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.
- Pakistan Diploma Engineers Federation (Registered) Through Its1994 PLC (C.S.) 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved multiple appeals concerning the eligibility of diploma-holding engineers in Pakistan Railways for promotion to Grade-18 and the applicability of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 to government-employed engineers. The core legal question was whether diploma engineers could be debarred from promotion based on their lack of registration with the Pakistan Engineering Council, and whether the Act's penal provisions regarding 'professional engineering work' applied to government employees. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the specific grievances regarding promotion had been rendered moot or resolved by subsequent administrative actions. Regarding the interpretation of the Act, the Court affirmed the High Court's view that while the Act does not mandate registration for all government-employed engineers merely by virtue of their employment, the Act's prohibitions and penalties apply to any person—whether in private or government service—who undertakes 'professional engineering work' as defined by the statute without being registered. The key principle established is that the Act regulates the nature of the work performed rather than the status of the employer, and government departments cannot assign professional engineering tasks to unregistered persons without attracting statutory penalties.
Questions settled- Does the Pakistan Engineering Council Act 1976 apply to engineers employed in government departments?
- Can a government department assign professional engineering work to an unregistered engineer without violating the Pakistan Engineering Council Act 1976?
- Is a registered body under the Societies Act 1860 considered an aggrieved person for the purposes of a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Pakistan Diploma Engineers Federation (Registered) through its1994 SCMR 1807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court heard three appeals concerning the promotion of Diploma Engineers in Pakistan Railways to Grade-18. The central question was whether these engineers could be debarred from promotion due to non-registration with the Pakistan Engineering Council, despite meeting other eligibility criteria. Two appeals were dismissed as withdrawn after the appellants acknowledged their apprehension regarding promotion was incorrect. The third appeal challenged the High Court's interpretation of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the Act's provisions, particularly Section 27, apply to all individuals undertaking "professional engineering work" as defined in the Act, irrespective of their employment in private or governmental organizations. The Court clarified that while government can appoint non-graduate engineers, if the post involves professional engineering work, such appointment attracts penalties under the Act. However, merely possessing an engineering qualification and being employed in a job requiring engineering skill does not automatically necessitate registration under the Act unless they undertake "professional engineering work" as defined.
Questions settled- Can Diploma Engineers be debarred from promotion to Grade-18 in Pakistan Railways due to non-registration with the Pakistan Engineering Council?
- Does the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 apply to engineers employed in government departments?
- What constitutes "professional engineering work" under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976?
- Is a body registered under the Societies Act, 1860, an "aggrieved person" under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for grievances related to its members' terms and conditions?
- Can a government department appoint a non-graduate engineer to a post involving professional engineering work without attracting penalties under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976?
- Pakistan Bachelor of Technology Engineers Council through Chairman and anothers vs The University of Engineering and Technology Lahore through ViceChancellor and 4 others1994 SCMR 1789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Pakistan Bachelor of Technology Engineers Council against the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore. The core legal question involves the determination of a specific point of law that has previously been raised in other pending matters before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Upon consideration, the Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to ensure consistency in judicial determination, as the same legal issue is currently under review in other cases, specifically Muhammad Sadiq v. University of Sindh (C.P. No. 264-K of 1989) and Absar Hussain v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad (C.P. No. 103-K of 1989), where leave to appeal has already been granted. The key principle laid down is that where identical questions of law are pending adjudication in other matters where leave has been granted, it is appropriate to grant leave in the instant case to maintain uniformity and avoid conflicting decisions on the same legal question.
Questions settled- Is it appropriate to grant leave to appeal when the same question of law is already pending in other cases where leave has been granted?
