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.
- M/s. Flopetrol International, Sa. Plot N0.386, Islamabad And 51 Others1994 CLC 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
- M/s. Flopetrol International, S.A., Islamabad and 51 others vs The1994 PTD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
- M/s. Eastern Carpets (Pak) Limited vs Province of the Punjab and1994 MLD 558 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
- M/s. Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi And Another vs Sher Malik1994 PLC 243 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
- M/s. D.M. Brother vs Collector Of Customs And AnotherPTCL 1994 CL. 121 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ciba-Geigy (Pak) Limited vs Muhammad SafdarK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 22 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. Cherat Cement Co. vs State Life Insurance And Others1994 P LC 146 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
- M/s. Chaudhri Wire Rope Industries (Private) Limited, Muridke Through1994 CLC 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several writ petitions filed by factory owners challenging the imposition of octroi duty by the Municipal Committee, Muridke, following the extension of municipal limits to include their previously rural areas. The core legal question was whether the extension of municipal boundaries automatically renders existing municipal taxes applicable to the newly included areas without fresh compliance with statutory taxation procedures. The Court held that the extension of municipal limits does not ipso facto make existing taxes applicable to the newly added areas. It ruled that for such areas, the tax is being imposed for the first time, necessitating strict adherence to the procedure prescribed by the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980. The Court emphasized that taxation cannot be imposed by implication and that residents of newly included areas must be afforded a statutory right to object to the proposed levy. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, declaring the demand for octroi duty unlawful absent a fresh notification and adherence to the prescribed taxation procedure.
Questions settled- Does the extension of municipal limits automatically render existing municipal taxes applicable to the newly included areas?
- Is a fresh notification and adherence to prescribed taxation rules required when imposing taxes on areas newly included within municipal limits?
- Can a municipal committee impose taxes on newly annexed areas without providing residents an opportunity to object?
- Does the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 provide for the automatic extension of existing taxes to newly included areas?
- Noor Khan vs Mumtaz Khan And 4 Other1994 CLC 1730 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
- M/s. Bawani Sugar Mills Limited, Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan1994 PLC 174 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
- M/s. Avari Hotel Limited vs Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution And1994 PLC 688 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
- M/s. Asif Marble Industry, Mardan vs W Apda1994 CLC 2419 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
- M/s. Allwin Engineering Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Director, Sindh1994 PLC 169 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
- M/s. Allwin Engineering Industries Limited, Karachi vs Javaid Khalid1994 PLC 659 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ahmed Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Federation Of Pakistan AndPTCL 1994 CL. 393 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Agha & Company vs Mari Gas, Co. Ltd, Contractors Mazdoor1994 PLC 85 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by several independent contractors challenging the registration of a trade union representing employees working across multiple establishments. The core legal question was whether the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, permits the registration of a trade union representing workers of multiple establishments only if those establishments are owned by the same employer. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of laches regarding the delayed challenge to the union's registration. The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the term "group of establishments" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is not restricted to establishments owned by a single employer but possesses a wider connotation. Consequently, a trade union may represent workers from independent establishments provided they are connected to the same industry. Furthermore, the court determined that the petitions were barred by laches due to the significant delay in challenging the registration. Finally, the court observed that the petitions raised complex, disputed questions of fact regarding employment status and the nature of the contractual relationships, which were unsuitable for resolution within constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a trade union representing workers of multiple establishments be registered if those establishments are owned by different employers?
- Does the term 'group of establishments' in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, exclusively refer to establishments owned by the same legal entity?
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches when the petitioner challenges the registration of a trade union several years after the fact?
- M/s. Adamjee Insurance Company Limited, Karachi vs P.&.O and Bi,K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 3 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. A.G.E. Electric Co. vs Government Of Pakistan And AnotherPTCL 1994 CL. 424 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s) Kshif Cement Corporation vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 345 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
- M/s Techno Consult Through Administrative Officer vs Nafees Ahmed1994 PLC 582 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- M/s Rimpa (Private) Limited Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income Tax,K.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 1 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Pak Asia Restaurant vs Asstt: Collector Central Excise And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 180 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
- M/s National Bottlers (Pvt) Ltd. vs Additional Secretary, Federation ofK.L.R. 1994 Tax and Custom Cases 139 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muzaffar Khan And Others vs T.D.a:1994 CLC 514 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Hussain Alias Pehalwani vs The StateKLR. 1994 Criminal Cases 370 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Ali vs Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Lahore And 31994 PLC (C.S.) 482 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-07-26Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Ali Mirza vs Federation of Pakistan Through Additional1994 PLC (C.S.) 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the termination of the petitioner's services as a Stenographer. The petitioner, appointed on a temporary and conditional basis, challenged his termination on the grounds that he had completed his probation period and that his initial appointment letter lacked the condition requiring him to pass a shorthand and typing speed test. The core legal question was whether the termination of a temporary employee, who failed to meet the specific performance conditions stipulated in his appointment terms—despite receiving multiple extensions—was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the termination was lawful, finding that the petitioner was fully aware of the conditional nature of his appointment, as evidenced by his repeated requests for extensions to prepare for the requisite test. The Court affirmed that an employee who fails to satisfy mandatory performance conditions, despite being granted ample opportunity and extensions, cannot challenge the subsequent termination of their services on the basis of completed probation.
Questions settled- Can a temporary employee challenge the termination of their services if they failed to meet the specific performance conditions stipulated in their appointment letter?
- Does the completion of a probation period prevent the termination of a temporary employee who has failed to satisfy mandatory skill-based conditions of employment?
- Is an employee bound by the conditions of their appointment if they have actively sought extensions to fulfill those conditions?
- Muzaffar Ali Bhatti vs Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council1994 PLC (C.S.) 993 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Ali Bhatti vs AJK Council Through Secretary, Islamabad And 21994 PLC (C.S.) 1073 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
- Mutali vs Manzoora(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 58) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mutali vs Manzoora and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mutali vs Manzoora And Another1994 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
- Musthaq Ahmad Qureshi vs Brig. (Rotd.) Muhammad Ashraf Khan1994 MLD 1665 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The present revision petition arises out of a civil suit for specific performance wherein the trial Court proceeded against the respondent ex parte upon his non-appearance, but subsequently accepted an application under Order IX Rule 7 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the ex parte proceedings based on an affidavit of an advocate. The petitioner challenged this order contending that the application was incompetent as it was filed by an advocate who had not filed his power of attorney. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the non-submission of a power of attorney along with an application to set aside ex parte proceedings is not fatal and merely amounts to a curable irregularity rather than rendering the application void. The Court established that technical rules should yield to the interests of substantial justice, and courts must lean in favour of adjudication on merits rather than stifling proceedings on technicalities.
Questions settled- Whether the non-submission of a power of attorney along with an application to set aside ex parte proceedings renders the application void?
- Is the failure to file a power of attorney at the initial presentation of an application a curable irregularity?
- Should technical rules yield to the interest of substantial justice in civil proceedings?
- Do courts lean in favour of adjudication on merits rather than stifling proceedings on technical grounds?
- Mustafa Lakhani, Advocate vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing1994 MLD 777 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And Other vs Punjab Labour Appellate1994 PLC 571 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Karachi And 2 Other vs Punjab1994 PLC 38 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited Employees' Union, Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Wah Zones through its General Secretary vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Karachi and others1994 SCMR 1031 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed under Article 186-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, seeking the transfer of a constitutional petition pending before the High Court of Sindh to the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The petitioner, a trade union, argued that because its registration and certification as a Collective Bargaining Agent occurred in Islamabad, the Sindh High Court lacked jurisdiction, and defending the case in Karachi caused inconvenience. The Supreme Court addressed the scope of its power under Article 186-A to transfer proceedings between High Courts. The Court held that while it possesses the authority to transfer cases in the interest of justice, this power is not equivalent to Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and cannot be invoked as a matter of course. The Court established the principle that mere inconvenience to a party or an assertion of lack of jurisdiction is insufficient to warrant a transfer. Instead, the appropriate legal remedy is to raise the plea of jurisdiction directly before the High Court where the case is pending.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court's power to transfer cases under Article 186-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 equate to the power of transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is mere inconvenience to a party or an assertion of lack of jurisdiction sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to transfer a case between High Courts?
- Should a party seeking to challenge the jurisdiction of a High Court file a transfer petition in the Supreme Court or raise the plea before the High Court itself?
- Mushtaq vs Messrs Crescent Mills Limited, Kotri And Another1994 PLC 444 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ali Zaka vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1710 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-07-17Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmed vs Province of Punjab And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 665 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmed and anothers vs Mst. Sat Bharai and 5 others1994 SCMR 1720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment dismissing the petitioners' regular second appeal regarding inheritance rights to agricultural land left by the deceased, Gheba Khan. The core legal question was whether a divorce pronounced by the deceased husband became effective before his death, given that he died before the expiry of the ninety-day period following the notice of talak under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, thereby determining whether the respondent, his divorcee, was entitled to inherit his estate. The Supreme Court held that under section 7(3) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, a talak does not become effective until the expiration of ninety days from the delivery of notice to the Chairman, during which period the husband retains the option to revoke it and reconciliation proceedings take place. Because the husband died before the expiry of this statutory period, the talak never became effective, and the respondent legally continued to be his wife at the time of his death, making her fully entitled to inherit his property. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a pronouncement of divorce become effective immediately upon notice to the Chairman under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Is a wife entitled to inherit the estate of her deceased husband if he dies before the expiry of the ninety-day period following a notice of talak?
- Can a husband revoke a pronouncement of divorce during the ninety-day reconciliation period provided under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Mushtaq Ahmad, Exgeneral Manager, Ittehad Chemicals Ltd. vs The Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Production, Islamabad and 2 others1994 PLD Lahore 417 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad, Ex-General Manager, Ittehad Chemicals Ltd_ vs The Secretary to Government of Pakistan,1994 PLD Lahore 417 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad, Ex-General Manager, Ittehad Chemicals Ltd. vs The Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Production, Islamabad And 2 Others1994 PLC 454 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Punjab Seed Corporation Through Managing1994 PLC 306 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1993-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the National Industrial Relations Commission addresses a petition filed by an employee under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking to challenge disciplinary proceedings and a charge-sheet issued for alleged misconduct involving theft. The core legal question revolved around whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a union office-bearer constitutes an unfair labour practice and whether the Commission possesses the jurisdiction to stay such departmental inquiries. The Commission held that initiating routine disciplinary proceedings for misconduct is the legitimate right of an employer and does not, by itself, raise a presumption of unfair labour practice merely because the employee is a trade union official. The Commission further ruled that criminal and departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously, and a prior grievance notice under section 25-A is not a prerequisite when invoking preventive jurisdiction under section 22-A(8)(g). The petition was consequently dismissed and the interim stay recalled.
Questions settled- Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a union office-bearer amounts to an unfair labour practice?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the jurisdiction to stay domestic inquiry proceedings initiated by an employer?
- Can criminal proceedings and departmental action be initiated against a defaulting worker simultaneously?
- Is a prior grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 mandatory when invoking preventive jurisdiction under section 22-A(8)(g)?
- Mushtaq Ahmad And 6 Other vs Chief Secretary, Government of N:1994 PLC (C.S.) 152 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1993-08-10Read full judgment →
- Musharaf Hussain vs The State1994 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order dismissing the petitioner's bail application in a case involving an alleged offence of Zina. The petitioner was initially implicated in a murder case, but subsequently, a case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against him following the death of the female victim and the receipt of a positive report regarding vaginal swabs. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances and the credibility of the evidence, the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Supreme Court observed that the two alleged eyewitnesses to the Zina had been examined during the initial murder investigation but had failed to mention any allegation of Zina, making their subsequent statements recorded three months later appear as an afterthought. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed bail, holding that the unexplained delay and omission in the initial statements cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution's case at the pre-trial stage to warrant the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does the failure of eyewitnesses to mention an alleged offence during the initial investigation of a related crime render their subsequent statements regarding that offence suspect?
- Is bail appropriate when the prosecution's case relies on statements recorded with significant delay after the initial investigation?
- Musarrat Ahmad Dar vs Mst. Nighat Ghazala and 2 others1994 MLD 796 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
- Musamir Gul vs Government Transport Service1994 PLC 150 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-05-22Read full judgment →
- Muratab Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 256 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
- Munshi Khan vs Mastay Khan And Other1994 CLC 2190 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
- Munshi Jan Muhmmad vs Additional D.C. (G) And Other1994 CLC 399 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
- Munir Hussain Shah vs Forests Secretary, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 43 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmed vs Shahid Mahmood and 2 others1994 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as an appeal against an ejectment order, which was initially dismissed for non-prosecution but subsequently restored upon the appellant's application. Upon hearing the appeal on its merits, the Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order. During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel offered to withdraw the appeal if granted reasonable time to vacate the commercial premises. The respondents, represented by counsel and present in person, consented to this proposal on the condition that the appellant provides a formal undertaking to vacate voluntarily by a specified date without requiring execution proceedings. The Court, noting the long-standing nature of the ejectment case initiated in 1985, accepted the compromise. The Court granted the appellant time until 30-3-1994 to vacate the premises, subject to the condition that the appellant continues to pay rent regularly and surrenders peaceful possession by the deadline. It was further ordered that failure to comply would result in immediate eviction, using force if necessary, without further notice.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court grant time for vacating premises based on a mutual undertaking between the parties?
- What are the consequences of failing to vacate commercial premises after an undertaking is given to the Supreme Court?
- Is an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution eligible for restoration upon application?
- Munir Ahmed vs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Through Chairman And 3 Other1994 CLC 1940 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmed Shaikh vs Government of Sindh through Additional Chief1994 PLD Supreme Court 899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal arose from a seniority dispute between two civil servants in the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of Sindh. The core legal question was whether an order granting retrospective seniority to a civil servant transferred on his own request was valid, particularly when it adversely affected the seniority of another civil servant who had already been regularized in the same cadre. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Service Tribunal's decision that the retrospective seniority order was illegal. The Court held that under Rule 12 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, a civil servant transferred on their own request must rank junior to those already appointed on a regular basis. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that while the government possesses plenary powers under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, to alleviate hardship, such powers cannot be exercised to impair the vested statutory rights of other civil servants.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant transferred on their own request rank junior to those already appointed on a regular basis in the new department?
- Can the government exercise plenary powers under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 to grant retrospective seniority if it impairs the vested rights of other civil servants?
- Is an order granting retrospective seniority valid if it is passed after another civil servant has already been regularized in the same cadre?
- Munir Ahmed Shaikh vs Government of Sindh Through Additional Chief1994 PLD Supreme Court 899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which allowed a service appeal filed by respondent No.3, Khalil Ahmed Soomro, claiming seniority over the appellant, Munir Ahmed Shaikh, in the Public Health Engineering Department. The core legal questions involve determining whether a civil servant transferred on their own request has a better right to seniority than one regularized under the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment) Act, 1989, and the legality of granting retrospective seniority in a manner that adversely affects accrued statutory rights of another civil servant. The Supreme Court held that the order granting retrospective seniority to the appellant from the date of his transfer was illegal and invalid, as his permanent absorption was originally effected from a later date, whereas the respondent had already been regularized earlier in time. The Court laid down the principle that while the Government may exercise its plenary powers to alleviate hardship under section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, such powers cannot be exercised to impair or impinge upon the vested statutory seniority rights of other civil servants.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant transferred from one department to another on their own request ranks junior to persons appointed before them on a regular basis under Rule 12 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975?
- Can an order granting retrospective seniority to a civil servant be passed if it impairs the vested statutory rights of another civil servant?
- Whether the Government can exercise its plenary powers under section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, to the detriment of another civil servant's accrued seniority?
- Munir Ahmed And 2 Others vs Chairman, Federal Land Commission, PAKISTANAnd Another1994 CLC 20 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmed And 2 Others vs Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Pakistan And Another1994 CLC 20. · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 94) · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs The State1994 SCMR 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, whom the appellant suspected of having illicit relations with his wife. The trial court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court after rejecting the plea of grave and sudden provocation as an afterthought. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the act of the appellant fell under premeditated murder or was committed under grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court held that the plea of grave and sudden provocation was substantiated by the prosecution's own record regarding the motive, and therefore set aside the conviction under Section 302 and converted it to Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that where the motive alleged by the prosecution itself supports the existence of strained relations and prior illicit conduct regarding the accused's wife, a sudden altercation and provocative remark can bring the case out of premeditated murder into culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Whether the plea of grave and sudden provocation can be treated as an afterthought when the prosecution's own case and FIR allege a motive involving illicit relations?
- Does killing a person who uttered provocative insults regarding the accused's wife constitute premeditated murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases of sudden provocation?
- Munir Ahmad Khan vs The Director, Accounts, C.T Region, Lahore And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 282 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
- Munir & Co. vs Municipal Committee, Samundari1994 MLD 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-03Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, Gujrat vs Nazar Masih And 3 Others1994 PLC 202 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, Daska through its Chairman vs M/s. Farhat1994 SCMR 1235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns whether a Municipal Committee can recover outstanding dues from a contractor, who held a contract to collect bus stand fees, as arrears of land revenue under Section 141 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The appellant argued that the dues constituted 'rent,' which is expressly recoverable under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court examined the definition of 'rent' under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, noting that while the Ordinance allows recovery of 'rents' as arrears of land revenue, the contract in question involved the right to collect fees, not the lease of immovable property. The Court held that the amount sought was not 'rent' in the legal sense, as the contract was merely for the right to collect taxes or fees, not for the use or occupation of property. Consequently, the Court ruled that the summary recovery mechanism under the Ordinance was inapplicable, as the matter required accounting and adjudication, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the right to collect bus stand fees under a contract constitute 'rent' within the meaning of Section 141 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a Municipal Committee recover contractual dues as arrears of land revenue if the amount is not 'rent' as defined by law?
- Is a contract granting the right to collect fees from a bus stand equivalent to a lease of immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
- Munchi Naimat Ali vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1009 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-08-30Read full judgment →
- Munazza Khalil vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1994 CLC 947 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition filed by a student seeking re-evaluation of her examination papers. The appellant contended that reductions in marks made by the Head Examiner on her answer-books were invalid because they were not initialed or signed by the examiner. The core legal question was whether the absence of initials on the answer-book rendered the Head Examiner's revision of marks void, and whether the scope of 'rechecking' under the Board's regulations permitted a full re-evaluation of the papers. The Court held that the Head Examiner is not required to initial every deduction on the answer-book, provided the final award-list, which is signed and tallies with the marks, is accurate. The Court affirmed that the process of 'rechecking' is strictly limited to verifying totals, ensuring no answers were left unmarked, and confirming the integrity of the answer-book; it does not extend to re-evaluation of the academic judgment of examiners. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the appellant could not seek re-evaluation under the guise of rechecking.
Questions settled- Is a Head Examiner required to initial every reduction of marks on an answer-book for the revision to be valid?
- Does the process of 'rechecking' examination papers under Board regulations permit the re-evaluation of the academic assessment made by examiners?
- Can a candidate challenge the reduction of marks by a Head Examiner if the final award-list is signed and consistent with the marks awarded?
- Munawar Hussain Bokhari And Other vs Punjab Road Transport1994 PLC 16 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
- Munawar Begum vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 311 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Khan vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-29Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Imran and others vs Nasrin Mehmooda1994 SCMR 1877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The respondent had successfully instituted a suit for pre-emption of land sold in 1979, with the trial court, district court, and High Court all ruling in favor of the respondent. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the petitioners could raise a plea of superior pre-emption rights based on tenancy for the first time in appeal, and whether the compensation awarded for improvements to the land was inadequate. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not raise the tenancy plea as it was not pleaded in the written statement. Furthermore, regarding compensation, the Court found that the amount awarded exceeded the petitioners' own stated claim before the trial court, based on a report by a Local Commissioner appointed with the parties' consent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that appellate courts are not required to entertain pleas not raised in the pleadings, and findings based on consent-based reports are generally conclusive.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a plea of superior pre-emption rights based on tenancy for the first time in appeal if it was not pleaded in the written statement?
- Is an appellate court justified in refusing to consider a new ground of defense not raised in the trial court pleadings?
- Can a party challenge the quantum of compensation for improvements when the amount awarded exceeds the claim originally stated by that party before the trial court?
- Mumtaz Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 85 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz alias Mutti alias Nawab vs The State1994 MLD 2054 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ali Shah and 6 others vs Sultan and 2 others by Legal Heirs1994 SCMR 1725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the defendants' revision petition against an appellate order which had remanded a partition suit for trial on merits. The core legal question is whether a subsequent suit for possession through partition is barred by the principle of res judicata on account of a previously decreed possession suit involving the same land. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent suit is based on a distinct and different cause of action, namely that the land has turned into a vacant site within the village abadi and the defendants refused a private partition for construction purposes, rendering the bar of res judicata inapplicable. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court, establishing that a change in the nature of the property and a fresh cause of action for partition removes the bar of res judicata from a prior possessory suit.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for possession through partition is barred by res judicata due to a previously decreed suit for possession regarding the same land?
- Does a change in the nature of the land into a vacant site within village limits constitute a different cause of action for partition?
- Can the rule of res judicata be invoked when the subsequent proceedings arise from a distinct cause of action?
- Mumtaz Ahmad Shah And Another vs National Press Trust And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 810 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Executive Editor of a newspaper, challenged his suspension and subsequent dismissal from service by the National Press Trust. The core legal question was whether the individual who issued the impugned orders, claiming to be the Acting Chairman, possessed the lawful authority to do so, and whether the constitutional petition was maintainable given the master-servant relationship. The Court held that the power to appoint the Chairman of the National Press Trust is vested exclusively in the President of Pakistan under the National Press Trust (Appointment of Chairman) Act, 1972. The Court found that the respondent had merely been asked to 'look after the affairs' of the Trust by a Ministry official, which did not constitute a valid appointment as Chairman. Consequently, the suspension and dismissal orders were declared void for lack of lawful authority. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that newspaper employees are protected by the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, allowing them to invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 despite general master-servant principles.
Questions settled- Does the power to appoint the Chairman of the National Press Trust vest in the President of Pakistan?
- Can a person merely asked to 'look after the affairs' of the National Press Trust exercise the powers of the Chairman?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable by a newspaper employee against termination of service?
- Does the National Press Trust (Appointment of Chairman) Ordinance, 1972 provide for the appointment of an Acting Chairman?
- Mullagiri Vajram and others vs State of Andhra Pradesh1994 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-10-15Read full judgment →
- MULAZ'm Hussain vs Mst. Amina Bibi And Another1994 CLC 1046 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
- Mukhtarul Hassan Siddioui vs Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi And 41994 CLC 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions arising from a family court suit for maintenance filed by a wife and her children against the petitioner husband. The core legal questions involved whether a disobedient wife and major children are entitled to maintenance, and the quantum of maintenance for minor children. The Lahore High Court held that a disobedient wife ('Nashiza') who unjustifiably lives apart, prevents the husband from entering the matrimonial home, and instigates litigation against him is not entitled to maintenance. Furthermore, a major, healthy son who is disobedient and has completed basic education is not entitled to maintenance from his father, though a minor child's right to maintenance remains intact. The Court laid down the principle that the right to maintenance is reciprocal to the obligation of obedience under Islamic injunctions and personal law, and that a father's duty to maintain major children or provide higher education is not absolute or ad infinitum, but depends on family status, the child's capacity, and filial conduct.
Questions settled- Is a disobedient wife who lives separately and denies her husband access to the home entitled to claim maintenance?
- Whether a father is legally bound to provide maintenance to a major, healthy child who is disobedient and pursuing higher education?
- Does the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to re-evaluating concurrent findings of fact rendered by family courts regarding the disobedience of a spouse?
- Can a father be compelled to maintain children ad infinitum for higher education beyond the normal status and traditions of the family?
- Mukhtar Beg And 5 Others vs Sardar Beg And Other1994 CLC 1811 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-17Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar and others vs The State1994 MLD 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmed vs The Superintending Engineer, Multan Circle, WAPDA, Multan And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 227 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmed vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 589 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmed vs Bashir Ahmad and 3 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 674 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal filed under Article 185(2)(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the first appellate court's decree for specific performance and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit, while granting an alternative money decree for the return of earnest money with interest. The core legal question was whether respondent No. 2 qualified as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the prior agreement to sell under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's own admission in cross-examination established that respondent No. 2 had no prior knowledge of the earlier agreement, and the mere mention of a lower consideration in the sale deed did not negate good faith or valuable consideration. The Court laid down the principle that specific performance cannot be enforced against a subsequent transferee for value who has paid money in good faith and without notice of the original contract, and that the burden of proving want of notice is discharged where admissions or evidence support the purchaser's bona fides.
Questions settled- Whether specific performance of a contract can be enforced against a subsequent transferee for value without notice?
- Does the mention of a lesser sale consideration in a registered sale deed automatically render the subsequent purchaser a mala fide transferee?
- Whether the burden of proving good faith and absence of notice lies upon the person claiming the protection of a bona fide purchaser?
- Mukhtar Ahmed vs Bashir Ahmad And 3 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 674 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement to sell a plot of land situated in Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore. The core legal question is whether respondent No. 2 qualified as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, thus barring the plaintiff-appellant's suit for specific performance. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving lack of good faith and notice lay on the plaintiff, who himself admitted in cross-examination that the subsequent purchaser had no prior knowledge of the original agreement. The Court further held that a discrepancy between the actual consideration paid and the nominal consideration stated in the sale-deed did not invalidate the transferee's bona fides or defeat the protection of section 27(b). The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court that restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit while upholding the alternative monetary relief granted to the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether specific performance of a contract can be enforced against a transferee for value who has paid in good faith and without notice of the original contract?
- Does a discrepancy between the actual consideration paid and the consideration stated in a sale-deed destroy the status of a bona fide purchaser?
- On whom lies the burden of proving that a subsequent transferee had notice of a prior agreement to sell?
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The StateK-L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 497 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1994 SCMR 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which modified the petitioner's conviction from Section 392 read with Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced his sentence of imprisonment to five years rigorous imprisonment for robbery. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the identification of the accused, given that the eyewitnesses claimed prior acquaintance at trial which they had not stated to the police, the naming of the accused by a witness who later denied identification, and the absence of an identification parade. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the doubtful identity of the petitioner required formal examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the conviction could be sustained without a proper identification parade or consistent testimony regarding the identity of the accused.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for robbery can be sustained when eyewitnesses claim prior acquaintance with the accused at trial but failed to state the same to the police?
- Is an identification parade necessary when the identity of the accused is provided by a witness who subsequently denies identifying the accused during court proceedings?
- Does the absence of an identification parade create sufficient doubt regarding the participation of the accused in the crime to warrant leave to appeal?
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs Sajjad Hussain and others1994 MLD 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
- Mujeeb Ur Rehman Shami vs Principal, Aitchison College, Lahore 3 And 2 Other1994 CLC 342 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from a declaratory suit filed by an Assistant Master at Aitchison College, Lahore, challenging his termination by the College Principal. The plaintiff argued that his terms of service were governed by the Statutes of Aitchison College, which only authorized a designated Sub-Committee, and not the Principal, to remove teaching staff. The trial court rejected the defendants' preliminary objections regarding the suit's maintainability, but the District Judge reversed this in revision, applying the master-and-servant doctrine. The High Court examined whether the College's statutes, framed by the Governor under Martial Law Order No. 86, possessed statutory force. The Court held that because the statutes were framed under legislative authority, they constituted statutory rules that ousted the general master-and-servant principle. Consequently, the Civil Court retained jurisdiction to examine violations of these statutory provisions. The High Court accepted the petition, declared the District Judge's revisional order to be without lawful authority, and restored the trial court's order to proceed with the suit.
Questions settled- Does the master-and-servant doctrine apply when the terms and conditions of an employee are regulated by statutory rules?
- Do rules framed by the Governor under a Martial Law Order possess the status of statutory rules?
- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to examine cases where statutory provisions governing employment have been violated?
- Muhav Mad Usman Qureshi vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and another1994 SCMR 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which refused to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner's appeal was originally dismissed in 1987 after he failed to appear at hearings, despite the Tribunal attempting to serve notice at the address provided by the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently applied for restoration in 1993, claiming he had no knowledge of the hearing dates and that his counsel had misled him regarding the status of the case. The Tribunal rejected the restoration application, noting that the petitioner failed to update his address, that there was an inordinate delay in filing the restoration application, and that the petitioner showed a lack of diligence in pursuing the matter for several years. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the refusal to restore the appeal was a proper exercise of discretion. The Court held that a party is responsible for maintaining contact with the forum and updating their address, and that unexplained, inordinate delay in seeking restoration justifies the dismissal of such applications.
Questions settled- Does a failure to update one's address with the Tribunal justify the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution?
- Can an appeal be restored after an inordinate delay of several years without a valid explanation?
- Is the refusal of a Service Tribunal to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution a valid exercise of discretion when the appellant failed to pursue the matter diligently?
- Muhammd Khan and anothers vs Fazal Muhammad and another1994 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute concerning the validity of a land exchange mutation executed on 28-11-1975. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, declaring the oral exchange of immovable property void for lack of a registered deed, as required by sections 54 and 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which were applicable to the Punjab province at the time via a 1974 notification. Although the first appellate court reversed this decision, the High Court restored the trial court's judgment. The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that a subsequent 1978 notification, which superseded the 1974 notification, retroactively validated the oral exchange. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the 1978 notification could not operate retrospectively to validate a transaction that was void at the time of its execution. The Court affirmed that the transaction remained void because it failed to comply with the statutory requirements in force at the material time. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a subsequent notification restricting the application of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, retroactively validate a transaction that was void at the time of its execution?
- Is an oral exchange of immovable property valued over Rs. 100 valid in the absence of a registered deed when sections 54 and 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are applicable?
- Does a government notification superseding an earlier notification have retrospective effect to validate previously void transactions?
- Muhammadarif vs S.H.O.,. City Police, Depalpur And 5 Other1994 PLD Lahore 521 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zulfikar vs Muhammad Nazir and another1994 SCMR 1982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The petitioner sought the transfer of a plot based on an alleged agreement dated 22-4-1990, claiming partial payment of the consideration. The trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioner failed to prove the execution of the agreement. Specifically, the courts noted significant contradictions in the testimony of the petitioner's witnesses, including the scribe and the Notary Public, and observed that no independent evidence supported the claim. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of a document. The Supreme Court held that since the lower courts had properly appraised the evidence and there was no allegation that the judgments were based on no evidence, it would not reappraise the evidence afresh. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court generally declines to disturb concurrent findings of fact absent illegality or irregularity.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the execution of an agreement?
- Is the Supreme Court required to reappraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal where no allegation of 'no evidence' is raised?
- Muhammad Zubair vs Ijaz Hussain Shah And 2 Other1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 32 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cses 48 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs Tariq Mahmood and 28 others1994 MLD 207 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the petitioner, which was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the trial Court along with compensatory costs, a decision upheld by the District Judge. The core legal question was whether a trial Court is strictly confined to the averments in the plaint when considering the rejection of a plaint, or if it can look beyond them to material such as written statements and prior judgments—specifically when a party attempts to re-litigate a matter already decided up to the Supreme Court. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision in limine, holding that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not exhaustive, and the Court can utilize section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to look at surrounding material and reject a plaint summarily to prevent the abuse of the process of the court when a matter has already attained finality through the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exhaustive regarding the rejection of a plaint?
- Can a court look beyond the averments in the plaint, such as to the written statement and previous judicial proceedings, to reject a plaint summarily?
- Is a fresh civil suit maintainable to re-agitate a matter that has already been finally adjudicated up to the level of the Supreme Court?
- Can a court invoke Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to prevent the abuse of the process of the court by rejecting a plaint?
- Muhammad Zaman Khan and 10 others vs Muhammad Ramzan Khan1994 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a pre-emption dispute. The petitioners raised two new contentions: first, that the respondent pre-emptor had sold the disputed land during the pendency of the appeal, thereby demonstrating a lack of interest in the property; and second, that the petitioners were entitled to the current market value of the land rather than the original sale price. Regarding the first point, the Court held that the document produced was merely an agreement to sell, not a completed sale, and further clarified that a pre-emptor who successfully exercises their superior right is not legally barred from disposing of the property in the future. Regarding the second point, the Court affirmed that under the Punjab Pre-emption Act in force at the relevant time, a pre-emptor is entitled to acquire the land at the price actually paid by the vendee to the vendor. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the petitioners were entitled only to the original sale price as decreed, not the current market value.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell property by a pre-emptor during the pendency of an appeal constitute a forfeiture of the right of pre-emption?
- Is a pre-emptor entitled to acquire land at the current market value or the price actually paid by the vendee under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Can a pre-emptor who has acquired land through a superior right dispose of that land in the future?
- Muhammad Zaman And Another vs Additional Deputy Commissioner, GUJRANWALAAnd 3 Other1994 CLC 216 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman And Another vs Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala And 3 Other1994 CLC 216 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahoor vs Gul Muhammad and 3 others1994 PLD Peshawar 92 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahoor vs Gul Muhammad And 3 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 92 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-05Read full judgment →