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.
- National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Abdul Kaleem Khan1994 PLC 397 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1994 PLC 301 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges an order by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which reinstated a bank employee dismissed following a criminal conviction. The core legal questions were whether the employee’s grievance petition was time-barred and whether the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Standing Orders Ordinance applied to employees of the National Bank of Pakistan. The High Court held that the grievance petition was not maintainable. It determined that the National Bank of Pakistan is a commercial establishment operating under the authority of the Federal Government, and its employees are governed by the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973. Consequently, the Standing Orders Ordinance does not apply to these employees. Furthermore, the court ruled that a dismissed employee does not fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and cannot maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A unless the Standing Orders Ordinance is applicable. The principle established is that statutory service rules exclude the applicability of the Standing Orders Ordinance to employees of government-run commercial establishments, thereby barring them from invoking section 25-A for dismissal grievances.
Questions settled- Does the Standing Orders Ordinance apply to employees of the National Bank of Pakistan who are governed by statutory service rules?
- Can a dismissed employee who does not fall under the definition of 'workman' maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Is a grievance petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 maintainable if the Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable to the establishment?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Hayat Usto1994 PLC 336 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-01-13Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Khushal Khan1994 PLD Peshawar 284 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Khushal Khan .1994 PLD Peshawar 284 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Banking Tribunal No. 1 and 11 others1994 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Banking Tribunal No. 1 And 11 Other1994 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan And Others vs National Battery Industries1994 CLC 2133 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which dismissed the appellant bank's suit on the grounds that it was not instituted by a duly authorized person. The core legal question was whether the suit was properly signed and verified by an authorized agent, and whether the defendant's denial of this authority—pleaded as 'want of knowledge'—constituted a valid denial requiring the plaintiff to lead evidence. The Court held that the appellant failed to produce the power of attorney or examine the alleged authorized agent to substantiate the claim of authorization. Rejecting the appellant's argument that the defendant's denial was evasive and thus amounted to an admission, the Court affirmed that the trial court correctly framed an issue regarding authorization, placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff. The key principle laid down is that where a specific issue regarding the authority of a person to institute a suit is framed, the plaintiff must affirmatively prove such authorization through evidence, regardless of the nature of the defendant's denial in the written statement.
Questions settled- Does a denial of a fact for 'want of knowledge' in a written statement constitute an admission of that fact?
- Is a plaintiff required to prove the authority of an agent to institute a suit if the defendant denies such authority?
- Can a court require proof of a fact even if it is arguably admitted by the pleadings?
- Nathey Khan vs Mehr Din and another1994 MLD 1630 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two Regular Second Appeals concerning the specific performance of agreements to sell agricultural land situated in a colony area. The core legal question was whether these agreements were unenforceable due to a lack of prior permission from the Collector, as required by Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The Court held that agreements to sell do not create a vested right or charge on the property, and thus do not violate Section 19. Furthermore, the Court determined that the respondents, as allottees who had paid the full price of the land, were full owners and competent to enter into such agreements. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal of the suits by the first appellate court. Exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the Court decreed specific performance, adjusting the sale price to account for inflationary trends and the passage of time, thereby balancing equity between the parties.
Questions settled- Do agreements to sell agricultural land in a colony area violate Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, if executed without the Collector's permission?
- At what point does an allottee of Crown land become the owner for the purpose of transferring title?
- Can a court, in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, adjust the sale price of land in a decree for specific performance to account for inflation?
- Does an agreement to sell create a vested right or charge on the property?
- Nasrullah vs Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, G.B. Pakistan Railways, Lahore And Another1994 PLC 96 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-24Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah Khan Henjra, Mst. Akhtar Malik And 2 Other vs GovernmentPLD 1994 ,Supreme Court 23 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions challenging extradition proceedings initiated against the petitioners for alleged drug smuggling offenses in the United States. The core legal questions were whether the Extradition Act, 1972, violates the fundamental right to remain in Pakistan under Article 15 of the Constitution, and whether the Magistrate’s inquiry procedure complied with the Act. The Court held that the Extradition Act is not unconstitutional, as Article 15 does not grant citizens absolute immunity from extradition for crimes committed abroad, and the Constitution explicitly empowers Parliament to legislate on extradition. Regarding procedure, the Court affirmed that authenticated documents are admissible under Section 9(1) of the Act. However, the Court found the evidence against one petitioner, Nasrullah Khan Henjra, relied on inadmissible hearsay, necessitating a remand for his case, while refusing leave for the others. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional right to reside in Pakistan is not an absolute shield against extradition for serious crimes committed in foreign jurisdictions, provided the extradition process follows statutory requirements.
Questions settled- Does the Extradition Act, 1972 violate the fundamental right to remain in Pakistan guaranteed by Article 15 of the Constitution?
- Can a Magistrate rely on authenticated foreign affidavits as evidence in extradition proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1972?
- Is hearsay evidence admissible to establish a prima facie case for the extradition of a fugitive offender?
- Nasrullah Khan Henjra vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Islamabad and 3 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of writ petitions challenging extradition proceedings. The petitioners, Pakistani nationals, were indicted by United States Grand Juries for heroin smuggling. Upon US extradition requests, an Islamabad Magistrate conducted inquiries under the Extradition Act, 1972, and submitted a report finding a prima facie case for surrender. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Extradition Act, 1972, arguing it violated their fundamental right to remain in Pakistan under Article 15 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that Article 15 does not shield citizens accused of serious crimes abroad from extradition, as the Federal Legislative List explicitly empowers Parliament to legislate on extradition. The Court affirmed that authenticated foreign affidavits are admissible under Section 9(1) of the Act. While upholding the proceedings for most petitioners, the Court allowed the appeal of one petitioner, Nasrullah Khan Henjra, remanding his case because the evidence against him was inadmissible hearsay.
Questions settled- Whether the Extradition Act, 1972, is void under Article 8(1) of the Constitution as being in conflict with the fundamental right of a citizen to remain in Pakistan under Article 15?
- Does Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan afford protection against extradition to Pakistani citizens accused of committing serious crimes in foreign countries?
- Can authenticated foreign affidavits and depositions be received as valid evidence in extradition inquiry proceedings under Section 9(1) of the Extradition Act, 1972?
- Whether an extradition report finding a prima facie case can be sustained if it is based solely on hearsay evidence of an official who merely interviewed the actual witnesses?
- Nasrullah And Other vs Muhammad Aslam And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 147) · Board of Revenue · 1994-08-03Read full judgment →
- Nasreen Begum And Others vs Divisional Canal Officer And 2 Other1994 CLC 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-25Read full judgment →
- Nasreen Begum And Other vs Divisional Canal Officer And 2 Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 1) · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-25Read full judgment →
- Nasratullah vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 141 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
- Nasiruddin Khan and others vs Notified Officer/Settlement1994 SCMR 1997 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing their Constitution petition, which challenged the inclusion of the legal heirs of a deceased co-transferee, Salamat Khan, in pending settlement proceedings. The core legal questions involved whether proceedings were pending before the notified authority and whether the determination of legal heirs fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court rather than the Settlement Authority. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings were indeed pending on remand, and the Settlement Authority was fully competent and duty-bound to determine the legal representatives of the deceased party. The Court affirmed findings of fact regarding the status of the legal heirs based on continuous cohabitation, passports, and official identity card forms acknowledging paternity and marriage, refusing leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement Authority has the competence to determine legal representatives of a deceased party in pending proceedings?
- Does continuous cohabitation and acknowledgement of paternity constitute sufficient evidence of a marriage for bringing legal heirs on record?
- Whether the question of determining legal heirs in a pending settlement matter must necessarily be relegated to a Civil Court?
- Nasiruddin and others vs Surreya Begum and others1994 MLD 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Nasira Hamid vs District Education Officer And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 807 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
- Nasir Mahmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 156 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →
- Nasir Ali vs The State through S.H.O. Shah Ghareeb1994 MLD 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-09Read full judgment →
- Nasir Ali vs Chief Security Officer, Airport Security Force, Karachi1994 PLC (C.S.) 1738 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-07-10Read full judgment →
- Nasir Ahmad vs Muhamamd Yousui1994 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-27Read full judgment →
- Nasir Ahmad vs Muhamamd Yousuf1994 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-27Read full judgment →
- Nasir Ahmad Khan and 2 others vs Abdul Ghaffar Khan and 5 others1994 MLD 1654 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged an order by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, which remanded a suit for a de novo trial after adding a new issue. The core legal question was whether the appellate court was justified in ordering an open remand for a fresh trial when the existing issues were comprehensive and the evidence on record was sufficient for a final decision. The High Court held that the remand order was improper and unwarranted. It reasoned that the appellate court possessed sufficient procedural powers under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to address any deficiencies in the issues or evidence without resorting to a de novo trial. Specifically, the Court emphasized that under Order XLI, Rule 24, the appellate court could cure defects in issues, and under Order XLI, Rule 25, it could remit specific issues for findings without setting aside the entire proceedings. The key principle laid down is that unnecessary remands must be avoided to prevent inordinate delay, wastage of resources, and the transformation of litigation into a shuttlecock between courts.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court order a de novo trial when the existing issues are comprehensive and evidence is sufficient for a final decision?
- Does an appellate court have the power to cure defects in issues without remanding the entire suit for a fresh trial?
- Under what circumstances should an appellate court remit a specific issue for a finding rather than remanding the whole suit?
- Nasir Ahmad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 295 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-02Read full judgment →
- Nasimullah vs Board of Revenue, N: W.F.P. And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Patwari and Qanungo, sought the regularization of his service as a Naib-Tehsildar, claiming entitlement under Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987, on the basis that he held an ad hoc appointment prior to September 20, 1986. The Service Tribunal had previously denied his claim, determining that his appointment was a temporary, stop-gap arrangement rather than an ad hoc appointment, and noting his unsatisfactory service record. The petitioner further argued that his case was analogous to that of another employee, Muhammad Nihar, whose service regularization had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's specific appointment as a Naib-Tehsildar qualified for regularization under the statutory provisions of the 1987 Act. The Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine whether the petitioner's employment status fell within the scope of Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987, thereby determining if he was entitled to the relief sought.
Questions settled- Does an appointment made as a stop-gap arrangement qualify for regularization under Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987?
- Is a civil servant holding a temporary promotion entitled to regularization under the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987, if they have a patchy service record?
- Nasimullah vs Board of Revenue, N.W.F.P. and 2 others1994 SCMR 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the refusal to regularize the petitioner's ad hoc appointment as a Naib-Tehsildar. The petitioner, who joined service as a Patwari in 1961, became a Qanungo in 1971, and was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar on an ad hoc basis in 1978, sought regularisation of his service under section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987. The Service Tribunal had previously ruled against the petitioner, holding that he was promoted on a temporary stop-gap arrangement rather than as an ad hoc appointee, and that his promotion was denied due to a patchy record. The petitioner contended his case was analogous to another employee whose service was regularised. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the petitioner's case is covered by section 3 of the said Act.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant appointed on an ad hoc basis before 20th September, 1986 is entitled to regularisation of service under section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987?
- Does a temporary promotion as a stop-gap arrangement constitute an ad hoc appointment eligible for regularisation?
- Can an employee claim regularisation of service on the basis of parity with a co-employee whose service was ordered to be regularised?
- Naseerullah Khan and another vs Pakistan International Airlines1994 MLD 783 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
- Naseer Hussain vs Nawaz and others1994 SCMR 1504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court enhancing the appellant's sentence. The appellant was originally tried under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, but the trial court rejected the prosecution's evidence and convicted him solely on his confessional statement under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment on the ground of grave and sudden provocation. In a revision application filed by the complainant, the High Court enhanced the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, accepting the inculpatory part of the confession while rejecting the exculpatory plea of provocation. The Supreme Court held that where a conviction rests solely on the accused's confessional statement, the court must accept or reject the statement in toto and cannot dissect it by accepting the inculpatory portion while disregarding the exculpatory explanation. Consequently, the High Court's enhancement was set aside, and the sentence was reduced.
Questions settled- Can a court base a conviction solely on an accused person's confessional statement while rejecting the exculpatory portion of that same statement?
- Must a confessional statement forming the sole basis of conviction be accepted or rejected in toto?
- Whether the High Court is justified in enhancing a sentence by disregarding the plea of grave and sudden provocation when the conviction is founded entirely on the accused's admission?
- Naseer Ahmad vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Communication and Works Department and another1994 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition concerns the scope of an inquiry conducted by the Provincial Government following previous litigation. The core legal question addressed was whether the inquiry officer is bound by observations made by the Supreme Court in a prior related civil appeal (Civil Appeal No. 337 of 1989) when determining the findings of the current inquiry. The Court held that the inquiry officer must act independently of the previous observations made in the earlier appeal. The ratio of the decision is that an inquiry officer must base their findings exclusively on the evidence presented before them during the specific inquiry proceedings, rather than relying on or being constrained by judicial observations from separate, albeit related, appellate proceedings. This principle ensures the integrity and impartiality of the administrative inquiry process by requiring findings to be grounded solely in the evidentiary record of the matter at hand.
Questions settled- Is an inquiry officer bound by observations made by the Supreme Court in a previous civil appeal when conducting a new inquiry?
- Must an inquiry officer base their findings exclusively on the evidence presented during the inquiry?
- Naseer Ahmad alias Phup vs The State1994 SCMR 995 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the appellant's conviction under section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for setting fire to the complainant. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, material improvements in the complainant's testimony, and contradictions with the medical evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the unexplained delay created a strong possibility of deliberation and false implication based on suspicion, and that material improvements and unreliable witness testimonies failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that delayed reporting, coupled with material improvements at trial that contradict medical evidence, undermines the credibility of the prosecution case and entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report cast serious doubt on the prosecution case?
- Can a conviction be sustained when material improvements made at the trial contradict the medical evidence?
- Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Naseem Pervaiz Siddiqi vs The Secretary, Establishment Division And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1324 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
- Naseebuddin vs Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd., Karachi1994 PLC 606 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
- Nargis Shaheen vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Islamabad and 5 others1994 SCMR 1706 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that declined to interfere with an extradition enquiry report. The enquiry officer had determined that a prima facie case existed for the extradition of Mian Muhammad Azam to the United States on charges of heroin smuggling. The petitioner contended that the enquiry officer improperly relied on hearsay evidence contained in affidavits and failed to provide the petitioner with an adequate opportunity to produce a defence witness. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found that the affidavits in question contained both hearsay and direct, personal knowledge, rendering them admissible for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case. Furthermore, the Court examined the record and concluded that the petitioner had been granted multiple opportunities to produce defence evidence but failed to do so, with the request to summon a specific witness being correctly denied as a dilatory tactic. Consequently, the Court held that the enquiry proceedings were fair and legally sound. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can an enquiry officer rely on affidavits containing both hearsay and direct knowledge to establish a prima facie case for extradition?
- Does an enquiry officer have the discretion to refuse a request to summon a defence witness if the request is deemed a dilatory tactic?
- Is a finding of a prima facie case for extradition subject to interference under constitutional writ jurisdiction when the enquiry procedure was fair?
- Naranbhai Virabhai and Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 1178 · Gujarat High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
- Nanabhoy Hormusji Patel vs (Miss.) Freny N. CooperK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 223 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
- Nallamsetty Yanadaiah and others vs State of Andhra Pradesh1994 SCMR 588 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-09-16Read full judgment →
- Najeebullah Khan vs Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Peshawar And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 363 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
- Naiyer Ahmad vs Mohammad Yaqoob And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 110) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
- Nahan Foundry vs Messrs Seth Muhammad Rafique Zarati Foundry and others1994 MLD 2401 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
- Nafees Bakers And Another vs Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad And 4 Other1994 CLC 2244 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
- Naeem Ahmad Etc. vs S.H.O, EtcK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 315 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
- Nadeem vs The State1994 MLD 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Tufail vs Controller, Examinations Board of I & S.E. Multan1994 CLC 1580 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Tario Bhatti vs Government of Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 803 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-26Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Iqbal alias Nawab Sahib vs The State1994 MLD 1405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Lahore, convicting the appellant under sections 11 and 18 read with section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for abduction and attempted Zina-bil-Jabr with a seven-year-old child. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the child witness, the consistency of the ocular and medical evidence, and whether the ingredients of abduction and attempted Zina-bil-Jabr were proven. The court held that the testimony of the child witness was reliable, corroborated by medical evidence and independent witnesses, and that the defence plea was baseless. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the convictions while modifying the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not impair the intrinsic value of credible testimony, and the distance of removal is immaterial to constitute the offence of abduction under the relevant law.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a seven-year-old child witness can form the basis of a conviction in a sexual assault case without corroboration?
- Is distance of removal a material requirement to establish the offence of abduction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Do minor discrepancies in the statements of ocular witnesses materially affect the prosecution's case?
- Whether medical evidence sufficiently corroborates the ocular version in cases of attempted Zina-bil-Jabr?
- Nadeem Ahmed Mirza vs The Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad And Another1994 PLD Karachi 86 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Ahmed Mirza vs Mrs. Shah Sultana Begum And Another1994 PLD Karachi 177 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal assails an order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant's application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. to be joined as a necessary party in an eviction petition as a sub-tenant. The core legal question was whether a sub-tenant claiming induction under a lease agreement containing a subletting clause with the landlord's consent is a necessary party to eviction proceedings against the tenant. The Sindh High Court held that where the lease agreement expressly grants permission to sublet, satisfying the statutory requirement of consent in writing under the relevant rent legislation, and the sub-tenant's actual possession and induction are admitted, such sub-tenant is a necessary and proper party entitled to be joined in the proceedings. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, laying down that contractual stipulations permitting subletting must be read harmoniously, and a sub-tenant holding under a permitted sublease is a necessary party in an ejectment action against the main tenant.
Questions settled- Is a sub-tenant a necessary party in an eviction application filed against the tenant?
- Whether a clause in a lease agreement permitting subletting with consultation constitutes written consent under the rent laws?
- Can parties contract out of the statutory provisions requiring written consent for subletting?
- Was the Rent Controller justified in dismissing the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. on the ground of lack of proof of possession when possession was admitted?
- Nadeem Ahmed Alias Kallia vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 27 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-14Read full judgment →
- Nabi Bakhsh vs Khuda Bakhsh and 6 others1994 MLD 325 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
- N.S. Vijayaraghavan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and another1994 PTD 324 · Kerala High Court · 1990-11-26Read full judgment →
- N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology Karachi vs Ahmed1994 PLD Karachi 412 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
- M/s. Zasha Limited (Public Limited) Company vs AgriculturalK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 19 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Wilson's Pharmaceutical vs Glaxo Ltd. and another1994 MLD 2273 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →
- M/s. United Bank Ltd., Karachi vs M/s. Mohibali Tannery Ltd., Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 275 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
- M/s. United Bank Ltd., Karachi vs M/s. Mohibali Tannery Ltd., Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 275 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
- M/s. Telephone Industries of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs S.M.1994 PLC 56 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
- M/s. Telephone Industries of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs Riaz Ali1994 PLC 59 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
- M/s. Telephone Industries of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs Ejazul1994 PLC 53 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
- M/s. Sindh Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad vs Abdul1994 PLC 240 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-12-16Read full judgment →
- M/s. Shamas Textile Mills vs Employees' Old-Age Benefit Institution And1994 PLC 694 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Shafi Corporation Ltd vs Government of Pakistan throughK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 126 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. SH. Safdar Ali & Co. vs Province of Punjab and others1994 MLD 728 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
- M/s. Sethi Straw Board Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan through the Secretary to1994 SCMR 1872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing in part the constitutional petitions filed by the appellant manufacturer against the levy of central excise duty on its products, namely Glazed Paper Board and Glazed Chip Board. The core legal question was whether glazed paper board and glazed chip board fall within the definition of 'excisable goods' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and specifically under Item No. 37 of Section IX of the First Schedule ('Paper and Paper Board, all sorts'). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the expression 'all sorts' has the widest possible connotation, covering all kinds and descriptions of paper boards including glazed paper board and glazed chip board, and that the manufacturing processes applied fall within the definition of 'manufacture' under section 2(f) of the Act. The key principle laid down is that the phrase 'all sorts' in a taxing statute expands the scope of an item to include every variety, kind, and description of the specified goods.
Questions settled- Whether glazed paper board and glazed chip board fall within the scope of 'Paper and Paper Board, all sorts' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- What is the legal connotation and scope of the expression 'all sorts' when used in a statutory taxing schedule?
- Do the processes of remaking or reconditioning paper products fall within the definition of 'manufacture' under section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- M/s. Sethi Straw Board Mills Limited through Mian Muhammad Amin1994 MLD 1934 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
- M/s. Services Sales Corporation Ltd. vs Assistant Director (Fields)1994 PLC 539 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Searle Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Government of Pakistan throughK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 5 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Sagaria Brothers vs Messrs Azim Markaz and 2 others1994 PLD Karachi 149 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-27Read full judgment →
- M/s. Sagaria Brother vs Messrs Azim Markaz And 2 Other1994 PLD Karachi 149 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-27Read full judgment →
- M/s. Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi1994 PLC 219 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Noor Hussain And Others vs M.B.R. And Other1994 CLC 105 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
- Noor Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 307 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ramma Pipe and General Mills (Pvt.) Limited through its Director vs1994 PTD 848 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the computation of tax liability under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner's grievance centered on the inclusion of sales tax paid on supplied goods within the petitioner's taxable income, arguing that such inclusion was legally impermissible. The core legal question was whether sales tax paid by a taxpayer could be treated as part of their income for the purpose of calculating income tax under the specified ordinance. Upon review, the respondents conceded that the amount paid as sales tax cannot be deemed income of the petitioner and, therefore, cannot be subjected to income tax. Consequently, the Court held that the tax liability must be recalculated after deducting the sales tax paid. The judgment establishes the principle that sales tax paid on goods supplied does not constitute income and must be excluded from the computation of tax liability under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
Questions settled- Can sales tax paid on goods supplied be included in the income of a taxpayer for the purpose of calculating tax under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Is sales tax paid by a petitioner subject to income tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- M/s. Punjab Cotton Mills Ltd. through Director and anothers vs Allied1994 MLD 690 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
- M/s. Pakland Cement Limited, Karachi vs Registrar of Trade Unions,1994 PLC 177 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, a public limited company, challenged the registration of a trade union, alleging that its office-bearers were non-workmen and that the registration process violated principles of natural justice. The core legal questions were whether an employer is entitled to a personal hearing during the trade union registration process and whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can determine the disputed status of employees as 'workmen.' The Court held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, does not grant the employer a statutory right to be heard during the registration process. Furthermore, the Court determined that the status of an employee as a 'workman' is a question of fact requiring the recording of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the nature of duties performed, rather than the designation, constitutes the essential test for determining 'workman' status. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that disputed factual matters regarding employment status must be resolved through appropriate evidentiary proceedings rather than constitutional petitions.
Questions settled- Is an employer entitled to a personal hearing during the registration process of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can the High Court determine the status of an employee as a 'workman' in writ jurisdiction when the facts are in dispute?
- What is the fundamental test for determining whether an employee qualifies as a 'workman' under labour legislation?
- Does the Registrar of Trade Unions have the authority to cancel a trade union registration if it was obtained in contravention of the law?
- M/s. Pakistan Steel, Karachi vs Ejaz Akhter (P. No. 144266), Karachi1994 PLC 193 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
- M/s. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd., Karachi Through General1994 PLC 626 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-07Read full judgment →
- M/s. Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd., Karachi And Another vs Levji1994 PLC 640 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-11Read full judgment →
- M/s. Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs1994 PLC 249 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
- M/s. Noor Hospital vs Inspecting Additional Commissioner of1994 PTD 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
- M/s. Noor Din and others vs Abdul Ghani and others1994 MLD 577 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-23Read full judgment →
- M/s. Neamat Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Sheikhupura vs Province of the1994 CLC 1785 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. National Bottlers (Pvt.), Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan CentralK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 100 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Modern Sugar Mills vs Ac/Collector And Other1994 CLC 2157 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
- M/s. Matri Publications And Other vs Implementation Tribunal for1994 PLC 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions for leave to appeal arise from a common order of the High Court of Sindh setting aside an order of the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees. The private respondents, employees of M/s. Matri Publications Limited, approached the Tribunal complaining of the non-implementation of the Fourth Wage Award regarding their fitment formula and pay fixation. The Tribunal held that the management failed to fix their pay at the next higher stage and grant entitled increments. The High Court, interpreting section 13 of Act LVIII of 1973, concluded that the Tribunal's direction amounted to adjudicating an individual dispute outside its jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that section 12-A of the Act empowers the Tribunal to implement Wage Board decisions and its order was valid. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal's order fell within its implementation jurisdiction and suspended the operation of the impugned judgment.
Questions settled- Whether the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees has jurisdiction to adjudicate individual disputes regarding pay fixation under a Wage Award?
- Does section 12-A of Act LVIII of 1973 empower the Tribunal to secure the implementation of decisions of the Wage Board?
- Whether directions issued by the Tribunal for pay fixation amount to an individual dispute outside its scope of jurisdiction?
- M/s. Matri Publications and anothers vs Implementation Tribunal for1994 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court order that declared a decision by the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees to be without lawful authority. The core legal question concerns the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the relevant statutory framework, specifically whether the Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate individual disputes regarding the implementation of the Fourth Wage Award or if such matters fall outside its authority. The High Court had previously determined that the Tribunal's directions constituted an adjudication of individual disputes, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction. The petitioners contend that the Tribunal was established specifically to ensure the implementation of Wage Board decisions, and that its actions were consistent with its mandate to enforce the Fourth Wage Board Award's fitment formula. The Supreme Court, finding that the contention regarding the Tribunal's scope of authority requires deeper examination, granted leave to appeal and suspended the operation of the High Court's judgment pending final adjudication.
Questions settled- Does the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees have the jurisdiction to adjudicate individual disputes regarding the implementation of Wage Board Awards?
- What is the scope of the Implementation Tribunal's authority under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act 1973?
- M/s. M.Y. Electronics Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Manager vs Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Finance), Islamabad and 5 others1994 SCMR 2123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of various constitutional petitions by the Peshawar High Court, which challenged the notification withdrawing tax and customs duty exemptions previously granted to industries established in the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate, District Swabi. The core legal questions concern whether vested rights accrued to the petitioners under the doctrines of promissory estoppel and locus paenitentiae, the scope of section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969 regarding legitimate expectations, the application of customs law through the Sales Tax Act, and the constitutional validity of fiscal amendments made via Money Bills. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, holding that arguable questions of law regarding fiscal statutes, vested rights, and legislative competence warranted detailed consideration, while continuing the interim relief previously granted to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Whether the scope of section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969 is confined to cases of contracts, agreements, or letters of credit, or whether it covers cases where the doctrine of legitimate expectations can be invoked?
- Whether vested rights accrued to industrial investors on the principles of locus paenitentiae and promissory estoppel following the withdrawal of tax exemption notifications?
- Whether by using the words 'charged and paid' in section 6 of the Sales Tax Act by the Finance Act, 1990, the whole customs law becomes applicable?
- Can amendments be made in fiscal laws by a Money Bill which does not go to the Senate, and what is the proper scope of a Money Bill under the Constitution?
- M/s. Luna Garments, Karachi vs Ishrat Ali And Another1994 PLC 621 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
- M/s. Khyber Traders Proprietorship vs Central Board of Revenue,1994 MLD 1473 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
- M/s. Khalil Jute Mills Ltd. through Manager vs United Bank Limited and 51994 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal in limine of its Constitution Petition, which had challenged a Banking Court's conditional order granting leave to appear and defend a recovery suit subject to depositing the entire suit amount of Rs. 20,35,897. The High Court had upheld the Banking Court's discretion because the petitioner failed to furnish the list and value of the mortgaged property. The core legal question was whether the condition imposed by the Banking Court for granting leave to defend by requiring the deposit of the entire disputed sum was justified when mortgaged property existed. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and modified the Banking Court's order, reducing the cash deposit condition to Rs. 16,00,000 in light of the available valuation of the mortgaged property. The key principle laid down is that while courts have discretion to impose conditions for granting leave to defend in banking suits, such conditions should reasonably account for existing securities and mortgaged properties.
Questions settled- Whether the Banking Court can condition the grant of leave to appear and defend on the deposit of the entire suit amount?
- Does the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with the discretionary orders of the Banking Court regarding deposit conditions?
- How should the value of mortgaged property affect the condition for depositing cash to defend a banking suit?
- M/s. Karachi Tank Terminals. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector of CustomsPTCL 1994 CL. 313 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Journalist Publications (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi Through Timsal Askari,1994 PLC 579 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-03-31Read full judgment →
- M/s. Hussain Bukhsh And Another vs The Director Food, Punjab, Lahore1994 PLC (C.S.) 1570 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
- M/s. Hoechst Pakistan Ltd And Another vs Chaudhry AgricultureK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 51 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Gulzar Enterprises through its Managing Partner and 3 others vs1994 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged an order of the High Court, acting as an appellate forum under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, which directed them to deposit the decretal sum in cash as a precondition for admitting their appeal to hearing. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion improperly under section 12(5) of the Ordinance by requiring a cash deposit instead of accepting the offered properties as security. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion was neither arbitrary nor based on insufficient grounds, given that one offered property was subject to ongoing litigation and the petitioners' interest in the other was valued far below the decretal amount. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court's discretion under section 12(5) to demand a cash deposit or security is a judicial discretion that will not be interfered with where the offered security is inadequate or encumbered.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 can be admitted without depositing the decretal amount or furnishing security?
- Did the High Court exercise its discretion arbitrarily in requiring a cash deposit instead of security under section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- M/s. Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretaiy,PTCL 1994 CL. 555 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Glaxo Laboratories vs Syed Manzar Abbas And Others1994 PLC 26 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
- M/s. Fresh Water Fisheries (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi and anothers vs1994 MLD 2019 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
- M/s. Four Sugar Mills, Khoski vs Allah Warrayo1994 PLC 669 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-05-26Read full judgment →