- Pakistan Atomic Energy Commissioner vs M.S. Khalid1994 PLD Karachi 317 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
- Packages Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And Others1994 PLC 273 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
- P.Ia. Corporation vs Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) and 2 others1994 PLD Karachi 32 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
- P.Ia. Corporation vs Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) And 2 Other1994 PLD Karachi 32 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
- P vs vK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 560 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
- P vs 'R'K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 236 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
- Oriental Cotton Corporation and Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax ,1994 PTD 427 · Calcutta High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- Orient Match Company Limited, Shahdara, Lahore Through Managing1994PLC 517 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Office Reference No.259 of 1974 Etc. vs Not1994 PLD Karachi 258 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
- Office Reference N0.259 of 1974 Etc. vs Not1994 PLD Karachi 258 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
- Oasim vs Fateh Sher Through Legal Heirs And Another1994 CLC 467 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- O.K. Industries vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 444 · Kerala High Court · 1992-12-04Read full judgment →
- Nusratullah vs Quresh AhmedK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 359 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
- Nusrat alias Nusree vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 93 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 by a Special Court established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, for being in possession of an unlicensed Klashnikov rifle and ammunition. The appellant contended that the trial was coram non judice as the recovered weapon was neither a Klashnikov nor an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, which are prerequisites to invoke the jurisdiction of the Special Court. To resolve this, the High Court summoned an armourer as a firearms expert under additional evidence, who confirmed the weapon was an ordinary rifle. The High Court held that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence. The conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial before a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that courts must not act as passive spectators but have an active obligation under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 to unearth the truth, especially on jurisdictional facts.
Questions settled- Whether a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 has jurisdiction to try an offence involving a weapon that is neither automatic nor semi-automatic?
- Can the testimony of ordinary police officers, who are not firearms experts, be sufficient to establish the specific nature and classification of a recovered weapon?
- What is the duty of a trial court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 when the prosecution fails to produce expert evidence on a fact that determines the court's jurisdiction?
- Nowsher vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 102 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
- Novak Eva Bermadett and others vs The StatePTCL 1994 CL. 352 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-04Read full judgment →
- Not vs Not1994 PTD (Trib.) 83 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
- Not vs Not1994 PTD (Trib.) 1427 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
- Noora Khan vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1511 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-05-12Read full judgment →
- Noor-Ul-Hassan vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 93) · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
- Noor Nawaz Zafar vs Managing Director (Power), WAPDA, Lahore And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 868 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
- Noor Nabi vs The State1994 MLD 869 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 556 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Mst. Zainab1994 MLD 434 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-18Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Additional District Judge, Chakwal and 7 others1994 PLD Lahore 170 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Additional District Judge, Chakwal And 7 Other1994 PLD Lahore 170 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad Khan and 3 others vs Habibullah Khan and 27 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenged the validity of gifts made by the deceased, Muhammad Aslam Khan, in favor of his grandchildren, which were contested by his collaterals. The appellants alleged that the donor lacked mental capacity, acted under undue influence, and that the gifts were made during Marz-ul-Maut and violated the doctrine of Mushaa. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the donor was of sound mind and the gifts were voluntary. Regarding Marz-ul-Maut, the Court found the criteria for death-bed illness were not satisfied. Crucially, the Court affirmed that under Islamic law, a preferential gift to some heirs, while potentially sinful, is not void. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the doctrine of Mushaa—the gift of undivided property—is an archaic principle that should be narrowly applied; such gifts are not void, and any irregularity is cured once possession is delivered and shares are ascertainable. The Court emphasized that Islamic jurisprudence permits such alienations, provided the donor has divested ownership.
Questions settled- Can a Muslim validly make a gift of property to some heirs while excluding others?
- Is a gift of undivided property (Mushaa) void under Islamic law?
- What are the criteria for determining if a gift was made during Marz-ul-Maut?
- Does a gift of property to multiple donees without prior partition constitute a void transaction?
- Noor Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Siddique and others1994 SCMR 1460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a pre-emption suit concerning land purchased by the appellants in 1971. The respondents filed a suit for pre-emption in 1972, asserting a superior right of pre-emption based on their ownership in the estate. The appellants contested this, claiming they were tenants of the land, but failed to substantiate this assertion with documentary evidence. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants attempted to introduce a new plea that they had acquired ownership rights in the estate prior to the filing of the suit. The Supreme Court observed that this plea was not raised in the written statement and was therefore impermissible at such a late stage. Finding no error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the respondents' superior pre-emptive right and the appellants' failure to prove their status as tenants, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that findings based on pleadings and evidence will not be disturbed.
Questions settled- Can a party introduce a new plea of ownership in a pre-emption suit for the first time during appeal proceedings?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the superiority of pre-emptive rights subject to interference in a Supreme Court appeal?
- Does the failure to raise a specific defense in the written statement preclude a party from relying on it during subsequent appellate stages?
- Noor Muhammad and anothers vs Muhammad Abdullah and another1994 SCMR 2027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition seeking review of a judgment previously rendered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No. 1057 of 1990, dated 30-1-1993. The petitioner sought an adjournment of the review proceedings citing the counsel's medical inability to travel from Lahore to Islamabad due to backache. The Supreme Court, exercising its jurisdiction to review its own judgments, proceeded to examine the merits of the review petition despite the request for adjournment. Upon careful consideration of the grounds presented in the review petition and a re-examination of the original judgment sought to be reviewed, the Court determined that the petitioner failed to establish any valid or sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the well-considered judgment previously delivered. Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the earlier decision. The petition for review was accordingly dismissed. The judgment reinforces the principle that a review petition cannot be entertained in the absence of substantial and proper grounds demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient cause justifying a reconsideration of the final order.
Questions settled- Does a medical condition of counsel constitute sufficient ground for reviewing a final judgment of the Supreme Court?
- What is the standard for entertaining a review petition against a final judgment of the Supreme Court?
- Can a review petition be dismissed on merits despite a request for adjournment?
- Noor Muhammad And 6 Other vs KhameesahK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 571 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-16Read full judgment →
- Noor Muha Mad Khan And , Other vs Habibullah Khan And 27 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court dismissing a civil suit filed by collaterals challenging various gift deeds executed by one Muhammad Aslam Khan in favor of his grandchildren and daughters. The core legal questions involved whether the gifts were vitiated by duress, coercion, and lack of mental capacity; whether they were void under the doctrine of Marz-ul-Maut (death-bed illness); whether a Muslim can validly gift property to some heirs while excluding others; and whether the gifts were invalid under the doctrine of Mushaa. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the donor's sound mental state and the absence of duress or Marz-ul-Maut were unexceptionable. The Court further laid down that under Islamic law, a preferential gift of property excluding certain heirs is not void, and that the rigid doctrine of Mushaa is unadapted to a progressive society and does not render a joint gift void where shares are specified and possession is delivered. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a gift of immovable property made by a Muslim in favor of some heirs while excluding others is void under Islamic law?
- Does the doctrine of Marz-ul-Maut invalidate gifts made by a person suffering from a prolonged illness without the immediate apprehension of death?
- Whether a joint gift of property capable of partition in favor of multiple donees is void or merely irregular under the doctrine of Mushaa?
- What are the essential factors to determine whether a transaction was executed under Marz-ul-Maut?
- Noor Mohammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-24Read full judgment →
- Noor Mohammad vs Additional District Judge Aud OtherK.L.R.1994 Civil Cases 281 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Noor Mahi vs Border Area Committee And Other.1994 CLC 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad vs Meraj Bibi1994 C L. C 479 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
- Nizamuddin Farid Ul Haq vs The Collector of Customs Appraisement, Customs House,Karachi And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 142 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nizamuddin and others vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 517 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-09Read full judgment →
- Nizamuddin And Other vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 517 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-09Read full judgment →
- Nizam Din and others vs Settlement Commissioner and others1994 MLD 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-17Read full judgment →
- Nishat Tek Limited, Lahore vs The Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Education,Islamabad And 3 Other1994 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
- Nishat Tek Limited, Lahore vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Education, Islamabad and 3 others1994 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
- Nishat Tek Limited Nishat House 53-Lawrence Road, Lahore vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Education Ministry of Education, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad, And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 111 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nishat Mills Ltd. vs The Central Board of Revenue through Member1994 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
- Nishat Mills Ltd. vs The Central Board of Revenue Through Member1994 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
- Nishat Mills Ltd. Nishatabad, Faisalabad vs The Federation of Pakistan1994 PLD Lahore 175 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
- Nishat Mills Limited, Faisalabad vs The Central Board Of Revenue Through Member (Judicial) And OtherPTCL 1994 CL. 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad vs The State1994 SCMR 1679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Judge in Chambers upholding his conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, along with a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question before the court was whether the recovery of tainted bribe money from a file accessible to multiple persons, coupled with a prior altercation between the petitioner and the complainant, warranted interference with the conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention regarding accessibility of the file and the alleged clandestine placement of the tainted money by the complainant required consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that the petitioner's existing bail shall continue during the pendency of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether conviction for accepting a bribe can be sustained when the tainted money is recovered from a file accessible to other persons?
- Does a prior altercation between the complainant and the accused provide sufficient ground for granting leave to appeal in a corruption case?
- Niaz Mohyuddin And Others vs Muhammad Yar And Other1994 CLC 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which had decreed the respondent's suit for confirmation of possession and declaration of rights over a plot based on an unregistered sale agreement. The core legal questions concerned whether the suit was maintainable in its present form given the unregistered nature of the document, and whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's belated application to produce a handwriting expert. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of the sale receipt, supported by consistent testimony of attesting witnesses, could not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. The Court further held that the suit was maintainable because the plaintiff was using the doctrine of part performance as a shield to defend existing possession rather than as a sword to attack title. The key principle laid down is that a transferee in possession under an unregistered agreement to sell may maintain a suit for confirmation of possession under the doctrine of part performance.
Questions settled- Can a transferee in possession under an unregistered agreement to sell maintain a suit for confirmation of possession?
- Does the doctrine of part performance allow a plaintiff to use an unregistered contract as a shield to defend possession?
- Can a court in revisional jurisdiction interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of a document?
- Niaz Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Case 236 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali vs Secretary, Industries, Punjab1994 MLD 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
- Niamat Ali and anothers vs Additional District Judge and others1994 MLD 518 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
- New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. vs National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
- New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. vs National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi through President1994 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
- New Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director vs The Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi and 2 others1994 PLD Karachi 286 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
- New Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Director vs The Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi And 2 Other1994 PLD Karachi 286 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
- New Electronics (Pvt) Ltd. vs The Collector of CustomsK.L.R. 1994 Tax and Custom Cases 10 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nematullah vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1994 CLC 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Nazir Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 118 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-23Read full judgment →
- Nazir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 91 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
- Nazir Begum and 5 others vs Fazal Dad and 2 others1994 SCMR 1879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The respondent purchased agricultural land in 1968, and the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest filed a pre-emption suit in 1969 based on being a collateral and co-sharer. Although the suit was initially decreed ex parte in 1969, that decree was subsequently set aside. In 1988, the trial court dismissed the suit, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah and Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali, which established that no pre-emption decree could be passed after 31-7-1986. The petitioners' subsequent appeal and revision petition were dismissed by the lower courts. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the initial ex parte decree removed the bar against passing a decree after the cut-off date, relying on later Supreme Court precedents. The Court found that the contention regarding the effect of the prior ex parte decree on the statutory cut-off date required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve whether the earlier decree created a vested right or exception to the established cut-off date.
Questions settled- Does an initial ex parte decree in a pre-emption suit exempt the suit from the cut-off date for passing decrees established in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah?
- Can a pre-emption decree be passed after 31-7-1986 if the suit was originally decreed ex parte before that date?
- Nazir Baig alias Jahangir Baig vs Muhammad Anwar and another1994 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order recalling the bail previously granted to the petitioner in a criminal case. The petitioner was accused of being part of an armed group involved in a shooting incident that resulted in injuries. Initially, the petitioner was denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge due to his presence, specific role in causing injury, and membership in an unlawful assembly. The High Court initially granted bail based on claims that police officers had found the petitioner innocent during the investigation. However, upon subsequent review of the case diary, it was discovered that these claims were factually incorrect and that the police record implicated the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court recalled the bail order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the initial bail grant was premised on a misrepresentation of the police record. The Court affirmed that where a bail order is based on a false premise regarding the investigation findings, the court is justified in recalling such an order upon discovering the true state of the record.
Questions settled- Can a court recall an order granting bail if the order was based on a misrepresentation of the police investigation record?
- Is a court justified in cancelling bail when the police record contradicts the claim of innocence relied upon for the initial grant of bail?
- Nazir Ali M.H. Gangji vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies-1, Karachi ,1994 PTD 958 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed under Sections 114, 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to recall or amend a previous High Court judgment rendered in an income tax reference. The core legal question was whether the High Court, while exercising advisory jurisdiction under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, possesses the power to review or alter its judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court dismissed the application, holding that its jurisdiction in income tax references is strictly advisory, limited, and distinct from its original, appellate, or revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 do not apply to such proceedings. The Court established that while it retains inherent or incidental powers to correct accidental clerical or arithmetical errors, or to restore a reference dismissed for non-prosecution to prevent a miscarriage of justice, it lacks the statutory authority to review its judgment on merits. The advisory nature of the jurisdiction precludes the exercise of review powers, as such powers are not conferred by the governing tax statutes.
Questions settled- Does the High Court possess the power to review its judgment rendered in an income tax reference?
- Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to the High Court when exercising advisory jurisdiction in income tax matters?
- Can the High Court exercise inherent powers to correct accidental errors or omissions in a judgment delivered under its advisory jurisdiction?
- Is the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance considered original or appellate jurisdiction?
- Nazir Ahmed vs Ghulam Rasul and others1994 SCMR 1678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which granted post-arrest bail to the respondents in a murder case. The petitioner sought to challenge the bail order, arguing that the respondents had a motive for the crime. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion appropriately in granting bail given the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had granted bail based on findings that only ineffective firing was attributed to the respondents, no crime empties were recovered from the scene, and the incident occurred at midnight, making identification difficult. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted the petitioner's inability to controvert these findings or provide a satisfactory explanation for the 75-day delay in filing the petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order did not warrant interference. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail is appropriately granted when the prosecution's case relies on weak evidence, such as ineffective firing and lack of corroborative physical evidence, particularly in cases of nighttime occurrences.
Questions settled- Is the grant of bail justified when only ineffective firing is attributed to the accused?
- Does the lack of recovery of crime empties from the scene of the crime constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted in a murder case where the occurrence took place at night, making identification difficult?
- Nazir Ahmed vs Fateh Muhammad1994 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding a house in Multan. The appellant contested the suit, arguing that the property was located in a 'new Abadi' (settlement) where no custom of pre-emption existed at the time of the commencement of the Pre-emption Act, 1913. The trial court and subsequent appellate courts decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court examined whether a right of pre-emption could exist in an area that was agricultural land in 1913 and only became residential after 1947. Relying on Section 7 and Section 3(3) of the Pre-emption Act, 1913, the Court held that a right of pre-emption exists only where a custom of pre-emption is proved to have been in existence at the time of the Act's commencement. Since the area was agricultural land in 1913 and the habitation developed post-1947, the custom could not have existed in 1913. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the suit, establishing that pre-emption cannot be claimed in areas that were not urban or inhabited at the time of the Act's inception.
Questions settled- Does a right of pre-emption exist in respect of property situated in an area that was agricultural land at the time of the commencement of the Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Is proof of the existence of a custom of pre-emption at the time of the commencement of the Pre-emption Act, 1913, a mandatory requirement for a valid pre-emption suit?
- Can a suit for pre-emption be maintained in a 'new Abadi' developed after the creation of Pakistan?
- Nazir Ahmed Khan Swati vs Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 921 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-01-06Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs The State1994 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal filed by Nazir Ahmad against the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming his death sentence for murder. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant's guilt attracts a lesser penalty under the surrounding circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant at a card-playing spot led to a brief scuffle, followed immediately by the appellant pursuing and attacking the deceased after being separated, the sudden provocation and lack of premeditated immediate motive entitle the accused to a lesser sentence. The Court accordingly converted the appellant's death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether sudden provocation arising from a scuffle during a quarrel warrants the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Does an earlier minor dispute that does not serve as the immediate motive affect the quantum of sentence when a sudden fight occurs?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Muhammad Yaqoob And Other1994 CLC 1805 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs Chief Engineer (Ac&R), Tarbela Dam Project, WAPDA, Tarbela and another1994 SCMR 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal regarding departmental disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant. The core legal questions involve the procedural validity of jointly trying two delinquent civil servants in a single departmental enquiry and whether such a joint trial caused material prejudice to the petitioner, specifically regarding the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a key witness whose testimony was relied upon to establish guilt. Additionally, the case questions the consistency of the evidence provided by said witness, who offered contradictory statements regarding the custody of a measurement book, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in declaring the service appeal infructuous after the expiry of the one-year period of the punishment (reduction in rank). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions of law of public importance, focusing on the principles of natural justice, the right to cross-examination in disciplinary proceedings, and the procedural requirements for departmental enquiries involving multiple accused persons.
Questions settled- Can two delinquent civil servants be jointly tried in a departmental enquiry?
- Does a joint departmental trial prejudice a civil servant if they are prevented from cross-examining a witness whose evidence is used to establish their guilt?
- Does a service appeal become infructuous after the expiry of the period for which a punishment of reduction in rank was ordered?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Chief Engineer (Ac&R), Tarbela Dam Project WAPDA, Tarbela And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a service matter concerning a departmental inquiry against civil servants. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to examine several important questions of law. The core legal questions involve whether two delinquent civil servants could be jointly tried in a departmental inquiry, whether such joint trial materially prejudiced the petitioner by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine a crucial witness whose evidence was used to establish guilt, whether the contradictory stance of that witness vitiated the proceedings, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in holding that the service appeal had become infructuous after the expiration of the one-year period for which the petitioner's reduction in rank was ordered as punishment. The court's decision involves granting leave to examine these procedural and substantive fairness issues in departmental proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether two delinquent civil servants could at all be jointly tried in a departmental enquiry?
- Whether such a trial has not materially prejudiced the petitioner as he was prevented from cross-examining an important witness whose evidence was utilized for arriving at the guilt of the petitioner?
- Whether the stand taken by a witness was not itself contradictory?
- Whether the Chairman of the Service Tribunal was not in error in taking the view that after the lapse of a year, the period for which reduction in rank of the petitioner was ordered as a punishment, the service appeal had become infructuous?
- Nazir Ahmad Khan Lughmani and others vs Member, Senior Federal Land1994 PLD Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Khan Lughmani And Other vs Member, Senior Federal Land1994 PLD Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad and another vs The State1994 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the murder of a young boy, Rasool Bakhsh. The appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution's evidence—specifically the last-seen evidence, the extra-judicial confession made to a relative, and the recovery of incriminating items—was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite alleged discrepancies in witness testimony. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was reliable and corroborated. The extra-judicial confession was deemed credible because the witness was a relative of the accused with no apparent motive to falsely implicate them, and his testimony was further supported by the discovery of the body at the location specified in the confession and the recovery of the deceased's personal effects at the appellants' instance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the conviction was well-founded based on the totality of the circumstantial and testimonial evidence presented.
Questions settled- Can an extra-judicial confession made to a relative be relied upon if corroborated by the recovery of the body and incriminating items?
- Does a discrepancy in the testimony of witnesses regarding the procedure of recovery necessarily invalidate the recovery evidence?
- Is the last-seen evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction when supported by other incriminating circumstances?
- Nazir Ahmad and 7 others vs Settlement Commissioner/Chief1994 PLD Supreme Court 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of land allotments obtained in excess of entitlement by original allottees. The petitioners, who were subsequent purchasers of the land from the original allottees, challenged a High Court order that permitted them to retain the land only upon payment of its price, after satisfying the claims of the original informant (Mukhbir). The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as bona fide purchasers, were entitled to retain the land without paying additional consideration, despite the original allotment being found to be in excess of the entitlement. The Supreme Court held that since the original allotment was excessive and the subsequent order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelling the allotment had attained finality, the High Court’s direction for the petitioners to pay the price to retain the land was equitable and just. The Court affirmed that while the law protects bona fide purchasers, such protection is subject to the rights of the state and the priority of the original informant, and does not grant an absolute right to retain land obtained through an invalid allotment without compensation.
Questions settled- Can a subsequent purchaser of land obtained through an excessive allotment claim an absolute right to retain the land without payment if the original allotment is cancelled?
- Does a bona fide purchaser of land have a superior right over a Mukhbir (informant) who successfully identifies excess land allotment?
- Is a High Court order requiring a subsequent purchaser to pay the price of land to retain it, following the cancellation of an excessive allotment, legally sustainable?
- Nazir Ahmad And 7 Other vs Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement1994 PLD Supreme Court 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of land allotments obtained by the heirs and collaterals of a deceased claimant, Phool Singh, due to excess entitlement. The petitioners, who were subsequent vendees of the land, challenged the High Court's direction requiring them to pay the price of the land to retain it, arguing they should have been allowed to retain the land without further payment based on a previous Settlement Commissioner's order. The Supreme Court observed that the order relied upon by the petitioners had been set aside by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the matter remanded, a decision the petitioners failed to challenge. The Court held that since the original allottees had obtained land in excess of their entitlement, the High Court’s order, which protected the interests of the bona fide purchasers (petitioners) by allowing them to retain the land upon payment of its price after satisfying the claim of the first informant (Mukhbar), was fair, just, and legally sound. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a purchaser of land from an allottee retain the land without payment if the original allotment is found to be in excess of entitlement?
- Does a first informant (Mukhbar) have a superior right to land cancelled from an allottee due to excess entitlement?
- Can a party rely on a previous administrative order that has been set aside by a remand order which was not challenged?
- Nazir Ahmad alias Haji and another vs The State1994 MLD 1036 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 145 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain and others vs Abdul Rauf1994 MLD 461 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
- Nawazish Ali Shah vs Federation of Pakistan Through Establishment1994 PLC (C.S.) 1433 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad alias Noora vs The State1994 MLD 1530 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
- Nawabzada Col. Muhammad Khalid Khan vs Abdur Razaq and others1994 MLD 828 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-15Read full judgment →
- Nawabazada Mohsin Ali Khan And Other vs Goverment of N.W.F.P, And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-06-20Read full judgment →
- Nawab Khan and anothers vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others1994 PLD Supreme Court 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated appeals arose from judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding the compulsory retirement of one appellant and the dismissal of another for misconduct involving violation of official channels and use of insolent language against superior officers. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of compulsory retirement or dismissal from service could be lawfully imposed upon a civil servant without holding a regular departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that under Rule 5(1)(iii) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, the authorised officer possesses the discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry, particularly where the charges are founded on admitted facts and documentary evidence rather than disputed questions of fact requiring oral testimony. The key principle laid down is that while the discretion to dispense with a formal inquiry must be exercised fairly and reasonably without denying the accused a fair defense, no regular inquiry is mandatory where the misconduct is admitted and no controverted facts require the recording of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether major penalties of compulsory retirement or dismissal can be imposed upon a civil servant without holding a regular departmental inquiry?
- Does an authorised officer have the discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- When is a regular departmental inquiry not required in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Nawab Khan And Another vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, Rawalpindi And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan disposes of two civil appeals arising from judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld the compulsory retirement of one appellant and substituted the dismissal of another with compulsory retirement following disciplinary proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether a major punishment of dismissal or compulsory retirement could be legally imposed upon a civil servant without conducting a formal, regular departmental inquiry through an inquiry officer. The Supreme Court held that the appeals lacked merit and dismissed them, ruling that an authorized officer possesses the discretionary power under Rule 5(1)(iii) of the said Rules to dispense with a regular inquiry, particularly where charges are founded on admitted facts or documentary evidence and do not involve disputed questions of fact requiring oral evidence or cross-examination. The key principle laid down is that while the discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry is not restricted by rigid preconditions, it must be exercised reasonably and fairly based on the circumstances of each case, and where the misconduct is admitted and documented, failure to hold a formal inquiry does not vitiate the disciplinary action.
Questions settled- Can a major punishment be imposed upon a civil servant without holding a regular departmental inquiry?
- Does an authorized officer have the discretion to dispense with a formal inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- When is a regular departmental inquiry not required in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Nawab Khan And Another vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, Rawalpindi And Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals were filed with the leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld the major penalties of compulsory retirement and dismissal (the latter substituted with compulsory retirement) imposed on the appellants. The core legal question was whether major punishments could be awarded to civil servants under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 without holding a regular departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that under Rule 5(1)(iii) of the Rules, an authorized officer has the discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry and adopt a shorter show-cause procedure. The Court laid down the principle that while this discretion must be exercised fairly and reasonably, a regular inquiry is not mandatory where the charges are founded on admitted facts or documents. However, if the charges involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be resolved without recording evidence and cross-examination, a regular inquiry cannot be denied.
Questions settled- Can a major penalty of compulsory retirement or dismissal be imposed on a civil servant without holding a regular departmental inquiry?
- Under what circumstances is an authorized officer justified in dispensing with a regular inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973?
- Does a civil servant have a vested right to insist on a particular disciplinary procedure when the charges are based on admitted facts?
- Nawab Din vs Ghulam Qadir and 9 others1994 MLD 1275 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, which was dismissed by both the trial court and the lower appellate court. The plaintiff alleged that the deceased defendant, Lal Din, had agreed to sell the land in 1969 and received full consideration. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had sufficiently discharged the burden of proof to establish the execution of the agreement to sell and the payment of consideration, given the defendant's denial. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement. The court found the oral evidence of the marginal witnesses to be materially contradictory and inconsistent with the plaintiff's own testimony, particularly regarding the payment of the sale price. The court emphasized that when a defendant denies the execution of a document, the burden of proof rests heavily on the plaintiff to affirmatively prove its existence. Finding the evidence insufficient and the lower courts' assessment of credibility correct, the High Court dismissed the revision petition in limine, holding that the failure to prove the agreement rendered other issues, including limitation, unnecessary to decide.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie on the plaintiff to affirmatively prove an agreement to sell when the defendant denies its execution?
- Can a revision petition be dismissed in limine when the findings of the lower courts regarding the credibility of evidence are found to be correct?
- Is it necessary for a court to decide on the issue of limitation if the underlying agreement to sell is not proven?
- Nawab Din And Other vs Muhammad Salim Aamer EtcK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 44 · Other · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
- Nawab Din and another vs Shabbir Hussain and others1994 SCMR 553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals challenging a High Court judgment that upheld the cancellation of temporary land allotments granted to Jammu & Kashmir refugees. The core legal question was whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to cancel or resume such temporary allotments under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court, referencing its findings in connected Civil Appeals Nos. 274 and 275 of 1978, held that temporary allotments of land to Jammu & Kashmir refugees do not constitute an "allotment" within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Consequently, such lands are excluded from the compensation pool, rendering the Chief Settlement Commissioner without jurisdiction to cancel or resume them under sections 10, 11, and 14 of the Act. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the cancellation orders, thereby restoring the original temporary allotments. The key principle established is that temporary allotments to Jammu & Kashmir refugees are outside the scope of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and thus immune to cancellation by settlement authorities.
Questions settled- Does a temporary allotment of land to Jammu & Kashmir refugees constitute an allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Are temporary allotments of land to Jammu & Kashmir refugees part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to cancel temporary allotments of land held by Jammu & Kashmir refugees?
- Nawab Din and 6 others vs Bagh and 6 others1994 SCMR 1975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision petition challenging concurrent findings of the trial court and the District Judge. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership of a one-third share in land based on a registered will deed executed by Mst. Fateh Bibi, while simultaneously challenging the legality of subsequent mutations. The core legal question was whether the executant of the will, Mst. Fateh Bibi, possessed the legal capacity to alienate the property and whether the lower courts erred in their factual findings regarding her ownership status and the validity of the will. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which established the executant as the full owner of the property and affirmed the authenticity of the registered will, were based on a proper appraisal of evidence. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence, nor any jurisdictional error, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that factual determinations by lower courts, when supported by evidence, are not subject to interference in revisional or appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is an admission made by a witness during trial binding on the parties?
- Does a registered will deed carry a presumption of authenticity regarding the capacity of the executant to alienate property?
- Nawab Bibi vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) And 21994 CLC 364 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-25Read full judgment →
- Nawab Ali Khan vs M/s. Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills, Mirpurkhas Sindh1994 PLC 117 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
- National Development Finance Corporation, Karachi vs M/s. Sindh1994 PLD Karachi 186 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-04Read full judgment →
- National Development Finance Corporation vs (M/s.) Sindhh GlassK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 37 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-04Read full judgment →
- National Cotton Ginning Etc vs Granulars (Pvt) Ltd Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 558 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
- National Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., Lahore through the President of National Cooperative Society Ltd. vs Muhammad Ramzan and another1994 MLD 1168 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- National Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd vs Additional Secretary, Federation of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 154 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Khadim Hussain And Another1994PLC 113 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Durban Ali Channa1994 PLC 235 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →