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.
- Faiz Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad vs Ghulam Mustafa And Otherk.L.R 1994 Civil Cases 444 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad vs A.C./D.S.C.1994 MLD 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-28Read full judgment →
- Faisalabad Development Authority vs Muhammad Ilyas1994 MLD 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
- Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Fcci), Faisalabad1994 CLC 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
- Faisal Bashir vs Nomination Board, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chairman, Muzaffarabad and 4 others1994 MLD 932 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
- Faisal Bashir vs Nomination Board, Azad Government of Jammu and Kashmir Through Its Chairman, Muzaffarabad And 4 Other1994 CLC 1593 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-04-10Read full judgment →
- F.S. Jamil Ud Din Bukhari vs Mst. Aamira Bukhari And Other1994 CLC 309 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
- F.Q. Matiullah Khan Alizai vs Chief Secretary, Government of N.W.F.P.1994 SCMR 722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal's judgment upholding adverse remarks recorded in the appellant's Annual Confidential Report (ACR) by a countersigning officer. The appellant contended that the remarks, which cited poor performance and corruption, were not objective or circumspect, particularly as he had recently been granted a move-over to BPS-19. The core legal question was whether the countersigning officer's assessment violated established performance evaluation guidelines and whether the absence of specific proof of corruption rendered the remarks invalid. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that in the absence of proven mala fides or bias, the evaluation of a subordinate's performance by a superior officer is entitled to acceptance. The Court clarified that Reporting or Countersigning Officers are not required to factually prove allegations of corruption in ACRs, provided their assessment is based on personal observation and information. The key principle laid down is that where no personal motive or bias is alleged against the evaluating officer, their assessment of a subordinate's performance should be upheld, as requiring them to substantiate such remarks would discourage honest reporting.
Questions settled- Are Reporting or Countersigning Officers required to factually prove allegations of corruption recorded in an Annual Confidential Report?
- Does the grant of a move-over to a higher pay scale preclude the recording of adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report?
- In the absence of alleged mala fides, is the evaluation of a subordinate's performance by a superior officer subject to interference by a Service Tribunal?
- F.Q. Matiullah Khan Alizai vs Chief Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P.1994 PLC (C.S.) 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal challenging adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report by the countersigning officer. The core legal question was whether the adverse remarks regarding the appellant's integrity and promotion fitness constituted an objective assessment in terms of government instructions, particularly given his recent move-over and a favorable certificate from the Bar President. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that in the absence of established mala fides or personal bias, the evaluation and assessment of a subordinate's performance and reputation by a reporting or countersigning officer must be accepted without requiring formal proof of corruption charges. The Court laid down the principle that reporting and countersigning officers are not required to legally prove subjective evaluations of integrity contained in ACRs unless personal bias, mala fides, or a questionable reputation on the part of the evaluating officer is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report regarding an officer's integrity can be struck down solely because the evaluating officer failed to prove the allegations factually?
- Does the grant of a move-over preclude a countersigning officer from subsequently recording adverse remarks in a civil servant's Annual Confidential Report?
- Can adverse inferences be drawn against a countersigning officer who does not personally appear to defend adverse remarks in a service tribunal when no such personal appearance was ordered?
- Export Promotion Bureau and others vs Qaiser Shafiullah1994 SCMR 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two cross-appeals arising from a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the cancellation of an exporter's textile quota by the Export Promotion Bureau. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chairman of the Bureau to cancel export quotas under the Textile Quota Management Scheme and whether such quotas constitute property protected under the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the Vice-Chairman had jurisdiction under the Scheme to manage quotas and penalize irregularities independently of criminal or Commercial Court proceedings, the cancellation of the entirety of the respondent's legitimately earned and purchased quotas was not warranted or authorized under Clause 13(3) of the Scheme. The Court laid down the principle that export quotas acquired through past performance, auction, or market purchase constitute property rights protected under Articles 4 and 24 of the Constitution, and penal actions such as quota cancellation must strictly conform to the enabling provisions of law without operating in a discriminatory or disproportionate manner.
Questions settled- Does the Vice-Chairman of the Export Promotion Bureau have jurisdiction under the Textile Quota Management Scheme to penalize irregularities independently of proceedings before a Commercial Court?
- Do export quotas acquired through past performance, government auctions, or market purchases constitute a legal right or property protected under the Constitution?
- Can the Export Promotion Bureau lawfully cancel an exporter's entire accumulated quota under Clause 13(3) of the Textile Quota Management Scheme upon the use of unauthorized or forged export visas?
- Are departmental or administrative proceedings under the Textile Quota Management Scheme barred by or mutually exclusive with criminal prosecution before a Commercial Court or criminal court?
- Exon Corporation and Esso Inc. vs Syed Nisar Ahmed Jafry and another1994 SCMR 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court decision dismissing a trade mark appeal as time-barred under the amended Trade Marks Rules 1963. The appellants contended that the amendment to Rule 84, which reduced the limitation period for filing an appeal from four months to two months and omitted the Registrar's power to extend time, should not apply retrospectively to proceedings initiated before the amendment. The Supreme Court held that while the right of appeal is a substantive right, the period of limitation within which an appeal must be filed is a procedural matter in which no party has a vested right. Since the Registrar's decision was passed after the amendment came into force, the amended rule applied prospectively to the appeal. Furthermore, the Court observed that even if Rule 76 could be invoked for extension of time, the extension granted exceeded the statutory limit of one month at a time under the amended rules. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an amendment reducing the limitation period for filing an appeal applies to appeals arising from proceedings initiated prior to the amendment?
- Is the period of limitation for filing an appeal a substantive right or a procedural matter?
- Can the Registrar of Trade Marks extend the time for filing an appeal beyond the statutory limit of one month at a time under the amended Rule 76 of the Trade Marks Rules 1963?
- ExHay. Mirza Mushtaq Baig vs General Court Martial1994 SCMR 1948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court rejecting his application for restoration of a writ petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner had originally challenged his 1976 conviction and sentence of life imprisonment by a Military Court through a writ petition filed in 1979, which was dismissed in May 1991 due to non-appearance. The petitioner contended he received notice after the hearing date, while his counsel was absent despite having full notice and despite the petitioner allegedly taking away the file. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to restore the writ petition suffered from no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional defect, emphasizing that an advocate remains duty-bound to appear on the date of hearing until formally discharged or until their power of attorney is cancelled in accordance with the rules, regardless of whether the client has taken away the case file. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an advocate is duty-bound to appear on the date of hearing even if the client has taken away the case file?
- Does an order of the High Court refusing to restore a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution warrant interference when the counsel had full notice of the hearing?
- Can a writ petition challenging a military court conviction be restored after dismissal for non-prosecution without a valid explanation for the absence of the party and counsel?
- Executive Engineer, Khairpur Tubewell Division, Khairpur And Another1994 PLC 253 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-28Read full judgment →
- Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Barrage Division, Sukkur vs Badshah1994 PLC 187 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-28Read full judgment →
- Executive Engineer, Irrigation Workshop, Mughalpura Division, Mughalpura, Lahore vs Jamshed Iqbal Mirza And 2 Others1994 PLC 783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the judgments of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal which had reinstated respondent No. 1 with all back benefits. The core legal question revolves around whether a work-charged temporary employee, whose services are terminated due to a lack of work-load, is entitled to reinstatement with back benefits or merely to notice pay, given that the employment contract allowed termination without notice or reasons. The court held that the contention regarding the extent of relief—specifically whether only one month's pay rather than reinstatement could be awarded—requires detailed examination. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to consider the legal implications of terminating a temporary work-charged employee's service.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary work-charged employee whose services are terminated due to lack of work-load is entitled to reinstatement with back benefits?
- Does the termination of a temporary employee without notice or assigning reasons restrict their remedy to one month's pay in lieu of notice?
- Can a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 result in reinstatement for a purely temporary worker?
- Executive Engineer, Irrigation Workshop Mughalpura Division, Mughalpura, Lahore vs Jamshed Iqbal Mirza and 2 others1994 SCMR 1628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that upheld the reinstatement of the respondent, a work-charged employee, with full back benefits. The respondent had been employed on a purely temporary basis, with services terminable without notice or reason. Following the termination of his services due to a reduced workload, the respondent filed a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. While the Labour Court initially dismissed the petition, subsequent proceedings led to the respondent's reinstatement by the Labour Court, a decision affirmed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a temporary employee, whose services are terminable without notice or cause, is entitled to reinstatement and back benefits, or if the remedy is limited to one month's pay in lieu of notice. The Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the contention regarding the limitation of relief to monetary compensation rather than reinstatement required further examination.
Questions settled- Is a work-charged employee whose services are terminable without notice entitled to reinstatement and back benefits?
- Does the termination of a temporary employee without notice entitle the employee to relief beyond one month's pay in lieu of notice?
- Executive Engineer, Building Division, Mirpur and 4 others vs Raja Muhammad Nawaz Khan and Co. of Pran, District Gujrat through Raja Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Contractor, P.W.D., Mirpur, Azad Kashmir1994 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 32 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Evacuee Trust Property Board Through Secretary vs Deputy1994 CLC 939 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two interconnected writ petitions arising from a long-standing property dispute over a 100-kanal tract of land claimed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board as evacuee trust property and by private occupants as their own via proprietary rights granted by revenue authorities and sustained by an ex parte civil court decree. The core legal questions involved whether the Evacuee Trust Property Board could disregard a final civil court decree, whether the Chairman of the Board could proceed with a reference under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 after the referring authority sought to withdraw it, and whether the Chairman could act as a judge in his own cause. The Lahore High Court held that the civil court decree had attained finality due to the Board's gross negligence and lack of diligence in pursuing appeal or revision remedies, that even void or ultra vires orders must be challenged in a timely and proper forum rather than ignored, and that the Chairman of the Board could not act as a judge in his own cause or override a competent civil court's judgment. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot bypass final judicial decrees or assume judicial powers in its own cause, and failure to pursue available legal remedies precludes invocation of constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a party simply ignore a final civil court decree on the ground that it is void without challenging it in a proper forum?
- Whether the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board can act as a judge in a dispute to which the Board is a party?
- Does a civil court's judgment regarding the non-evacuee nature of property bind the Evacuee Trust Property Board when the Board participated in the suit?
- Can the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board refuse to allow the withdrawal of a reference made by the Deputy Administrator and proceed with it arbitrarily?
- Essullah Bhatti vs Civil Aviation Authority through its Chairman, Secretary General, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and S others1994 MLD 831 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Engr. Musahib Khan, Jadoon vs WAPDA Through Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore And 7 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1055 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
- Ejaz Hussain vs Naib Tehsildar (Recovery), Agricultural1994 CLC 275 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-22Read full judgment →
- Ejaz Hussain vs Naib Tehsildar (Recovery), Agricultural Development1994 CLC 275 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-22Read full judgment →
- Ejaz Hussain Malik vs Secretary, Establishment Division And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 814 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
- Ejaz Ahmad vs The State1994 SCMR 658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his bail petition by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the significant delay in the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that a period of eight months had elapsed since the petitioner's detention, and notably, no witnesses had been examined during the preceding six months. The State did not controvert the petitioner's assertion regarding the lack of progress in the trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the prolonged delay in the trial, without any progress in the examination of witnesses, constituted sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of bail. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and confirmed the interim bail previously granted to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that the absence of progress in trial proceedings over a substantial period, particularly regarding the examination of witnesses, justifies the grant of bail to an accused person.
Questions settled- Does a significant delay in the examination of witnesses in a criminal trial constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Can an interim bail order be confirmed by the Supreme Court upon converting a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal?
- Ejaz Ahmad Minhas vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1994 MLD 1650 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
- Ehsanullah Tarar vs M/s. Hafizabad Straw Board Mills Ltd. and 31994 PLD Lahore 160 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
- Ehsanullah Tarar vs M/s. Hafizabad Straw Board Mills Ltd. And 3 Other1994 PLD Lahore 160 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
- Ehsan-Ul-Haq vs The Government of Punjab Through Chief Secretary, Sga&I Department, Lahore And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1704 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Ehsan Ahmed and anothers vs The State and another1994 SCMR 1962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioners' writ petitions by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether a Sessions Court, acting as a revisional court under section 439-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, possesses the power to set aside a conviction and remand the case for a re-trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held, following its prior precedent in Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 SC 522), that the proposition raised stands resolved against the petitioners. Consequently, the learned counsel did not press the petition further, and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle reaffirmed is that established binding precedents of the Supreme Court govern points regarding revisional powers of the Sessions Court.
Questions settled- Does a Sessions Court have the power under section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to set aside a conviction and remand the case for re-trial?
- E.P.T.B. vs Rana Hamid Khan And Other1994 CLC 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
- Dur MUHAMMAD/Accused vs The STATEOpponent1994 MLD 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
- Dur Muhammad vs The State1994 MLD 1419 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
- Dur Muhammad alias Duri and others vs The State1994 MLD 1493 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
- Dullah (deceased) through Legal Heirs and anothers vs Muhammad1994 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan And Other vs Muhammad Qaisar Hayat Khan1994 PLC (C.S.) 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Federation of Pakistan challenging the judgment dated 20-4-1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Service Appeal No.278(L) of 1992, whereby the respondent, an Electronic Engineer in BPS-17 in the Pakistan Meteorological Department, was granted move-over to BPS-18. The core legal question was whether a civil servant with 'average' Annual Confidential Reports is entitled to the grant of move-over when such reports are not formally communicated as adverse. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly applied the established dictum that an 'average' report cannot be treated as adverse unless specifically communicated and must be treated as 'generally good' for the purpose of move-over if there are no adverse reports. The key principle laid down is that uncommunicated 'average' ACRs cannot bar a civil servant from obtaining a move-over.
Questions settled- Whether an 'average' Annual Confidential Report can be treated as an adverse report for the purpose of denying move-over?
- Does an uncommunicated 'average' report suffice to withhold the grant of move-over to a civil servant?
- Whether the rule treating 'average' reports as 'generally good' in the absence of adverse reports applies to move-over cases?
- Dullah (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs And Another vs Muhammad Hanif1994 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
- Drawdy Desiree Marie vs The State1994 MLD 1134 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. Zia Suleman Farooqi vs Punjab Public Service Commission and others1994 PLD Lahore 55 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
- Dr. Zia Suleman Farooqi vs Punjab Public Service Commission And Other1994 PLD Lahore 55 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
- Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddique vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Agricultural Department, Lahore1994 MLD 2424 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
- Dr. Riaz Armed vs Sabir Ali Bhojani1994 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. Riaz Ahmed vs Sabir Ali Bhojani1994 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. Raja Muhammad Arif Khan vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government1994 PLC (C.S.) 1392 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
- Dr. Nusrat Ullah Chaudhry and 2 others vs Government of the Punjab1994 PLD Lahore 353 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
- Dr. Nusrat Ullah Chaudhry And 2 Other vs Government of the Punjab1994 PLD Lahore 353 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Dodhy vs Sh. Zaheer Ahmad and 7 others1994 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as an appeal by leave against an order directing the eviction of the appellant, a qualified doctor, from a shop in the Liberty Market, Lahore, where he had operated a clinic for twenty years. Upon the hearing of the appeal, the appellant offered to vacate the premises by a specific date, provided he was granted sufficient time to do so. The respondents, through their counsel, accepted this proposal. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by directing the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the shop to the respondents on or before 11th September 1992. The Court further ordered that the appellant continue to pay the usual rent during this period. It was explicitly held that in the event of default in complying with this undertaking, the appellant would be subject to immediate ejection and liable for further legal consequences. This decision reflects the principle that parties may reach a binding settlement regarding the timeline for vacating premises in eviction proceedings, which the Court will enforce.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court enforce a settlement between parties regarding the timeline for vacating rented premises?
- What are the consequences for a tenant who fails to vacate premises by the date agreed upon in a court-sanctioned settlement?
- Dr. Muhammad Sadiq vs Zila Council, Khanewal through its Chairman1994 MLD 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Pervez vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1994 PLC (C.S.) 546 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Mazahir Alam vs Chairman, P.O.F. Wah And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1601 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-06-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Hamayun vs Chairman, P.O.F. Board, Wah Cantt. And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1668 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-07-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Hussain vs Secretary, Ministry of Health And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1288 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mahmood-Ur-Rahman Faisal vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary,1994 PLD Supreme Court 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal called in question the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which dismissed Shariat petitions challenging the validity of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction under Article 203-D of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, treating the Ordinance as 'Muslim Personal Law' based on the precedent in Federation of Pakistan v. Mst. Farishta. The core legal question was whether codified or statute laws applying exclusively to the Muslim population fall within the exclusionary definition of 'Muslim Personal Law' under Article 203-B(c) of the Constitution, thereby barring the Federal Shariat Court from examining their repugnancy to the Injunctions of Islam. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the previous interpretation in Mst. Farishta's case was incorrect, ruling that 'Muslim Personal Law' means only the personal law of each Muslim sect based on its own interpretation of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, and does not encompass all codified or statutory enactments merely because they apply exclusively to Muslims. Consequently, the Federal Shariat Court has jurisdiction to examine such statutes. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment set aside, and the case remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does the expression 'Muslim Personal Law' under Article 203-B(c) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, include all codified or statute laws that apply exclusively to the Muslim population?
- Whether the Federal Shariat Court has jurisdiction under Article 203-D of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to examine the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, for repugnancy to the Injunctions of Islam?
- What is the correct legal definition and scope of 'Muslim Personal Law' in the context of the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court?
- Dr. Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1221 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-04-30Read full judgment →
- Dr. Indu Kant and others vs State of U.P. and others1994 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-08-11Read full judgment →
- Dr. Fazlullah Pechuho vs Federation of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 522 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. Fawad Anwar vs Government of N: W.F.P. Through Secretary, Services1994 PLC (C.S.) 1642 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
- Dr. Dhanwanti Vaswani vs State and another1994 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-09-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. Azmat-Ur-Rehman vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1528 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-12-30Read full judgment →
- Dr. Amtul Razzaq Sami vs Government of Pakistan And Other1994 CLC 2185 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 207 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
- Dost Mohammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 278 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
- Dooley Hasan and 2 others vs Province of S1NDH through D.C. , Hyderabad and 2 others1994 SCMR 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, legal heirs of an original allottee of land, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their constitutional petition by the High Court of Sindh. The dispute centered on whether certain agricultural land allotted to the petitioners' predecessor under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, was validly available in the compensation pool. The record revealed that the land had been requisitioned and acquired by the Central Government in 1951 under Section 9 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance, 1948, and placed at the disposal of the Provincial Government for a satellite town scheme. The Supreme Court held that once the property was acquired by the Central Government under the Ordinance, it vested in the Government free from all encumbrances and did not form part of the compensation pool subsequently established under the 1958 Act, rendering the initial allotment void. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Questions settled- Whether land acquired by the Central Government under Section 9 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance, 1948 forms part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Does property acquired by the Central Government vest free from all encumbrances upon publication of a notice under Section 9(2) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance, 1948?
- Is an allotment of evacuee property valid if the property was not legally available in the compensation pool at the time of transfer?
- Doctor Raza Ahmed Gorsi C.M.O. District HQS Hospital,Kotli, A.K vs A.K_Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmirthrough Its Chief Secretary And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 117 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Post Offices, Gujrat and 2 others vs Rehman1994 PLD Supreme Court 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which ordered the reinstatement into service of a retired Sub-Postmaster who had been previously declared permanently incapacitated due to an eye disease and had received invalid pension. Years later, after his vision improved, he was examined by a newly constituted Medical Board which found him fit for duty. The core legal question was whether an employee invalidated and incapacitated during service can be re-employed or reinstated if subsequently certified as fit, despite having received invalid pension and not availing of the initial review within the prescribed timeframe. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Rule 519 of Chapter XXI of the Civil Service Regulations, there is no bar to the re-employment of an officer who has regained health after obtaining an invalid pension. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant who has been retired on medical grounds may be re-employed or reinstated upon regaining health and being certified fit by a competent medical board, notwithstanding the prior receipt of invalid pension.
Questions settled- Whether an employee invalidated and incapacitated during tenure of service can be re-employed if subsequently declared and certified fit to efficiently discharge duties after having availed of invalidity pension?
- Can an objection regarding the non-impleadment of the Federation of Pakistan be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when the matter was contested on merits before the Tribunal without such objection?
- Divisional Superintendent, Post Offices, Gujrat And 2 Other vs Rehman1994 PLC (C.S.) 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment ordering the reinstatement of a government employee who had been retired on medical grounds. The respondent, a Sub-Postmaster, was declared permanently incapacitated in 1983, retired, and received invalid pension benefits. Years later, claiming improved eyesight, he sought reinstatement. After a review committee recommended a new medical examination, he was certified fit for duty. The department rejected his reinstatement, citing limitation, but the Tribunal ordered his reinstatement. The Supreme Court addressed whether an employee retired on invalidity grounds could be re-employed upon regaining health. The Court held that, pursuant to Rule 519 of the Civil Service Regulations, there is no legal bar to the re-employment of an officer who has regained health after obtaining an invalid pension. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion, noting that the objection regarding the non-impleadment of the Federation was waived by the department's participation in the proceedings on merits. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the respondent's right to re-employment subject to the rules governing re-employment of pensioners.
Questions settled- Can a government servant who was retired on medical grounds be re-employed if they subsequently regain their health?
- Does the receipt of invalid pension benefits create an absolute bar to future re-employment in government service?
- Can an objection regarding the non-impleadment of the Federation be raised for the first time in an appeal before the Supreme Court if the department contested the case on merits before the Tribunal?
- Divisional Superintendent, Post Offices, Gujrat And 2 Other vs Rehman1994 PLD Supreme Court 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal with leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of a Sub-Postmaster into service with back benefits. The respondent had been retired from service in 1983 after a Medical Board declared him permanently incapacitated due to an eye disease, and he received his invalid pension. Several years later, after his vision improved, he applied for re-examination and reinstatement. Following a reference by a Review Committee, a second Medical Board found him fit for duty, but the Establishment Division rejected his request as time-barred. The Service Tribunal allowed his appeal and ordered his reinstatement, which the departmental authorities challenged before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned whether an employee invalidated from service on medical grounds could be re-employed upon regaining health, despite having received invalid pension benefits. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Rule 519 of the Civil Service Regulations there is no bar to the re-employment of an officer who has regained health after obtaining an invalid pension. The Court laid down that an incapacitated government servant may be re-employed upon subsequent medical fitness, and procedural or limitation objections not causing prejudice cannot defeat such relief.
Questions settled- Can a government servant who was retired on medical grounds be re-employed if they subsequently regain their health?
- Whether an objection regarding the non-impreading of the Federation of Pakistan can be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when the matter was contested on merits below?
- Does the receipt of invalidity pension permanently bar a former employee from seeking re-employment upon recovery?
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur And Another vs Mumtaz Ali And Another1994 PLC 667 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Salamat Ali1994 PLC 5 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-10-03Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Muhammad1994 PLC 492 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore And Another vs Muhammad Hanif And 5 Others1994 PLC 683 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways vs Punjab Labour Court1994 PLC 409 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ditta Khan vs Muhammad Zaman and 3 others1994 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the valuation of land for court-fee and jurisdiction purposes. The trial court initially rejected the plaints, finding the suits were incorrectly valued, despite acknowledging the plaintiffs' superior right of pre-emption. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the valuation finding and decreed the suit. The petitioner challenged this in the High Court, arguing that the District Judge lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the suit value exceeded the appellate court's limit. The High Court, while noting the valuation issue was arguable, declined to remand the case for re-trial. Instead, it reappraised the evidence and affirmed the concurrent findings regarding the plaintiffs' superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no infirmity in the approach of avoiding a remand to re-litigate the matter. The Court held that where the merits of a pre-emption claim are concurrently established, and the valuation dispute does not fundamentally undermine the justice of the case, the appellate or revisional court may resolve the matter to prevent unnecessary litigation and delay.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court maintain a decree on merits even if the initial valuation of the suit for court-fee purposes was disputed?
- Is it appropriate for a High Court in revision to reappraise evidence to avoid a remand of the case to the trial court?
- Does a finding on the valuation of a suit for court-fee and jurisdiction purposes preclude an appellate court from deciding the merits of a pre-emption claim?
- District Manager, Sindh Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad vs Zainal Shah And 3 Others1994 PLC 198 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
- District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi vs Ghazi1994 PLC 466 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
- District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi And Another vs Muhammad Ali And Another1994 PLC 74 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- District Manager (P), Government Transport Service, Peshawar vs Bakht Biland1994 PLC 548 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- District Council Haripur through Administrator, Deputy Commissioner, Haripur vs Zaheer Ullah Khan1994 PLD Peshawar 228 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
- Distribution Officer, Hoechst Pharmaceutical (Pakistan) Ltd., Faisalabad And Another vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore And 2 Others1994 PLC 157 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which had set aside the dismissal of respondent No. 3's grievance petition and ordered his reinstatement without back benefits. The core legal question was whether respondent No. 3, who was terminated from his employment as a Junior Officer/Sales Officer, qualified as a "workman" under section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Upon appraising the oral and documentary evidence pursuant to a remand by the Supreme Court, the Lahore High Court held that the primary and substantial duties performed by respondent No. 3 were of a managerial and supervisory nature relating to sales promotion, collection of proceeds, and sanctioning of overtime, while any typing or clerical work done by him was merely ancillary or incidental. The Court laid down that designation alone is not determinative, and the true test to ascertain whether an employee is a workman is the nature of the duties actually performed as a whole.
Questions settled- Whether an employee designated as a Junior Officer whose primary duties relate to sales promotion and supervision is a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the performance of occasional clerical or typing work by an employee engaged in supervisory duties bring him within the definition of a workman?
- Can the High Court appraise evidence in constitutional jurisdiction when a finding of fact by a tribunal is based on a misreading of evidence or ignores material documents?
- Directorgeneral, Pakistan Rangers, Lahore vs RJ3609 Exinspector1994 SCMR 243 · 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 had set aside the compulsory retirement of a member of the Pakistan Rangers. The core legal question is whether the service conditions and disciplinary proceedings of Pakistan Rangers personnel are governed by the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, and its associated rules, or by the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The petitioner contends that the Ordinance and its rules override the general civil service laws by virtue of section 1(3) of the Ordinance, and that the compulsory retirement was validly executed under section 15 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court notes a conflict in the Federal Service Tribunal's own jurisprudence regarding the applicability of the Pakistan Rangers (E&D) Rules, 1967, versus the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Finding the issue to be of substantial public importance requiring an authoritative pronouncement, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the conflict of opinion regarding the governing legal framework for disciplinary actions against Pakistan Rangers personnel.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Pakistan Rangers governed by the Pakistan Rangers (E&D) Rules, 1967, or the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, override the provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, in matters of disciplinary proceedings?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal interfere with a compulsory retirement order passed under the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, on the basis that it failed to follow the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Director-General, Pakistan Rangers, Lahore vs RJ 3609 Ex Inspector1994 PLC (C.S.) 420 · 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 had set aside the compulsory retirement of a member of the Pakistan Rangers. The respondent, an Ex-Inspector, was compulsorily retired by the Deputy Director-General, Pakistan Rangers Headquarters, Lahore. The Tribunal held that the retirement order was invalid because it was passed under Section 15(A-1) of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, rather than the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The petitioner contends that the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, and its associated rules govern the service of the respondent, overriding the general civil service rules by virtue of Section 1(3) of the Ordinance. Furthermore, the petitioner highlights a conflict in the Tribunal's jurisprudence regarding whether the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1967, take precedence over the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively resolve this conflict and determine the applicable disciplinary regime for Pakistan Rangers personnel.
Questions settled- Does the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, override the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, in matters of disciplinary action against Pakistan Rangers personnel?
- Are employees of the Pakistan Rangers governed by the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1967, rather than the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Director-General, Agricultural Engineer and Water Management, Hyderabad, Sindh And 2 Other vs Fateh Muhammad1994 PLC 213 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
- Director-General of Associated Press of Pakistan, Islamabad And 41994 PLC 225 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
- Din Muhammad vs Muhammad Khalid and another1994 SCMR 1675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant Din Muhammad seeking the enhancement of the sentence of Muhammad Khalid from imprisonment for life to death, following concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court which convicted Muhammad Khalid and Bashir Ahmed under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Abdul Aziz. The trial court had sentenced Bashir Ahmed to death and Muhammad Khalid to imprisonment for life, noting in mitigation that Khalid caused simple injuries on a non-vital part of the body, despite being vicariously liable. The High Court maintained the convictions and sentences, refusing enhancement. The core legal question concerned whether the discretion exercised by the trial court and the High Court in differentiating the sentences of the co-accused based on the nature of injuries warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that no justification existed to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower courts in mitigating the sentence of Muhammad Khalid. The petition for leave to appeal against the refusal to enhance the sentence was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretion exercised by lower courts in mitigating a sentence where an accused is vicariously liable but caused simple injuries on a non-vital part of the body?
- Can a complainant maintain a petition for the enhancement of a sentence from imprisonment for life to death based on the same evidence evaluated by the High Court?
- Din Muhammad And Others vs Subedar Muhammad Zaman1994 CLC 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-14Read full judgment →
- Dilshad Muhammad vs M/s. Pakistan Internatioal Airlines1994 PLC 76 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-09-08Read full judgment →
- Dilshad Khan vs Zahid Masood And 6 Other1994 CLC 531 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Dildar Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Iffat Nasreen1994 CLC 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
- Dilbar Hussain and others vs Riasat Javed Bajwa, S.H.O., Ferozewala1994 MLD 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
- Dilbar And Another vs The State1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 24 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-20Read full judgment →
- Dilawar Mahmood vs Babu Muhammad Munir and another1994 MLD 415 · Election Tribunal · 1993-09-09Read full judgment →
- Department vs AssesseePTCL 1994 CL. 146 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1993-05-06Read full judgment →
- Deedar Ali vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 309 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-03Read full judgment →
- Dean Children Dress Co. vs Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution1994 PLC 545 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
- Dawar Khan and anothers vs Zubair Shah and 6 others1994 PLD Peshawar 200 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
- Dawar Khan And Another vs Zubair Shah And 6 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 200 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
- Daulat Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue (Revenue), Punjab and 31994 SCMR 1250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, wherein the respondent sought damages from the appellant for alleged trespass on land. The appellant claimed to be a lawful lessee under an agreement with the previous owner. The core legal question was whether the appellant's occupation of the land, following a pre-emption decree obtained by the respondent against the appellant's son, constituted a valid leasehold interest or an act of trespass. The Revenue Court, upheld by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, found the lease arrangement to be a collusive effort between the father and son to deprive the decree-holder of the fruits of his litigation. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, holding that the appellant, having full knowledge of the pending litigation and the subsequent decree, could not assert an independent right to possession based on a collusive lease. The Court dismissed the appeal, establishing that a collusive transaction designed to frustrate a lawful judicial decree cannot confer legal rights of possession.
Questions settled- Whether a person with knowledge of pending litigation can claim valid possession through a collusive lease agreement?
- Does a collusive lease arrangement between family members effectively defeat a pre-emption decree holder's right to possession?
- Can a party claim status as a lessee to avoid liability for trespass when the lease is found to be collusive?
- Daulat And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 87 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
- Dabir Hussain vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Ltd.1994 PLD Lahore 23 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
- D1strict Council Haripur Through Administrator, Deputy Commissioner, Haripur vs Zaheer Ullah Khan1994 PLD Peshawar 228 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →