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.
- Qazi Zika-Ud-Din vs Messrs Oberoy Cooperative Sports Limited through Wallid Ali, Manager and 2 others1993 MLD 2425 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Qazi Muhammad Latif vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 2468 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
- Qazi Manzoor Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 429 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-09Read full judgment →
- Qayyum Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 675 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-30Read full judgment →
- Qayyum Khan and 2 others vs Muhammad Zaman Khan1993 MLD 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
- Qassim through Legal Heirss vs Aziz Baig1993 CLC 2385 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-15Read full judgment →
- Qasim through Legal Heirs vs Ivth Senior Civil Judge and Rent1993 MLD 1846 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
- S. Ziauddin Ahmad vs The State1993 CLC 1934 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
- Qasim Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2260 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-06Read full judgment →
- Qari Muhammad Siddiq vs Delimitation Officer, Liaquatpur and others1993 CLC 63 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
- Qari Muhammad Aslam vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha and another1993 MLD 711 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- Qamar-Ul-Islam vs The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan1993 MLD 1362 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a student candidate against the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan, challenging its policy of declaring examination results through a code system instead of disclosing marks, and refusing answer script inspection or re-checking. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a constitutional petition against the respondent Institute under Article 199 of the Constitution, and whether the petitioner had a vested right to challenge the examination policy. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was not maintainable as the Institute did not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province under the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, since its control and management vested in its own Council and its funds were managed independently rather than provided by the State. Furthermore, the court held on merits that the Examination Committee acted within its lawful powers under the applicable bye-laws in formulating the uniform examination policy. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does a candidate have a vested right to compel the Institute of Chartered Accountants to disclose marks or follow a particular examination policy?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained against a private or autonomous body whose control and management does not vest in the Government and whose funds are not provided by the State?
- Qamar Bughio vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 482 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
- Qamar Bughio vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2135 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order addresses a bail application filed by Qamar Bughio, Resident Director of Ghee Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited (G.C.P.), who was accused in an FIR under Section 409/34, Pakistan Penal Code, and Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, for alleged misappropriation of 4,000 metric tons of edible oil worth Rs. 72 million. The core legal questions involved the applicant's culpability, whether the property was entrusted to him, the applicability of the principle of consistency given co-accused were granted bail, and medical grounds for bail. The court dismissed the bail application, finding sufficient evidence of the applicant's involvement, including his delay in reporting the pilferage and failure to take timely action. It was held that the applicant, as Resident Director, had dominion over the property, thus attracting Section 409 PPC. The court further clarified that the principle of consistency is not absolute and applies only when a person is entitled to bail on merits, which the applicant was not. Medical grounds were also rejected due to insufficient current evidence.
Questions settled- Can a person claim bail solely on the principle of consistency if co-accused have been granted bail?
- Is the principle of consistency an absolute and inflexible rule in bail matters?
- Can a public servant having dominion over property be guilty of criminal breach of trust under Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code, even without specific entrustment?
- What constitutes entrustment of property for the purpose of Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code?
- Under what circumstances can medical grounds be considered for granting bail?
- Qamar Ali Khan vs Zardad Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 162 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-19Read full judgment →
- Qaisar Abbas vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 197 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Qaimuddin vs Ghulam Shah1993 CLC 336 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
- Qaim and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2062 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
- Qadri Brothers Foundry & Workshop and 2 others vs Mst. Safia and another1993 MLD 612 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
- Qadir Bakhsh and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 903 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
- Qadir Bakhsh alias Qadoo vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
- Qadeer Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2158 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-06-22Read full judgment →
- Qadeem Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 589 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
- Pyorrhoea Cure Trust through Managing Trustee and anothers vs Hakim1993 MLD 1244 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
- Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax1993 PTD 1041 · Punjab and Haryana High CourtRead full judgment →
- Punjab Province through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab1993 CLC 2082 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
- Punjab Auto Enterprises vs Commissioner of Income-Tax I.T.C.1993 PTD 1388 · Delhi High Court · 1992-03-11Read full judgment →
- Province of West Pakistan through Collector, Lyallpur and another vs Amir Begum and 4 others1993 MLD 885 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
- Province of West Pakistan through Collector Lyallpur And Other vs Amir Begum And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 312 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Province of the Punjab through Member Board of Revenue, (Residual1993 PLD Supreme Court 147 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an ex parte decree regarding a claim of ownership of land, where the trial, appellate, and revisional courts had granted relief despite significant procedural and legal defects. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the suit due to non-joinder of necessary parties, improper service of summons on government functionaries, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the courts below failed to exercise their judicial discretion properly, particularly regarding the mandatory duty to examine the plaint for defects and the bar of limitation. The Court emphasized that the amendment to Order IX, Rule 6 C.P.C. granting discretion to pass ex parte decrees without recording evidence does not absolve courts of their duty to scrutinize claims for patent defects or time-bar issues. The Court established that the duty under Section 3 of the Limitation Act is mandatory and must be exercised by all courts, regardless of whether the defendant appears or contests the suit, and that a suit clearly time-barred on the face of the plaint must be dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the amendment to Order IX, Rule 6 C.P.C. mandating ex parte decrees without evidence absolve a court from its duty to check for limitation bars?
- Is a court required to dismiss a suit under Section 3 of the Limitation Act even if the defendant does not appear or raise the defense of limitation?
- Can a suit against the government be maintained when the specific government functionaries named in the suit have ceased to exist in the eye of the law?
- Does the discretion to pass an ex parte decree without recording evidence under Order IX, Rule 6 C.P.C. permit a court to decree a patently time-barred or dishonest claim?
- Province of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner, Dadu and 2 otherss vs Haji Khan1993 MLD 2349 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-12Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab vs Mst. Hanifan1993 MLD 2430 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab vs Malik Altaf Ahmed and others1993 CLC 179 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These Regular First Appeals arise out of land acquisition proceedings wherein 416 kanals 15 marlas of land in Rajanpur was acquired for constructing a district complex. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at Rs.400 per marla, which the Reference Court enhanced to Rs.2,000 per marla. The Province of Punjab appealed, arguing that the land was agricultural and lower documentary rates should apply, while the respondents sought to maintain or increase the compensation based on its commercial and residential potential. The Lahore High Court examined the principles of assessing market value in compulsory acquisition cases, considering potential use, location near urban centers, and inflationary trends. The Court held that the acquired land had lost its purely agricultural character and possessed significant residential and commercial potential, but since the respondent-owners had not filed cross-objections or appeals against the enhanced award, the Court declined to alter it further. Consequently, the appeals by the Province of Punjab were dismissed, upholding the Reference Court's award along with statutory benefits.
Questions settled- What factors determine the market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Can future potential and commercial use of agricultural land be considered when assessing compensation?
- Whether past sales alone are sufficient to determine the market value of acquired land?
- Are landowners entitled to compensation based on inflationary trends and currency depreciation between the notification date and the award?
- Province of Punjab vs Ch. Pervaiz Ahmad and others1993 CLC 660 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through Secretary, Public Works and Highway1993 SCMR 1180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute between the Province of Punjab and a toll tax contractor regarding a claim for a rebate on auction bid money due to alleged losses caused by civil unrest and curfews. The central legal question was whether the contractor was entitled to a rebate based on such disturbances and whether the arbitrators' award, which granted a 35% reduction, was legally sustainable given the contract's terms and the evidence presented. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the arbitrators' award and the lower courts' judgments. The Court held that the contractor failed to establish actual loss, as civil unrest is a foreseeable phenomenon in contract bidding. The Court established that the mere occurrence of public disturbances does not constitute sufficient proof of financial loss to justify a contract rebate. Furthermore, an arbitration award lacking evidence of actual loss and failing to provide convincing reasons for its conclusions suffers from legal infirmity and cannot be made a rule of the court.
Questions settled- Can a contractor claim a rebate on auction bid money due to losses caused by civil unrest and curfews?
- Does the mere occurrence of public strikes and agitation constitute sufficient proof of financial loss to justify a contract rebate?
- Is an arbitration award valid if it lacks evidence of actual loss and fails to provide convincing reasons for its conclusions?
- Province of Punjab through Deputy Commissioner_ Collector Sargodha, District Sargodha vs Muhammad Akram1993 PLD Lahore 114 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a dispute regarding the resumption of agricultural land originally allotted under the Ejected Tenants Scheme and subsequently conveyed to the respondent's predecessor through a registered conveyance deed. The Member, Board of Revenue, acting under Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, revoked the conveyance deed and ordered resumption of the land on the ground that it fell within a prohibited zone and was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The lower courts decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring the Board of Revenue's order illegal, which decision was challenged in revision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Board of Revenue failed to conduct a proper inquiry or establish the jurisdictional fact of fraud or misrepresentation, relying instead on unverified oral statements. The Court laid down that the power of resumption under Section 30(2) requires a quasi-judicial inquiry into jurisdictional facts, and where a revenue authority acts ultra vires its statutory powers, the ouster of civil court jurisdiction under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 does not apply.
Questions settled- Whether the Board of Revenue can resume land under Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 without holding a proper inquiry into the jurisdictional fact of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Does the bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 apply when a revenue authority acts ultra vires its statutory powers?
- Is an oral statement by a revenue official regarding physical distance sufficient to establish that land lies within a prohibited zone?
- Whether the acquisition of proprietary rights through a registered conveyance deed can be revoked without establishing a valid legal ground supported by evidence?
- Province of Punjab through Collector, Sahiwal and another vs Malik1993 MLD 1976 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through Collector, Faisalabad and 3 others vs Arbila1993 PLD Lahore 240 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through Collector, District Khushab and 2 others vs Malik Ghulam Qasim1993 CLC 589 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arose from a dispute over the ownership of a plot of land in Joharabad. The respondent, Malik Ghulam Qasim, filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction challenging an order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Development) which had reviewed and recalled an earlier order favorable to the respondent. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, holding the review order invalid. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Secretary possessed the statutory power to review and recall his own previous order under the governing legislation. The High Court held that the power of review is a substantive right that must be expressly conferred by statute. Finding no such provision in the Thal Development Act, 1949 or the Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973, the Court ruled the review order void. Furthermore, the Court noted the respondent was denied natural justice by not being impleaded in the review proceedings. The petition was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's decision.
Questions settled- Is the power of review a substantive right that requires express statutory conferment?
- Can the power of review be exercised under the Thal Development Act, 1949 or the Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973?
- Does the procedural provision of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 regarding review apply to proceedings under the Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973?
- Is an order passed in review proceedings valid if the affected party was not impleaded or heard?
- Province of Punjab through Collector Jhang, District Jhang vs Lal Khan1993 CLC 2444 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab and others vs Messrs Khalid & Company1993 CLC 804 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab and 3 others vs Dr. Muhammad Daud Khan Tariq1993 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the High Court, which partially decreed a suit for damages filed by a rice dealer against the Province of Punjab. The respondent's goods were seized and sold following his prosecution, of which he was subsequently acquitted. The trial court dismissed the entire suit as barred by limitation. On appeal, the High Court held that while the claim for malicious prosecution was time-barred, the claim for wrongful seizure and detention of property fell under Article 49 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and was within time, decreeing a specific amount based on prevalent rates. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the High Court erred in decreeing the claim straightaway without remanding the matter for recording evidence on actual loss. Upon hearing, and noting that the appellants could not dispute the calculation based on prevalent rates and that a remand would likely not benefit the public exchequer, the Supreme Court declined to interfere on a technicality, upheld the High Court's decision, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a suit for compensation for wrongful seizure and detention of property fall under Article 49 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Whether an appellate court can decree a claim directly without remand when the quantum of loss based on prevalent rates is not disputed on merits?
- Should an appellate court interfere on a technical plea of lack of evidence when a remand would cause further financial loss to the public exchequer?
- Province of Punjab And 3 Other vs Saif Ur RehmanK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 339 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
- Progressive Group of Workers of Suraj Ghee Industries Ltd., Sheikhupura vs The Government of Pakistan through Minister of Labour and 3 others1993 PLD Supreme Court 70 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had rejected the petitioner's claim to purchase a state-owned industrial unit, Suraj Ghee Industries Ltd., during its privatization. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a workers' group, held a superior right to acquire the unit over the previous management, particularly in light of statutory amendments defining the "management group of employees" and the petitioner's failure to comply with initial bid conditions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of being a formally constituted group recognized by the Federal Government, especially after a significant portion of its members disassociated themselves. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the law applicable at the time of the final decision, rather than the date of the initial bid, governed the proceedings. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision to favor the previous management, whose bid was ultimately higher, while noting an undertaking by the respondent to extend "golden handshake" benefits to the petitioner's members.
Questions settled- Does the law applicable at the time of the final decision govern the rights of parties in a privatization bid, or the law as it stood at the time of the initial bid?
- Can a workers' group claim a right to purchase a state-owned enterprise if it fails to meet the statutory definition of a 'management group of employees' recognized by the Federal Government?
- Does the failure to provide earnest money with a bid justify the rejection of that bid in a privatization process?
- Prof. Dr. Muhammad Belal Sukhera vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur1993 PLD Lahore 474 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the validity of ad hoc appointments made by the Vice-Chancellor of Islamia University, Bahawalpur, and the subsequent constitution of the University Syndicate. The core legal questions concern whether the Vice-Chancellor could exercise emergency powers under Section 15(3) of the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act 1975 to make appointments reserved for the Syndicate, and whether an electoral college formed by such invalid appointments could lawfully elect a Syndicate. The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor’s actions constituted a colourable exercise of authority, as emergency powers do not permit usurping Syndicate functions. Consequently, the Court ruled that because the electoral college was improperly constituted, the resulting Syndicate election and all subsequent decisions made by that body were void and without lawful authority. The principle established is that a superstructure built upon a void act cannot stand; where the fundamental constitution of an authority is illegal, subsequent acts performed by that authority lack legal efficacy, and statutory provisions meant to cure minor irregularities cannot validate a fundamentally void constitution of a statutory body.
Questions settled- Can a Vice-Chancellor exercise emergency powers under Section 15(3) of the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act 1975 to perform functions specifically allocated to the Syndicate?
- Does an aggrieved person have locus standi to challenge the constitution of an electoral college if their own voting rights were affected by illegal appointments?
- Can Section 47 of the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act 1975 validate the acts of a Syndicate that was elected by an illegally constituted electoral college?
- Is a decision made by an improperly constituted statutory body void and without legal effect?
- Prince Sheikh Abdul Qadir vs Nawab Sheikh Nasiruddin and 7 others1993 MLD 1346 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-30Read full judgment →
- Prince Sheikh Abdul Qadir vs Nawab Sheikh Nasiruddin and 7 others1993 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment concerns an application for the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court. The core legal question was whether an appellate court has the jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal on its merits in the absence of the appellant or their counsel under Order XLI, Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, or if such a dismissal should be construed as one for default, thereby allowing restoration under Order XLI, Rule 19. The Court held that an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal on merits when the appellant or their counsel is absent. Such an order, even if purporting to be on merits, is legally deemed a dismissal for default under Order XLI, Rule 17(1), making an application for re-admission under Order XLI, Rule 19 competent. The change in language in Rule 17(1) from "shall be dismissed" to "may make an order that the appeal be dismissed" only provides discretion to adjourn or dismiss for default, not to decide on merits without hearing the appellant.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant or their counsel?
- What is the proper interpretation of Order XLI, Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the dismissal of an appeal for appellant's default?
- When an appeal is dismissed in the absence of the appellant, can it be re-admitted under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Does the change in language in Order XLI, Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure from "shall be dismissed" to "may make an order that the appeal be dismissed" authorize a decision on merits in the appellant's absence?
- President of the Islamic Republic of PAKISTANReferring Authority vs Sardar Muqeem Khan Khosa1993 CLC 833 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-13Read full judgment →
- Present: Nasim Hasan Shah, Alma! Mian and Muhammad Afzal Lone, II1993 PTD 766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns seven appeals against High Court judgments that dismissed Constitution Petitions filed by various insurance companies. The appellants challenged notices issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which sought to reopen finalized income tax assessments regarding interest income from Khas Deposit and Defence Savings Certificates. The notices were prompted by a Central Board of Revenue (CBR) Circular interpreting the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether this Circular constituted "definite information" under Section 65(2) of the Ordinance, thereby justifying the reopening of assessments. The Supreme Court held that the CBR, being an administrative body, lacks the authority to issue binding judicial interpretations of the law. Consequently, its administrative Circular did not qualify as "definite information" under Section 65(2). The Court ruled that reopening assessments based on a mere change of opinion or administrative interpretation, rather than new factual discovery or binding judicial precedent, is impermissible. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, declaring the impugned notices and subsequent proceedings without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Does a circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue constitute 'definite information' under Section 65(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, to justify the reopening of an assessment?
- Can an Income Tax Officer reopen a finalized assessment based solely on a change of opinion regarding the interpretation of law?
- Is the Central Board of Revenue a competent forum to provide binding judicial interpretation of the Income Tax Ordinance?
- What constitutes 'definite information' for the purposes of initiating proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Premier Insurance Co. of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan National1993 CLC 1284 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
- Prakash Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 1674 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
- Pragma Leather Industries vs MRs, Sadia Sajjad1993 CLC 273 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
- Port Qasim Authority vs Incharge East Division and 5 others1993 MLD 1306 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-13Read full judgment →
- S.M. Amin Haider vs Niamat Ali and another1993 P Cr. L J 595 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
- Piran Ditta vs The State1993 SCMR 1934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under sections 148 and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question revolves around whether the act of the appellant, who inflicted a single fatal sota blow to the head of the deceased during an unpremeditated chance encounter without repetition or a grave motive, constituted murder under section 302 or a lesser offence. The Supreme Court held that the absence of premeditation, intent to kill, and non-repetition of the blow negated the intention to murder, but established that the appellant possessed the requisite knowledge that a violent blow to the head was likely to cause death. The Court concluded that the conviction should be altered from section 302 to section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code. The key principle laid down is that where a fatal blow is inflicted during a sudden, unpremeditated fight without intent to kill or repetition, the offence falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, Part II rather than premeditated murder.
Questions settled- Does a single fatal blow delivered without premeditation or intention to kill constitute murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- When can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be altered to Section 304 Part II?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable upon reduction of sentence?
- Picic vs M/s. Indus Steel Pipe Ltd.PTCL 1993 CL. 325 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Picic vs Messrs Indus Steel Pipe Ltd.1993 MLD 94 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a winding-up petition filed by the Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation against Indus Steel Pipe Limited due to the company's alleged inability to pay its debts. The core legal question was whether the company, having failed to comply with a statutory notice of demand, must be deemed unable to pay its debts under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and whether the company’s assertions of solvency or disputed debt constituted a valid defense. The Court held that the company must be wound up, ruling that the statutory notice served under Section 306 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, created a legal fiction of insolvency upon non-compliance. Consequently, the Court affirmed that once such notice is ignored, the company is deemed unable to pay its debts, rendering inquiries into actual solvency unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court established that a winding-up petition cannot be defeated by frivolous or unsubstantiated disputes regarding the debt; a dispute must be bona fide and substantial. Finally, the Court clarified that creditors may appropriate payments toward interest or principal in the absence of specific instructions from the debtor.
Questions settled- Does a company's failure to comply with a statutory notice of demand create a legal fiction of insolvency under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
- Can a company resist a winding-up petition by claiming solvency when it has failed to comply with a statutory notice of demand?
- What constitutes a bona fide dispute sufficient to defeat a winding-up petition based on an undisputed debt?
- Is a creditor entitled to appropriate payments toward interest or principal in the absence of specific instructions from the debtor?
- Philomena Mathew and 4 others vs Miss Abida Riasat Rizvi1993 CLC 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Philips Electrical Company Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Taxes (South)1993 PTD 1152 · Dhaka High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
- Pervez Akram vs The Collector, Kasur District,Kasur and 3 others1993 MLD 828 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- Perveen Akhtar vs Daniel Gulzar and another1993 MLD 767 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz Masih vs Anwar Masih1993 MLD 1800 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz Iqbal and others vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz Alias Raja vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 379 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz alias Paja vs The State1993 MLD 2324 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 53 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-15Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2200 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
- Pehalwan vs Manager, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad and another1993 PLD Lahore 525 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
- Parwaiz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 685 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-16Read full judgment →
- Paresh Kalyandas Bhasvar vs Sadiq Yakubbhai Jamadar and others1993 SCMR 2209 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-03-24Read full judgment →
- Paras Commercial Company and 4 others vs Commissioner of Income1993 PTD 1629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax, which cancelled the assessment of a partnership firm under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was the interpretation of the phrase "not being an order prejudicial to the assessee" within Section 138. The appellants contended that the cancellation, based on allegations of collusion, damaged their business reputation and legal standing, even if it did not increase their tax liability. The Supreme Court held that the term "prejudicial" is not confined merely to an enhancement of tax liability. It encompasses any order that is detrimental, injurious, or harmful to the assessee's interests, including their property, business, goodwill, or credit. The Court emphasized that Section 138 confers quasi-judicial power, requiring the Commissioner to act reasonably and judiciously. Because the impugned order adversely affected the firm's reputation and potential legal liabilities, it was deemed prejudicial and thus set aside as being without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does the term 'prejudicial to the assessee' under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 refer exclusively to an increase in tax liability?
- Can an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax be considered prejudicial if it damages an assessee's business reputation, goodwill, or credit, even without increasing tax liability?
- Is the Commissioner of Income Tax required to act in a quasi-judicial capacity when exercising revision powers under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
- Papu alias Akbar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Papas Commercial Company and 4 others vs Commissioner of Income1993 SCMR 2071 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition, which challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Commissioner had cancelled the assessments of appellant No. 1 (a registered firm) on grounds of alleged collusion with a landlord company, directing the income to be assessed in the hands of the landlord company instead. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of an assessment without an immediate increase in direct tax liability constituted an order 'prejudicial to the assessee' within the meaning of Section 138. The Supreme Court held that the term 'prejudicial' is not confined merely to an increase in tax liability but extends to any order placing the assessee in a worse position, adversely affecting its business, property, rights, goodwill, reputation, or credit. Finding that the Commissioner's order attached stigma and exposed the firm to commercial liability, the Court allowed the appeal and declared the impugned order without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Is the term 'prejudicial to the assessee' under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 confined solely to an enhancement of tax liability?
- Can an order that harms an assessee's business reputation, goodwill, or commercial credit be deemed 'prejudicial to the assessee' under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the Commissioner of Income Tax have jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to pass a revisional order that puts the assessee in a worse position than it was under the reviewed assessment?
- Palia vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1424 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority through its Project1993 PLD Lahore 237 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a dispute where the respondent landower filed a suit for permanent injunction and sought an ad interim stay order to restrain the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) from digging, constructing, and installing electricity transmission poles on the respondent's land without prior payment of compensation. The trial court dismissed the stay application, but the lower appellate court accepted the respondent's appeal and issued a stay order against WAPDA. The core legal question was whether an interim injunction should be granted to halt a project of vital public importance merely because an individual landowner seeks monetary compensation. The Lahore High Court held that public good overrides individual interest, and since the petitioner's project was nearly ninety percent complete and the respondent's claim was measurable in monetary terms, the balance of convenience did not favor granting a stay. The Court laid down the principle that under Section 14 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, WAPDA is entitled to enter private land and erect pillars for transmission lines prior to the determination and payment of compensation, provided compensation is assessed and paid expeditiously. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate court's order and restored the trial court's dismissal of the stay application.
Questions settled- Whether an interim injunction can be granted to restrain WAPDA from laying electricity transmission lines on private land prior to the payment of compensation?
- Does the statutory power of WAPDA under Section 14 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 allow entry upon private land and erection of pillars before the determination and payment of compensation?
- Is a project of public importance entitled to override individual monetary interests when determining the balance of convenience for granting a temporary injunction?
- Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi vs Messrs1993 CLC 1739 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan through Defence Secretary, Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs Messrs Desert Cat and another1993 CLC 222 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited and anothers vs Malik Abdul1993 SCMR 848 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the High Court of Sindh, which partly allowed an appeal arising from a suit for damages under Section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The suit was filed by the parents of a 20-year-old employee of Pakistan Steel Mills who died from severe head injuries sustained after falling from a hydraulic elevator while painting an electric pole. The core legal questions involved whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to establish employer negligence despite specific pleadings, and the appropriate principles for assessing pecuniary loss and damages under the Fatal Accidents Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was correctly applied as the equipment was under the sole control of the defendants and the accident's cause pointed to mechanical failure or negligent operation without adequate explanation from the employer. Furthermore, the Court upheld the methodology for calculating damages based on the deceased's earning capacity, longevity of the family, and the deduction of one-third for personal expenses. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply in a suit for damages when the exact cause of an industrial accident involving machinery under the defendant's control is unexplained?
- What factors should a court consider when assessing pecuniary loss and damages under Section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- Can a court base the period of dependency and life expectancy on evidence of family longevity rather than fixed retirement age norms in fatal accident claims?
- Whether specific pleadings of negligence preclude the invocation of the maxim res ipsa loquitur if the evidence establishes that the instrumentality causing the accident was under the sole management and control of the defendant.
- Pakistan State Oil Company Limited vs Pakistan Oil Pipelines Limited and 6 others1993 PLD Karachi 322 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for the winding up of Pakistan Oil Pipelines Limited was filed by Pakistan State Oil Company Limited under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question concerned whether the company should be wound up due to the oppression of minority shareholders and the failure of its substratum. The court held that the company must be wound up. It established that while a company may technically be a public company, it functions as a quasi-partnership when it lacks public participation and is managed by two competing groups with equal voting power. The court ruled that where the paramount object for which a company was incorporated has failed, its substratum is considered gone, justifying a winding-up order under the just and equitable clause, notwithstanding other ancillary objects listed in the Memorandum of Association. Additionally, the court affirmed that exclusion from management and a deadlock between equal shareholders, combined with a lack of probity, warrants judicial intervention to dissolve the entity to prevent further acrimony and litigation.
Questions settled- Can a public company be treated as a quasi-partnership for the purpose of winding up?
- Does the failure of a company's main object constitute a loss of substratum even if the Memorandum of Association lists other independent objects?
- Is a deadlock between equal shareholders and exclusion from management sufficient grounds for winding up a company under the just and equitable clause?
- Pakistan Services Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Revision), Karachi1993 PTD 1047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns multiple appeals regarding the admissibility of trading losses for fixed assets located in East Pakistan (Bangladesh) following the 1971 war. The core legal question was whether the compulsory acquisition of these assets by the Bangladesh government constituted the 'discarding' of assets under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and whether the statutory requirement to write off these losses in the books of account could be waived given the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the compulsory acquisition of assets by the Bangladesh government, retrospectively recognized by Pakistan, qualified for deduction under Section 10(2)(vii). The Court applied the legal maxim Lex Non Cogit ad Impossibilia (the law does not compel the impossible), ruling that the failure to formally write off the losses in the books of account did not preclude the assessee from claiming the deduction, as the impossibility of compliance during the relevant period excused the strict adherence to the proviso. The Court affirmed that such losses were admissible, setting aside contrary High Court judgments where applicable.
Questions settled- Does the compulsory acquisition of assets by the government of Bangladesh constitute 'discarding' of assets under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Can the statutory requirement to write off losses in the books of account be waived if compliance was impossible due to the circumstances of the 1971 war?
- Does the retrospective recognition of the state of Bangladesh by the Government of Pakistan validate the compulsory acquisition of assets for the purpose of claiming tax deductions?
- Pakistan Railways vs Sabdul Rauf And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways through the Divisional Superintendent, Railways, Multan vs Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 3 others1993 SCMR 258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition, which had challenged the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal's order directing the payment of daily allowance to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who were Special Ticket Examiners in Pakistan Railways. The core legal question was whether railway employees belonging to the running staff and receiving running allowance are entitled to claim daily allowance for staying at a station other than their actual place of posting upon their own request due to non-availability of accommodation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that under Rules 202, 203, and 221 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Vol. I, running staff in receipt of running allowance cannot claim daily allowance in substitution thereof, and further that their temporary stay at Multan upon personal request did not constitute a tour from headquarters under Rule 203. The Court laid down the principle that running allowances are in substitution of travelling allowances, and employees stationed at a place of their own request cannot claim daily allowances.
Questions settled- Are railway employees who receive running allowance entitled to claim daily allowance in addition?
- Does a railway servant permitted to stay at a different station upon personal request due to lack of accommodation qualify for daily allowance under Rule 203 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code?
- Whether running allowance is allowed in substitution of travelling allowance for railway servants connected with moving trains?
- Pakistan Paper Agency and another vs K.M.C.1993 MLD 1681 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Oxgen Ltd. vs Pakistan Through The Secretary To The GovernmentPTCL 1993 CL. 301 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan National Shipping Corporation vs Adamjee Insurance1993 MLD 1841 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Motor Transport Federation vs Town Committee, Serai1993 CLC 823 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Messrs Hazir (Pvt.)1993 PLD Karachi 190 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 was filed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation against an ad-interim injunction granted by a Single Judge under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondent, a catering contractor, challenged the corporation's award of a fast-food contract to another party without public tenders, alleging violations of the corporation's Procurement Manual. The core legal questions were whether internal procurement guidelines have statutory force and whether a temporary injunction should be granted against a public corporation's commercial decisions. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction. The Court held that temporary injunctions are discretionary equitable remedies requiring the concurrent satisfaction of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. It ruled that courts must exercise extreme circumspection before granting interim orders against public authorities in commercial matters due to far-reaching administrative and financial consequences. Furthermore, internal administrative manuals generally lack statutory force and do not confer enforceable rights on third parties.
Questions settled- Whether internal administrative guidelines or procurement manuals of a statutory corporation have statutory force and confer enforceable rights on third parties?
- Can a temporary injunction be granted solely on the establishment of a prima facie case without satisfying the requirements of balance of convenience and irreparable loss?
- What factors must a court consider before granting an interim injunction that interferes with the commercial and administrative operations of a public authority?
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and anothers vs Shahabuddin and 2 others1993 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two cross-appeals arising from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed an employee's service appeal while modifying the punishment of dismissal to removal from service for committing physical mischief with an air hostess aboard a flight. The core legal questions involved whether the Federal Service Tribunal properly applied the ratio regarding the reduction of punishment, whether the dismissal order was passed by a competent authority, and the legal status of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal gave plausible reasons for modifying the punishment from dismissal to removal, and further held that the Regulations do not enjoy statutory status as they were neither published in the official Gazette nor laid before the National Assembly as mandated by Section 31 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956, thereby falling under the ordinary master-and-servant framework. The Court laid down the principle that the Service Tribunal is competent to alter administrative punishments for cogent reasons provided such alteration is not arbitrary, and that non-statutory internal regulations do not vitiate disciplinary actions based on master-and-servant principles.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is competent to alter the quantum of punishment imposed by an employer on an employee?
- Do the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 enjoy the status of statutory regulations?
- Can the breach of non-statutory internal service regulations furnish a ground to declare an order of dismissal as illegal?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the reduction of punishment by the Service Tribunal when plausible reasons are provided?
- Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd., Karachi1993 PLD Karachi 90 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation Limited vs FazalK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 88 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-08Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Fisheries Ltd., Karachi and others vs United Bank Ltd.1993 PLD Supreme Court 109 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court, acting as a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, granting the appellants conditional leave to defend a loan recovery suit subject to furnishing security. Aggrieved, the appellants sought to appeal the conditional leave order to a Division Bench under Section 15 of Ordinance X of 1980, which the High Court dismissed as barred by the proviso to Section 12(1) of the 1979 Ordinance. The core legal question was whether an appeal lies against an interlocutory order granting conditional leave to defend passed by the High Court exercising jurisdiction as a Special Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the word 'case' in the proviso to Section 12(1) means 'suit' and an order granting conditional leave is an interlocutory order that does not dispose of the entire case. Consequently, statutory remedies under the special law are exclusive, barring appeals against such interlocutory orders.
Questions settled- Whether an order granting conditional leave to defend subject to furnishing security constitutes an interlocutory order which does not dispose of the entire case under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the word 'case' in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 have the same meaning as a 'suit' rather than a 'case decided' under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Is an appeal competent under Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 against an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court acting as a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Pakistan Engineering Consultants vs Pakistan International Airlines1993 CLC 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal was preferred by a partnership firm against an order of a learned Single Judge vacating an interim injunction granted in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and damages arising out of a construction consultancy contract repudiated by the respondent (PIA). The dispute centered on whether the respondent was entitled to encash an unconditional bank guarantee securing a mobilization advance and a performance bond during the pendency of the suit. The High Court observed that courts generally show reluctance to restrain the encashment of unconditional bank guarantees and letters of credit, except in rare instances where refusal would perpetuate fraud or apparent injustice. Finding the bank guarantee was unconditional and secured an unadjusted advance, the Court permitted its encashment minus a pro-rata adjustment for withheld running bills. Conversely, the Court held that the performance bond stood on a different footing requiring a prima facie determination of default, which could not be established without recording evidence. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can a court grant an ad-interim injunction to restrain the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee?
- Whether the legal principles governing the restrain of an unconditional bank guarantee apply identically to the encashment of a performance bond?
- Can a performance bond be encashed pending a suit when the question of contractual default requires the recording of evidence?
- Pakistan Engineering Consultants vs Pakistan International Airlines1993 CLC 882 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for a perpetual injunction and a money decree filed by Pakistan Engineering Consultants against Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) and a bank, seeking to restrain the encashment of bank guarantees and performance bonds. The core legal question was whether the court should grant an interim injunction to prevent the encashment of these financial instruments amidst disputes regarding the underlying contract. The court held that bank guarantees and performance bonds are autonomous and independent contracts, imposing an absolute obligation on the issuing bank to pay upon demand, regardless of any disputes between the parties to the primary contract. Consequently, the court vacated the previously granted interim injunction. The key principle laid down is that courts should not interfere with the mechanism of bank guarantees or letters of credit, as they are the lifeblood of commerce. Judicial intervention is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, specifically where clear and established fraud is proven, and the bank has notice of such fraud. Absent such fraud, the bank's obligation to honor the guarantee remains absolute and enforceable.
Questions settled- Are bank guarantees and performance bonds independent of the underlying contract between the parties?
- Under what circumstances can a court restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee or performance bond?
- Does the court have the authority to treat an application filed under one provision of the Code of Civil Procedure as one under another if the substance of the application warrants it?
- Is an interim injunction granted until the disposal of a suit subject to the same procedural considerations as an order granted until further orders?
- Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority vs Abdur Rehman and another1993 MLD 104 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. vs Province of N.W.F.P. and 3 others1993 SCMR 1700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition against a land acquisition award. The appellant, an oil company, contested the compensation assessed for land acquired for a depot, arguing that the Collector ignored the 'Aust Yaksala' (one-year average) method in favor of a single sale transaction and improperly considered the urgency of the acquisition, contrary to Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court held that the 'Aust Yaksala' method is not an absolute yardstick, and the Collector's reliance on a comparable sale transaction in the same locality was a reasonable exercise of discretion, given the lack of evidence regarding the similarity of other land parcels. The Court further clarified that the Collector's mention of urgency was a passing remark and did not vitiate the award. While the Court disagreed with the High Court's dismissal on the grounds of laches, finding the appellant's pursuit of remedies bona fide, it ultimately dismissed the appeal on merits, affirming that the market value assessment was fair and not perverse.
Questions settled- Is the 'Aust Yaksala' (one-year average) method of calculating land compensation an absolute yardstick for determining market value?
- Does a passing reference to the urgency of an acquisition in an award necessarily invalidate the compensation assessment under Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed solely on the ground of laches if the petitioner has been pursuing other legal remedies in good faith?
- Is the market value of land a question of fact that is generally not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Pakistan Aluminium and Industrial (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Karachi Metropolitan1993 CLC 2226 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
- Pak1stan Seamen Contributory Welfare Fund, Karachi vs Income Tax1993 PTD 734 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
- Pak-Libya Holding Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs Rahimbakhsh Textile1993 MLD 649 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-03Read full judgment →
- Pak Carpet Industries Limited vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1993 CLC.334 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
- Rao Akhtar Alam and anothers vs Javed Iqbal and 2 others1993 SCMR 1897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit for specific performance where the trial court initially disallowed an application to amend the plaint to implead subsequent vendees. The Additional District Judge subsequently allowed the amendment in revision, a decision upheld after the appellants challenged it through successive writ petitions. The appellants approached the Supreme Court, contending that the Additional District Judge lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. The core legal question was whether the appellants, as subsequent vendees, could challenge the amendment of the plaint on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction when they were being impleaded as necessary parties to the ongoing litigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction was not raised before the lower forum. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the appellants should welcome the opportunity to be impleaded in the suit to defend their rights, noting that failing to do so would expose them to the doctrine of lis pendens. The judgment reinforces that procedural objections regarding jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest opportunity and that impleading subsequent vendees in specific performance suits is legally appropriate.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court for the first time in appeal when the point was not raised before the lower forum?
- Is it appropriate to allow the amendment of a plaint to implead subsequent vendees in a suit for specific performance?
- What is the consequence for subsequent vendees who fail to defend their rights in a pending suit for specific performance?