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.
- (Ch.) Muhammad Saleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 212 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
- (Ch.) Muhammad Ishaq vs Haji Muhammad Shafi And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 218 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
- (Ch.) Mohammad Saleem vs (Ch.) Yaqoob HusaainK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 556 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
- [198 Itr 530] Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs K.C. Badar and others1993 PTD 541 · Rajasthan High Court · 1992-04-03Read full judgment →
- [194 I T R 566] Gopal Chandra Pattnaik vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1993 PTD 620 · Orissa High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 127 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2242 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused person charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner, who was present at the scene of the crime but was not alleged to have caused any injury or instigated the co-accused, was entitled to the concession of bail pending trial. The Court observed that the petitioner was armed with a sota but performed no overt act, and the fatal injury was attributed solely to a co-accused. Holding that the petitioner's simple presence, unaccompanied by any specific criminal act, rendered his case one of further inquiry regarding his guilt and vicarious liability, the Court granted the bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is merely present at the scene of an occurrence without performing an overt act or instigating the commission of the offense, the question of vicarious liability remains a matter for trial, justifying the grant of bail pending the final adjudication of the case.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without any overt act, constitute sufficient grounds for denying bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to attribute any specific injury or instigation to them in a case involving vicarious liability?
- When does the question of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall to be determined?
- Zulfiqar Haider vs The Government of Sindh & OtherK.L.R.1993 Labour & Service Cases 179 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-05-10Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-02Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 168 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1993 SCMR 2046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Lahore High Court regarding a murder conviction. The core legal questions involved whether the testimony of interested and related witnesses could sustain a conviction in the absence of independent corroboration, and whether the principle of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' necessitated the acquittal of the appellant given that co-accused were acquitted based on the same evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no universal application in Pakistani law. The Court affirmed that it is the duty of the judiciary to sift the grain from the chaff, allowing for the conviction of accused persons whose guilt is established beyond doubt, even if other co-accused are acquitted due to insufficient evidence. The Court found the testimony of the injured eye-witness coherent and confidence-inspiring, thereby upholding the conviction.
Questions settled- Does the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' have universal application in criminal trials in Pakistan?
- Can a court convict an accused based on the testimony of interested witnesses if other co-accused have been acquitted on the same evidence?
- Is it permissible for a court to sift evidence to convict some accused while acquitting others based on the same testimony?
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited through its President1993 CLC 1356 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-28Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Government of Balochistan, Education Department1993 PLD Queeta 41 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ahmad alias Bhutto and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2503 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
- Zulfikar Ali Aulakh vs Rana Nazir Ahmad Khan and 5 others1993 MLD 2500 · Election Tribunal · 1993-09-07Read full judgment →
- Zubeda Bibi vs Selection Committee for Bolan Medical College, Quetta1993 PLD Queeta 14 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the rejection of the petitioner's application for admission to the first-year MBBS/BDS course at Bolan Medical College, Quetta, by the Selection Committee. The core legal question was whether a candidate could claim admission against a reserved seat for a specific district based on a domicile certificate issued for a combined district prior to its bifurcation, or whether the mandatory provision of the college prospectus requiring a specific district domicile certificate must be strictly satisfied. The Court held that the Selection Committee acted within its jurisdiction in rejecting the application. The prospectus of the educational institution constitutes a statutory instrument, and its requirements, specifically the production of a valid domicile certificate from the relevant district, are mandatory. The Court affirmed that administrative authorities must strictly adhere to the conditions stipulated in the prospectus, and past instances of leniency toward other family members do not create a vested right or legal precedent for the petitioner to bypass mandatory admission requirements.
Questions settled- Is the prospectus of an educational institution considered a statutory instrument for the purpose of regulating admissions?
- Can a candidate claim a reserved seat for a specific district based on a domicile certificate issued for a combined district prior to its bifurcation?
- Does the failure of a Selection Committee to enforce admission criteria in previous cases create a vested right for a current applicant to bypass those same criteria?
- Is the production of a domicile certificate from the specific district of the reserved seat a mandatory requirement for admission to Bolan Medical College?
- Zubeda Bai vs Syed Faqir Shah1993 PLD Queeta 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Zubair Zafar vs Government of Punjab & OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 64 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Zubair Ishtiaq Qureshi vs The Chairman of Academic Council and Principal of Sindh Medical College, Karachi and 3 others1993 CLC 1675 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by medical students challenging their disqualification from further medical education under Note (ii) of Regulation No. 4(1) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Association Regulations, which prescribes that a student failing to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in four chances, availed or unavailed, ceases to be eligible. The core legal question was whether the four-chance rule applies strictly under all circumstances or whether it admits exceptions for unavoidable causes beyond a student's control, such as severe sickness or institutional transfer constraints. The Sindh High Court held that the phrase 'unavailed' applies only to voluntary failure or designed inaction, and where a student is prevented by unavoidable causes beyond their control, such a chance cannot be deemed wasted. Being penal in nature, doubts in such disqualification provisions must be resolved in favour of the affected student. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned rejection orders, allowed the petitions, and directed that the petitioners be granted one further and last chance to take the examination.
Questions settled- Whether the restriction of four chances to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Association Regulations applies when a student's failure to take the exam is due to circumstances beyond their control?
- How are penal provisions disqualifying a student from pursuing further education to be interpreted in cases of ambiguity?
- Can illness or medical incapacity constitute a valid ground for treating an unavailed examination chance as an exception to the strict rule?
- Whether institutional transfer constraints that prevent a student from taking an examination can be considered an unavoidable cause beyond the student's control?
- Zila Council Sheikhupura vs Dost Muhammad and another1993 MLD 775 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
- Ziaullah vs The State1993 SCMR 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment maintaining the appellant's conviction under Section 302, P.P.C. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained given the inimical nature of prosecution evidence, the acquittal of co-accused, and the absence of independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was legally sound, affirming that the relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased or enmity with the accused does not automatically render their testimony unreliable. The Court emphasized that evidence must be scrutinized, and corroboration sought, rather than rejected outright. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is inapplicable, requiring courts to sift the grain from the chaff. The acquittal of co-accused based on the benefit of doubt does not necessitate the acquittal of the principal accused if evidence against him is sufficient. However, considering the appellant's youth and the influence of his grandfather, the Court reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment, establishing that such circumstances may serve as mitigating factors in sentencing.
Questions settled- Does the relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased or enmity with the accused automatically invalidate their testimony?
- Is the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applicable in criminal proceedings?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt necessitate the acquittal of the principal accused?
- Can the youth of an offender and the influence of an elder relative be considered as extenuating circumstances for reducing a death sentence?
- Ziaul Haq Awan vs Mst. Hasina Begum and 4 others1993 MLD 1263 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-07Read full judgment →
- Zia Aziz vs Muhammad Yousuf1993 MLD 2222 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
- Zenith Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax1993 PTD 983 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-01-06Read full judgment →
- Zeal-Pak Cement Factory Ltd. and another vs Farid Enterprises and 31993 MLD 654 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
- Zareef Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2455 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
- Zar Khan and 8 others vs Faqir Gul and 4 others1993 PLD Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners. The plaintiffs claimed that Khasra No. 1902 was 'Shamilat-e-Deh' and a public thoroughfare ('Shar-e-Aam'), while Khasra No. 1905 was their exclusive property. They challenged recent revenue entries that reversed these descriptions, showing Khasra No. 1905 as 'Shar-e-Aam' and Khasra No. 1902 as cultivable land. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, relying on the recent 1973-74 revenue records. On revision, the Peshawar High Court examined the historical revenue records dating back to 1903-04, which consistently showed Khasra No. 1902 as a public path and Khasra No. 1905 as the plaintiffs' private property. The High Court held that both lower courts had misread and ignored long-standing consistent revenue entries in favor of a sudden, unexplained change. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the lower courts' decrees, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Questions settled- Whether long-standing consistent revenue entries can be discarded in favor of a sudden, unexplained change in subsequent records?
- Can a co-sharer in 'Shamilat-e-Deh' land change the character of a public thoroughfare ('Shar-e-Aam') for personal cultivation or construction?
- Whether the misreading and omission of historical revenue records by lower courts constitutes a valid ground for interference in a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Zar Jan vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
- Zamir Muhammad Khan vs Fateh Khan and 4 others1993 CLC 133 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four connected Second Civil Appeals regarding the inheritance of land left by Ghulam Muhammad, who died in 1938 governed by agricultural custom. The central legal questions involved the status of female heirs (widow and daughter-in-law) as either limited owners or maintenance-holders, the validity of a gift made by a limited owner, and the application of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, to the estate's distribution. The Court held that the female heirs were limited owners under custom, rendering the gift made by the limited owner void. Upon the termination of the life estate, succession opened, and the estate must be distributed according to Islamic law, as mandated by the 1962 Act and the 1961 Ordinance. The Court established that the 1962 Act retrospectively replaced custom with Muslim Personal Law, and the widow of a predeceased son is entitled to inherit. Consequently, the appeals were partially allowed, and the case was remanded for the final determination of shares among the heirs.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 retrospectively replace customary law with Islamic law of inheritance?
- Is a gift of land made by a limited owner under customary law valid?
- Does the widow of a predeceased son inherit from the estate of the propositus under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- When does succession open for a limited estate held under customary law?
- Zameer Ahmed vs Bushra Fayaz1993 CLC 2370 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Rent Appeal challenges the judgment of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant-tenant from commercial premises on the ground of the respondent-landlady's personal bona fide requirement. The core legal question was whether the landlady successfully established the bona fide nature of her personal requirement for the premises to establish a car showroom for her husband and for her children. The High Court found that the landlady failed to disclose the existence of other commercial premises already in her possession and concealed material facts regarding her husband's existing business activities. Furthermore, the court held that the landlady’s claim regarding the requirement for her children was vague, lacking necessary particulars such as the number, ages, and sex of the children. The Court emphasized that a landlord must provide specific details to establish bona fides to allow a tenant to mount a proper defense. Consequently, the High Court set aside the eviction order, ruling that the landlady failed to prove her personal requirement in good faith.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's failure to disclose other premises in their possession affect the credibility of a claim for personal bona fide requirement?
- Is a landlord required to provide specific particulars regarding the needs of their children to establish a bona fide requirement for eviction?
- Can a tenant's refusal to accept an undertaking not to re-let premises be used as evidence of a landlord's good faith?
- Zaman vs The State and 4 others1993 P Cr. L J 959 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-02-18Read full judgment →
- Zaman Textile Mills Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue, Karachi and 21993 PLD Supreme Court 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal with leave challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing a constitutional petition against the demand for central excise duty. The core legal question was whether the rate of central excise duty applicable to manufactured goods is determined by the date of production or the date of clearance under Rule 9-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Supreme Court held that Rule 9-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 validly prescribed the manner of levy and collection under Section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and that the rate of duty applicable is the rate in force on the date the goods are cleared for home consumption. The Court established that previous judgments which failed to consider Rule 9-A are distinguishable, and that simultaneous legislative amendments omitting Rule 9-A and inserting Section 3C confirmed the statutory intent regarding clearance-date valuation.
Questions settled- Whether Rule 9-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is inconsistent with section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Does the rate of central excise duty apply on the date of manufacture or the date of clearance of goods when Rule 9-A is applicable?
- What is the legal effect of the omission of Rule 9-A and the simultaneous insertion of section 3C in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Zal Hussain vs Mahmood Hussain1993 MLD 1726 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
- Zakir Khan and 4 others vs Ghani Baig and 3 others1993 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which, in revisional jurisdiction, set aside the appellate court's decree in favor of the appellants regarding the possession of a Haveli. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the First Appellate Court's findings of fact regarding the ownership of the property, particularly when the respondents failed to substantiate their title or cross-examine key witnesses on critical claims. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its revisional interference, as the evidence on record sufficiently supported the appellants' claim of ownership through a registered sale deed, whereas the respondents failed to produce a registered deed or examine their own predecessor-in-interest. The Court emphasized that in civil litigation, findings of fact by the First Appellate Court, when based on a proper appreciation of evidence, should not be disturbed in revision unless there is a material irregularity or illegality. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the decree of the Additional District Judge, and affirmed the appellants' entitlement to the property.
Questions settled- Is it permissible for a High Court to interfere with findings of fact by the First Appellate Court in revisional jurisdiction?
- Does the failure to cross-examine a witness on a specific plea affect the validity of a claim based on that plea?
- Can a party claim ownership of property without a registered sale deed when the opposing party relies on a registered deed?
- Zakauddin vs Muhammad Zahid and 2 others1993 PLD Karachi 766 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 15 of Ordinance No. X of 1980 challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for a temporary injunction in a suit for injunction, damages, and accounts. The appellant claimed prior user and registration applications for the trade mark 'Bio-Amla' and 'FORVIL' for shampoo products, alleging that the respondents were manufacturing and selling spurious shampoo under the deceptively similar brand 'Super Amla Shampoo' and infringing trade marks to pass off their goods. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for grant of temporary injunction, despite allegations of unfair trade practices by both sides. The Sindh High Court held that a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience favored the appellant as prior user and adopter, and the respondents had copied the getup to pass off goods. The Court laid down that where both parties engage in similar misrepresentation, discretion should favor the party whose case is on a better footing on merits, and granted the temporary injunction subject to the appellant deleting foreign association references from its labels.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary injunction can be granted in a passing off action where the plaintiff establishes prior user and a deceptively similar mark by the defendant?
- Does the lack of final registration of a trade mark preclude a plaintiff from claiming proprietorship and interim relief based on continuous prior use?
- How should the court exercise its discretion regarding interim relief when both parties are alleged to have engaged in similar misrepresentation on their product labels?
- What constitutes a deceptively similar mark capable of causing confusion among average purchasers under the Trade Marks Act?
- Zakar Hussain vs Ahmad Ali and 9 others1993 MLD 1659 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Zainab Bibi vs Shaukat Ali1993 CLC 48 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2610 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Din vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 388 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Zahid vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 337 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal jail appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Karachi, which convicted the appellant under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was arrested during a police encounter and found in possession of an unlicensed Kalashnikov. The trial court relied heavily on the testimony of a recovery witness and a newspaper report detailing the arrest. On appeal, the High Court observed significant discrepancies between the First Information Report and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, noting that the recovery witness had a personal grudge against the appellant and was not independent. Furthermore, the High Court held that the trial court erred in relying on the newspaper report, as newspaper reports are inadmissible hearsay unless formally proved by a witness with personal knowledge. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Is a newspaper report admissible as evidence of the facts recorded therein without formal proof and testimony by a witness?
- Does the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 contain a presumption as to the genuineness of a newspaper or journal similar to Section 81 of the repealed Evidence Act 1872?
- Can a witness who has a history of personal enmity and physical altercations with the accused be considered an independent or reliable recovery witness?
- Zahid Niaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 25 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
- Zahid Mubariz vs Election Tribunal, Chakwal and another1993 CLC 1516 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
- Zahid Mehmood vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2120 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-03Read full judgment →
- Zahid Malik and 3 others vs Abdul Shakoor1993 CLC 1732 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Zahid Hussain vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 430 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
- Zahid Hussain and others vs The State and others1993 MLD 1366 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
- Zahid Anwar Wahla vs Muhammad AminK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 505 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
- Zahid Anwar Wahla vs Muhammad Amin and another1993 P Cr. L J 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, summoning the petitioner as an accused in a murder case arising from an FIR under section 302/307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a trial court can summon an accused who was found innocent during police investigation and not challaned, based on subsequent material and evidence brought on record during the trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a trial court takes cognizance of the offence as a whole rather than qua specific accused, and is fully competent to summon any person involved in the crime if sufficient material or evidence subsequently surfaces during the proceedings, notwithstanding a previous discharge order by a magistrate or a prior dismissal of an application at a pre-evidence stage. The key principle laid down is that the statutory power of a trial court to summon an additional accused is not barred by police exoneration or earlier interlocutory orders when new incriminating material emerges on the judicial record.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court has the jurisdiction to summon an accused person who was declared innocent during police investigation and omitted from the challan?
- Does a previous refusal by a trial court to summon an act of an accused operate as a bar to a subsequent summoning order when further material comes on record during trial?
- Does the discharge of an accused by a magistrate affect the jurisdiction of the trial court to summon him upon the production of sufficient material?
- Can a trial court take cognizance of a case against persons not sent up for trial by the police upon perusal of the record and evidence?
- Zahid and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 936 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Zahid Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1443 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
- Zaheeruddin and others vs The State and others1993 SCMR 1718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed a batch of appeals challenging the constitutional vires of Ordinance XX of 1984—which introduced sections 298-B and 298-C into the Pakistan Penal Code to prohibit members of the Qadiani and Lahori groups (Ahmadis) from using Islamic epithets, naming their places of worship 'Masjid', calling 'Azan', and posing as Muslims or preaching their faith—as well as orders restricting their centenary celebrations under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The core legal questions involved whether these penal and executive restrictions violated the fundamental rights to freedom of speech, religion, and equality under Articles 19, 20, and 25 of the Constitution. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Ordinance XX of 1984 and the executive orders, ruling that while freedom of religion is guaranteed, it is subject to law, public order, and morality, and does not extend to a right to deceive others, use exclusive Islamic symbols or epithets (Shaa'ire Islam), or outrage the religious feelings of Muslims. The court thus dismissed all appeals by majority.
Questions settled- Whether Ordinance XX of 1984 is ultra vires the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19, 20, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the wearing of a badge inscribed with 'Kalma Tayyaba' by an Ahmadi amount to 'posing' as a Muslim under section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether an executive order under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be extended indefinitely till further orders?
- Does the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 20 of the Constitution protect the use of exclusive Islamic epithets and practices by non-Muslim minorities?
- Zaheer Mirza vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 37 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-02Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Din vs The State1993 SCMR 1628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Article 185(a) of the Constitution challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed the trial court's acquittal of the appellant and convicted him under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal where the trial court's view of the evidence was reasonably possible and not perverse. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in setting aside the acquittal merely because it preferred another possible view of the evidence. Reaffirming established principles regarding appeals against acquittal, the Court held that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence which should not be interfered with unless the trial court's findings are perverse, arbitrary, shocking, or based on a misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the appellant's acquittal.
Questions settled- When can the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
- Does the failure of an accused to prove a defence plea reduce the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
- Is a mere difference in the view of evidence taken by an appellate court sufficient to set aside an acquittal?
- What are the guiding principles for an appellate court while deciding a criminal acquittal appeal?
- Zafarullah Khan vs Muhammad Khan and others1993 SCMR 696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals, preferred by vendees, arise out of pre-emption suits decreed in favour of pre-emptors after 31-7-1986. The core legal question is whether Section 34(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 saves suits that were instituted and dismissed by the trial court before 1-8-1986, allowing them to be decreed after 31-7-1986 under the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Supreme Court held that the expression 'judgment and decree' in saving clauses of pre-emption legislation refers only to those judgments and decrees passed in favour of pre-emptors prior to the cut-off date of 31-7-1986. The Court laid down the principle that suits dismissed by the trial court before 31-7-1986 cannot be saved or subsequently decreed in favour of pre-emptors under Section 34(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, aligning with the established rule against post-31-7-1986 pre-emption decrees.
Questions settled- Whether Section 34(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 saves suits that were dismissed by the trial court before 1-8-1986 from the effect of the cut-off date?
- Does the expression 'judgment and decree' in pre-emption saving clauses refer exclusively to judgments and decrees passed in favour of pre-emptors?
- Can a pre-emption suit be validly decreed in favour of a pre-emptor after 31-7-1986 if the trial court had initially dismissed the suit prior to that date?
- Zafarullah CH. vs A.D.J.K.L.R 1993 Civil Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
- Zafarullah and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 113 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
- Zafarul Hassan and others vs Muhammad Kalim and others1993 SCMR 2028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a suit for specific performance and damages regarding an industrial unit transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The appellants, having entered into a sale agreement with the original transferees, challenged the subsequent transfer of the property to third parties via an 'agreement of association' approved by Settlement Authorities. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging orders passed by Settlement Authorities under the Act, specifically regarding the acceptance of an agreement of association. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authorities acted within their jurisdiction in accepting the agreement of association, a process validated by previous jurisprudence. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the orders of the Settlement Authorities, having attained finality under the Act, were immune from challenge in Civil Courts. The Court reiterated the principle that where Settlement Authorities exercise valid jurisdiction under the Act, their decisions cannot be interfered with by Civil Courts, thereby barring such suits under the statutory provisions of the Act.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to challenge orders passed by Settlement Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Is the acceptance of an agreement of association by Settlement Authorities valid under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a suit for specific performance be maintained against property transferred through an agreement of association approved by Settlement Authorities?
- Zafar Ullah and another vs Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib1993 CLC 255 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
- Zafar Mirza vs Mst. Naushina Amir Ali1993 PLD Karachi 775 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Rent Controller's order directing the appellant to vacate rented premises due to the deceased original tenant's default in rent payment. The core legal questions were whether a written statement and an affidavit-in-evidence of a deceased party, who was not cross-examined, constitute substantive evidence, and whether the legal heirs of a deceased tenant are liable for eviction based on defaults committed by the predecessor during his lifetime. The Court held that neither a written statement nor an affidavit-in-evidence of a deceased person who did not appear for cross-examination can be treated as substantive evidence, as pleadings are not evidence by themselves. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that legal heirs succeeding to a tenancy inherit the defects of that tenancy, including defaults committed by the predecessor. Consequently, the legal heirs are bound by the default committed by the deceased tenant, and the eviction order was upheld. The principle established is that a tenant's legal heirs are liable for the predecessor's defaults, and un-cross-examined affidavits or pleadings of a deceased party lack probative value.
Questions settled- Can a written statement or an affidavit-in-evidence of a deceased party be treated as substantive evidence if the deponent was not cross-examined?
- Are the legal heirs of a deceased tenant liable for eviction based on rent defaults committed by the predecessor during his lifetime?
- Does the right of legal heirs to continue as tenants remain subject to the outcome of pending eviction proceedings initiated against the original tenant?
- Zafar Islam vs Jehan Khan and 4 others1993 CLC 2537 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 972 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal Dharla vs The Member (Revenue Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore & AnotherK.L.R 1993 Labour & Service Cases 217 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Zafar Hussain vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry1993 SCMR 2340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal regarding the ante-dating of his move-over to BPS-19. The petitioner had previously litigated the same issue, resulting in a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed his petition and refused leave to appeal. Relying on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner attempted to reopen the matter before the departmental authorities and subsequently the Service Tribunal, arguing that the law had been settled in his favor. The Supreme Court held that the subject matter of the controversy had already been resolved against the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, rendering the matter final. The Court emphasized that once a final judgment has been pronounced by the Supreme Court, the decided matter cannot be re-examined or reopened, regardless of subsequent legal developments or interpretations. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the contention that a fresh cause of action had accrued and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a matter already decided by a final judgment of the Supreme Court be reopened based on a subsequent legal precedent?
- Does a subsequent Supreme Court judgment create a fresh cause of action for a litigant whose case was previously decided against them?
- Zafar and another vs The State1993 MLD 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali vs The State1993 MLD 580 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
- Yusuf and others vs Abdul Karim and others1993 MLD 2123 · Federal Land Commission · 1992-05-27Read full judgment →
- Yusuf Ali Khan, Barrister-at-Law vs Messrs Hongkong and Shanghai1993 SCMR 1320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 18-11-1992 passed in C.M. No. 279-B of 1992 in C.O.S. No. 37 of 1989. The petitioner contended that under the relevant amended law, no provision exists for the transfer of pending cases, and further argued that the legal precedents relied upon in the High Court's impugned order were inaptly applied. The Supreme Court observed that the case raised a question of statutory construction of public importance regarding whether pending cases could be transferred in the absence of an express statutory provision under the amended law. Concluding that a substantial legal question required further examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. Additionally, the Court directed that the interim order previously passed on 4-1-1993 shall continue to operate in the interim pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the amended law contain a provision for the transfer of pending cases?
- Whether reliance on precedents concerning case transfers is applicable under the amended statutory framework?
- Yousuf vs Assadulhaq and another1993 CLC 1787 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-03Read full judgment →
- Yousuf and 14 others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 2534 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-01Read full judgment →
- Younus and 7 others vs S. Aziz Ahmed1993 CLC 2380 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenged an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi South, allowing an eviction application filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenants on the grounds of impairing the value and utility of the building and personal requirement. The core legal questions involved whether the tenants had unauthorizedly constructed on the roof and closed the staircase thereby impairing the property, and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal need for the premises. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord failed to prove impairment of the utility and value of the building through expert evidence like an architect or engineer, thereby setting aside the Rent Controller's finding on that ground. However, the Court upheld the finding on personal requirement, noting that the landlord's consistent and unshaken testimony regarding family discord and the need to reside in his own property remained unrebutted. The key principle laid down is that a landlord's assertion of bona fide personal use, when consistent with pleadings, supported by oath, and left unshaken in cross-examination without rebuttal, must be accepted as correct, whereas allegations of structural impairment require formal expert testimony.
Questions settled- Whether expert evidence from an architect or engineer is necessary to prove that unauthorized construction or closure of a staircase has impaired the material value and utility of a building?
- Does the roof of a multi-story tenement building form part of a single upper-floor tenancy unless explicitly provided otherwise?
- Can a landlord's claim for bona fide personal requirement be accepted when supported by oath and left unshaken during cross-examination without rebuttal by the tenant?
- Yas1n and others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-01Read full judgment →
- Yaqub vs Al' I Zaman1993 PLD Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
- Yaqoob and 4 others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1805 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
- Yaqoob Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 332 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
- Yahya Bakhtiar vs The Federation of Pakistan and 4 others1993 PLD Queeta 78 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
- Wukala Mahaz Barai Tahafuz Dastoor vs Government of Pakistan and others1993 P Cr. L J 744 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-07Read full judgment →
- Workers Union of P.Ia. Institute of Planetaria, Karachi vs Fida1993 PLD Karachi 713 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal addressed the maintainability of an intra-court appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Judge in a constitutional petition relating to the registration of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether an intra-court appeal is barred under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, when the proceedings arise out of a statute that provides a right of appeal against the original order, even if that right is available to only one party. The Sindh High Court held that the appeal was not competent because the relevant statute, specifically section 8(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provides a right of appeal against the original order concerning trade union registration. The court laid down the principle that the competency of an intra-court appeal under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 depends on whether the law applicable to the proceedings provides for at least one appeal, revision, or review against the original order, and it is immaterial whether that right of appeal is granted to both parties or only to one.
Questions settled- Whether an intra-court appeal is competent under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 when the underlying proceedings originate from a statute providing an appeal against the original order?
- Does section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 require the right of appeal to be available to both parties for the bar against an intra-court appeal to apply?
- What constitutes an 'original order' in proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the purpose of determining the maintainability of an appeal?
- Does section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provide a right of appeal against the registration or rejection of registration of a trade union?
- Whammad Bashir vs Mst. Sumaira Shahzadi and others1993 CLC 779 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
- West Punjab Textile Mills Ltd vs Government of Punjab, through Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab (RP)1993 PLD Lahore 297 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
- Wealth Tax Officer and anothers vs Shaukat Afzal and 4 others1993 SCMR 1810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondents and declared wealth tax assessment orders on certain disputed properties to be without lawful authority. The respondents, an association of persons, inherited properties and were subjected to wealth tax under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. While their departmental appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was still pending, they invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the High Court ought to have entertained the constitutional petition while an alternate statutory remedy was already being pursued. Holding that a party cannot abandon or bypass a statutory remedy once invoked without valid and reasonable cause, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that the respondents may seek revival of their pending appeal before the Tribunal for a decision on merits. The principle laid down is that the High Court should not entertain a constitutional petition when an alternate efficacious statutory remedy has already been invoked and is pending.
Questions settled- Can a party file a constitutional petition after abandoning or bypassing a statutory remedy already resorted to?
- Whether the High Court should entertain a constitutional petition under Article 199 when an appeal is already pending before the Appellate Tribunal?
- Does the existence of an alternate statutory remedy bar the invocation of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction?
- Wazir Muhammad vs Ch. Muhammad Hussain through Legal Heirs and another1993 CLC 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
- Wazir and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-03Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore vs Muhammad Riaz1993 SCMR 1134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves service appeals filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against the Federal Service Tribunal's decision, which set aside the removal of two employees from service. The respondents had initially been exonerated by a subordinate authority, but the WAPDA Authority, exercising suo motu revisional powers under the WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978, subsequently removed them without recording detailed reasons in the final orders. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal, upon finding that the Authority failed to provide sufficient reasoning in its orders, should have automatically set aside the removal or whether it was obligated to remand the case for a fresh, reasoned decision. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred by not remanding the matter. The Court established the principle that when an appellate or revisional body identifies a technical deficiency—such as a failure to record reasons—in an administrative order, the appropriate course of action is to remand the case to the original authority for a fresh decision and the issuance of a properly reasoned order, rather than simply setting aside the impugned action.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an administrative authority to record reasons in a revisional order necessitate the setting aside of the order or a remand for a fresh decision?
- Is an appellate tribunal required to examine the entire departmental file before concluding that an administrative order lacks sufficient reasoning?
- Can a service tribunal set aside an administrative removal order without first providing the authority an opportunity to rectify procedural deficiencies?
- Water and Power Development Authority (Power Wing) through Chief1993 CLC 970 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Wasiuddin Khawar vs Mst. Marrium Bai through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 1736 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
- Waseem Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2149 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
- Waryam---Petitioncr vs Usman Khan and another1993 MLD 1518 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-09Read full judgment →
- Waryam vs Usman Khan And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 129 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-09Read full judgment →
- Waqar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 323 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
- Waqar Ilias and anothers vs The State through Federal Investigating1993 PLD Queeta 49 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of twenty-six criminal revision petitions challenging the orders of the Special Court passed under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, whereby process was issued to summon the petitioners—who were bank officers placed in Column No. 2 of the police challan as persons not sent up for trial—to face charges of fraud, cheating, and criminal breach of trust in connection with sanctioned bank loans secured by severely undervalued properties. The core legal questions addressed whether a Special Judge is competent to issue process against accused persons placed in Column No. 2 of a challan without recording prior evidence or assigning detailed reasons, and whether such action constitutes impermissible suo motu cognizance. The Balochistan High Court held that a trial court is not bound by the opinion of the investigating agency, is fully empowered to summon accused persons whose names appear in Column No. 2 based on the record, and is not legally required to record evidence, issue a show-cause notice, or write detailed reasons when issuing process at this stage. The petitions were consequently dismissed, with the observation that the petitioners could seek remedy under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Questions settled- Whether a Special Judge is competent to issue process against an accused person whose name appears in Column No. 2 of the police challan?
- Does a trial court take cognizance of the offence or of the offender?
- Is a trial court legally bound to record evidence or assign reasons when issuing process against persons placed in Column No. 2 of a challan?
- Whether a show-cause notice is required to be issued to an accused before summoning him from Column No. 2 of the challan?
- WAPDA. vs Major Ata Muhammad Khan and 8 others1993 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed an appeal filed by the Provincial Government regarding land acquisition compensation. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government, having initiated a reference against a Land Acquisition Collector's award for land acquired for WAPDA, possessed the standing to file an appeal against the District Court's decision, given that WAPDA itself did not challenge the award. The High Court had erroneously relied on the precedent of Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad, which involved different provincial statutory amendments, to declare the Provincial Government's appeal incompetent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on Pir Khan was misplaced because the Punjab provincial law explicitly conferred the right to file a reference and subsequent appeal upon the Provincial Government, regardless of whether the land was acquired for a local authority like WAPDA. The Supreme Court established that a party possessing the statutory right to file a reference against an award necessarily retains the right to appeal the resulting judgment, rendering the Provincial Government's appeal competent.
Questions settled- Does the Provincial Government have the right to file an appeal against an award under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 when the land was acquired for a local authority?
- Is a party that possesses the statutory right to file a reference against a land acquisition award automatically entitled to file an appeal against the resulting judgment?
- Does the precedent in Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer apply to land acquisition cases in the Punjab Province given the specific statutory amendments?
- WAPDA vs Zahoor Ahmed1993 SCMR 582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had converted the respondent's removal from service into retirement. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal could modify the penalty without first adjudicating the threshold issue of limitation, which had been specifically remanded by the Supreme Court, and whether such conversion was permissible without a finding of mala fides regarding the original removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred by bypassing the limitation issue and failing to provide cogent reasons for modifying the penalty. The Court emphasized that Service Tribunals, despite their broad powers to grant relief, are bound by judicial norms and must demonstrate a conscious application of mind to both facts and law. The principle laid down is that a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction cannot proceed to the merits of a case or grant relief without first resolving preliminary legal bars like limitation, nor can it arbitrarily modify service penalties without a finding of illegality or mala fides.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal modify a penalty of removal from service without first deciding the issue of limitation?
- Is a Service Tribunal required to provide cogent reasons when converting a removal from service into retirement?
- Can a Service Tribunal interfere with an order of removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act without a finding of mala fides?
- WAPDA vs Janna T Ice Factory1993 CLC 651 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
- WAPDA and 2 others vs Muhammad Hussain Gul1993 SCMR 2337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Service Tribunal order that reinstated the respondent, a former WAPDA employee, following his termination. The petitioners argued that the respondent, as an ad hoc employee, could not challenge his termination before the Service Tribunal and that his appeal was time-barred by 22 months. The Supreme Court observed that while the respondent's initial appointment was ad hoc, it was subject to specific conditions—passing a written test and approval by the Selection Board—both of which the respondent fulfilled, thereby entitling him to regular appointment. Regarding the limitation issue, the Service Tribunal had condoned the 22-month delay, accepting that the respondent had been misled by counsel into pursuing a writ petition in the High Court instead of the Service Tribunal, noting the complexity and confusion surrounding service law jurisdiction at the time. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's exercise of discretion in condoning the delay was legally sound and that technicalities should be avoided in service matters. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal condone a delay in filing an appeal based on wrong legal advice regarding the appropriate forum?
- Does an ad hoc employee who fulfills all prescribed conditions for regular appointment acquire a right to continued service?
- Should technicalities regarding limitation be strictly applied in service matters involving employees of statutory bodies?
- Walton Tobacco Company (Pvt.) Ltd and others vs Azad Government1993 CLC 66 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These writ petitions challenged the validity of Ordinances amending the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Education Cess Act, 1975, which imposed education cess on cosmetic and cigarette industries. The core questions concerned the maintainability of the petitions due to procedural defects, the applicability of fundamental rights to non-State Subjects, the reasonableness of the tax classification, and the competence of the legislature to enact fiscal laws via Ordinance. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding them incompetent for failure to provide valid authorization from the companies as required by Section 173 of the Company Law. On merits, the Court ruled that the guarantee of equality under Section 4(15) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, is exclusively available to "State Subjects," which the petitioners failed to establish. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the legislature may validly enact fiscal legislation through an Ordinance, and the classification of luxury items for taxation purposes constitutes a reasonable and non-discriminatory exercise of legislative power. The petitions were thus dismissed for lack of authority and merit.
Questions settled- Are writ petitions filed by companies maintainable without proper authorization and documentation as required by company law?
- Is the fundamental right to equality under Section 4(15) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, available to non-State Subjects?
- Can fiscal legislation be validly enacted through an Ordinance under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974?
- Does the imposition of education cess on luxury items constitute a reasonable classification under the equality provisions of the Constitution?
- Wali Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1715 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad vs Shafiq Ahmad1993 MLD 2549 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad vs Muhammad Shafi and another1992 SCMR 1365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines whether the latter part of paragraph 52 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme was wide enough to encompass pre-partition declaratory decrees obtained by reversioners regarding limited alienations of land in India, allowing their enforcement against refugee allotments in Pakistan. The appellant had obtained a declaratory decree in 1934 that a sale by a limited owner would not affect his reversionary rights. Following partition, the contesting respondent obtained property allotments in lieu of abandoned land, against which the appellant sought enforcement under paragraph 52. The High Court had ruled that the declaratory decree was unenforceable without a subsequent suit for possession filed within limitation. The Supreme Court held that paragraph 52 is a remedial executive instruction requiring a liberal and purposive construction to cover authentic claims and decrees. The Court ruled that under rehabilitation laws, where civil suits are barred regarding allotted evacuee property, an application under paragraph 52 is the appropriate remedy, and strict periods of limitation for civil suits do not apply. The appeal was accepted, the High Court judgment set aside, and the matter partially remanded for proper determination of shares.
Questions settled- Whether paragraph 52 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme is wide enough to include pre-partition declaratory decrees obtained by reversioners?
- Does a strict period of limitation applicable to civil suits apply to an application filed under paragraph 52 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Whether a civil suit in respect of an interest in evacuee property allotted under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme is competent under the law?
- Wali Muhammad vs Hakeem Muhammad Khan and 2 others1993 MLD 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad and others vs Noor Muhammad and others1993 PLD Lahore 572 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →