainable when an alternative remedy exists but is not efficacious due to the government's stance?
- Does the Nomination Board have the discretion to ignore a candidate's merit ranking when allocating special seats?
- Syed Maskin Shah and anothers vs The State and 2 others1994 MLD 190 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Mahmood Ul Hassan Zaidi And Others vs Ch. Muhammad Ashraf1994 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Syed Javed Iqbal Bokhari vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1578 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
- Syed Israr Ali Chishti vs The Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary1994 PLC (C.S.) 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a service dispute concerning the seniority and promotion of an Assistant in the Directorate-General of Immigration and Passport. The petitioner, having opted for the post of Examiner (BPS-12), subsequently refused promotion to the post of Assistant Incharge (BPS-15) for fourteen months. Consequently, the Department promoted junior officials who accepted the promotion. The core legal question was whether the petitioner remained entitled to promotion as Superintendent (BPS-16) based on his original seniority as an Assistant, despite his change of cadre and refusal of the intermediate promotion. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s claim was untenable. The Court affirmed that promotion is not an automatic right derived from a selection grade but requires selection by a competent authority based on comparative suitability. Furthermore, the Court established that a civil servant who voluntarily opts for a different cadre and declines a promotion offered by the department cannot subsequently claim seniority over those who accepted the promotion and fulfilled the requirements of the higher post.
Questions settled- Does the grant of a selection grade to a civil servant automatically entitle them to promotion to a higher post?
- Can a civil servant who opts for a different cadre and declines a promotion claim seniority over those who accepted the promotion?
- Is promotion to a higher grade subject to the discretion and selection of a competent authority?
- Syed Israr Ali Chishti vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1994 PLD Supreme Court 564 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter concerns a dispute over seniority and promotion rights within the Directorate-General, Immigration and Passport. The core legal question was whether a civil servant who voluntarily opts for a different cadre (Examiner) retains a right to promotion in their original cadre (Assistant) while refusing offered promotions in the new cadre, and whether the department acts lawfully by promoting junior officials who accept such positions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Service Tribunal's decision. The Court held that promotion is not an automatic right but requires selection by a competent authority based on comparative suitability. By opting for the Examiner cadre, the petitioner moved to a different service stream. His refusal to accept the promotion to Assistant Incharge (BPS-15) for fourteen months justified the department's decision to promote the next eligible senior official. The key principle laid down is that promotion to a higher post is not automatic and involves an element of selection; furthermore, a civil servant cannot claim seniority or promotion rights in an original cadre after voluntarily opting for a different cadre.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant retain a right to promotion in an original cadre after voluntarily opting for a different cadre?
- Is promotion to a higher grade an automatic right or subject to selection by a competent authority?
- Can a department promote a junior official if a senior official refuses or evades a promotional offer?
- Syed Israr Ali Chishti vs The Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary1994 PLD Supreme Court 564 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a service appeal by the Service Tribunal regarding the petitioner's seniority and promotion rights. The petitioner, an Assistant, challenged the departmental promotion of his juniors to the post of Superintendent (BPS-16), arguing that his selection grade in BPS-15 entitled him to promotion. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim promotion to a higher post based on a selection grade granted in a different cadre, and whether the department's decision to bypass him for promotion after he declined the post of Assistant Incharge (BPS-15) was legally valid. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having opted for the post of Examiner (BPS-12), moved into a different cadre and could not claim seniority or promotion rights based on his previous cadre. The Court affirmed that promotion is not automatic but requires selection by a competent authority based on suitability. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the department acted within its authority and that the petitioner's refusal of promotion justified the promotion of his juniors.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim promotion to a higher post based on a selection grade granted in a different cadre?
- Is promotion to a higher post automatic upon the grant of a selection grade?
- Does a civil servant who opts for a different cadre retain seniority rights in their original cadre?
- Syed Hassan Mahmood vs Bashir Ahmad and 6 others1994 SCMR 1624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a pre-emption suit by the High Court. The petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption on 15-10-1980, which was dismissed by the trial court in 1983, with subsequent appeals also failing. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's suit, dismissed prior to the target date of 31-7-1986, could still be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, pursuant to Section 34 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents where exceptional circumstances, such as remand orders, existed. Relying on the principle established in the Full Bench judgment of Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287), the Court affirmed that only decrees obtained before 31-7-1986 could be defended under the old law. If no decree was obtained before that target date in any forum, the proceedings could not be defended under the repealed law. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was upheld, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption suit pending or dismissed before the target date of 31-7-1986 be governed by the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Does a decree obtained before 31-7-1986 allow for the defense of pre-emption proceedings under the old law?
- Is a rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 considered a decree?
- Syed Hassan Ali vs Muhammad Haneef1994 PLD Supreme Court 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that set aside an ejectment order granted to the appellant under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The core legal questions concerned whether the eviction application was time-barred, whether the landlord was required to prove bona fide need, and whether the landlord’s occupation of other premises disqualified him under Section 14(2). The Supreme Court held that Section 14 does not prescribe a specific limitation period for filing applications. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a landlord invoking Section 14 is not required to prove bona fide or prima facie need, distinguishing this from Section 15 proceedings. Regarding disqualification, the Court held that Section 14(2) requires a nexus between the premises occupied by the landlord and the premises sought to be vacated; mere occupation of residential premises does not disqualify a landlord from seeking commercial premises. The Court affirmed that substantial compliance with notice requirements is sufficient. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Rent Controller’s ejectment order was restored.
Questions settled- Does Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 prescribe a specific limitation period for filing an eviction application?
- Must a landlord seeking eviction under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 prove bona fide personal need?
- Does the occupation of a residential building by a landlord disqualify them from seeking eviction of a commercial premises under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does a technical defect in a notice under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 invalidate the eviction proceedings if there is substantial compliance?
- Syed Hassan Aji vs Muhammad Haneef1994 PLD Supreme Court 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns an ejectment order under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, initiated by a landlord who had attained the age of sixty years. The High Court had set aside the Rent Controller's order, citing delay in filing the application and the landlord's occupation of other premises. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Section 14 does not prescribe a specific limitation period for filing such applications. The Court clarified that unlike Section 15, Section 14 does not require the landlord to prove 'bona fide need' but rather to satisfy the statutory conditions. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 14(2) requires a functional nexus between the landlord's occupied premises and the premises sought for eviction; mere ownership or occupation of residential space in the same building does not disqualify the landlord. Finally, the Court affirmed that substantial compliance with notice requirements is sufficient to validate proceedings. The judgment restores the Rent Controller's ejectment order, emphasizing the legislative intent to provide summary relief to specific classes of landlords.
Questions settled- Does Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 prescribe a specific period of limitation for filing an ejectment application?
- Is a landlord required to prove 'bona fide need' when seeking eviction under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does the occupation of a residential building by a landlord in the same locality automatically disqualify them from seeking eviction under Section 14(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- What constitutes sufficient compliance with the notice requirements under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Syed Haq Nawaz vs Mst. Sakina And 9 Other1994 PLD Quetta 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
- Syed Hameed Ali Shah vs Shaista Sultana And 2 Other1994 CLC 81 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Ghaffar Hussain and 3 others vs The Commander (Commanding1994 MLD 2010 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-02Read full judgment →
- Syed Fazal Abbas vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding the removal of the petitioner, a Cargo Assistant, from the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation under Section 10(2) of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956, following the recovery of narcotics smuggled on a PIA flight during his duty hours. The core legal question was whether the Corporation was justified in removing the employee without a formal full-dress inquiry and whether the action violated due process or statutory provisions. The Supreme Court held that the Corporation was fully empowered under Section 10(2) of the Act to remove an employee without assigning reasons after providing an opportunity of being heard and ninety days' notice or pay in lieu thereof, and that a full-dress inquiry was not a prerequisite when taking action for the public good, particularly given the gravity of narcotics smuggling. The key principles laid down are that summary removal under Section 10(2) overrides ordinary service rules and regulations, does not require a formal disciplinary inquiry, and will not be interfered with on technical grounds when undertaken bona fide for national and public interest.
Questions settled- Whether the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation can remove an employee under Section 10(2) of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 without holding a formal full-dress inquiry?
- Does an action taken under Section 10(2) of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 require the assignment of reasons for removal?
- Whether the removal of an employee for suspected involvement in narcotics smuggling under statutory powers can be set aside on technical grounds?
- Does a petition against the service tribunal's order upholding removal under Section 10(2) involve a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Syed Faqir vs Deputy Director of Archaeology, Sub-Regional Office, Peshawar And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 72 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →