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.
- P.I.C.I.C. vs Fazal Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and another1993 PLD Karachi 671 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses two applications filed by Fazal Corporation Private Limited and Firdous Spinning & Weaving Mills (Private) Limited seeking to recall and stay a prior consent order dated December 11, 1991. Under the prior order, the Official Liquidator was directed to sell certain shares and encash bank guarantees deposited by the petitioner, M/s. P.I.C.I.C., in winding-up proceedings. The applicants contended that the pledged shares and bank guarantees were not assets of the company in liquidation and that the petitioner must enforce its rights through a separate suit rather than through winding-up proceedings. The Court held that by virtue of section 404 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, insolvency rules apply to the winding up of insolvent companies, and that the secured creditor had surrendered its security in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Insolvency (Capital of the Federation and Dacca) Act, 1909. Furthermore, the Court ruled that pledged shares coupled with blank transfer deeds and bank guarantees constitute assets of the company and that the execution of blank transfer deeds waives the requirement of notice under section 176 of the Contract Act, 1872. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications, upholding the validity of the consent order and the sale of securities within the winding-up proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether insolvency rules apply to the winding up of insolvent companies regarding the rights of secured creditors under section 404 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Do pledged shares coupled with blank transfer deeds and bank guarantees constitute assets of a company in liquidation?
- Does the execution of a blank transfer deed waive the pawnor's right to a notice of sale under section 176 of the Contract Act, 1872?
- Can a consent order directing the Official Liquidator to sell shares and encash bank guarantees be recalled by a party that originally consented to it?
- P..Sathrughan Pillai vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1993 PTD 891 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
- P. N. Boga And Another vs Abdur Rehman Khawaja And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 97 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
- P vs University of the PunjabK.L.R 1993 Civil Cases 122 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-14Read full judgment →
- P vs 'R'K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 336 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
- Orient Straw Board & Paper Mills Limited vs Commissioner of Income-1993 PTD 306 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference application concerns whether "straw-board" and "grey-board" manufactured by the assessee qualify for sales tax exemption under Item No. 62 of Notification No. 9 dated 27-6-1951, which exempts "Chip Board, Particle Board and Hard Board." The Appellate Tribunal had previously denied the exemption, reasoning that only the specifically named items were exempt, regardless of their technical composition. The High Court rejected this interpretation. It held that the "Explanation" appended to Item No. 62 provided a precise technical definition of "Chip Board" and "Particle Board" based on their chemical and physical properties. Since expert evidence established that the assessee's products met these technical criteria, they fell within the scope of the exemption. The Court established that while taxing statutes require strict construction, a technical definition provided within an "Explanation" must be given effect over common trade names. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the technical definition, and the assessee’s products were entitled to the exemption.
Questions settled- Does an 'Explanation' in a fiscal notification that provides a technical definition of a product expand the scope of a tax exemption beyond the items explicitly named in the main entry?
- Should a product be granted a tax exemption based on its technical composition as defined by statute, even if it is marketed under a different trade name?
- Can an appellate authority ignore a technical definition provided in an 'Explanation' to a notification when determining the eligibility of goods for tax exemption?
- Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu vs Udavumkarankal and others1993 SCMR 2124 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-01-29Read full judgment →
- O Muhammad Yasin And 3 Other vs Akram And 7 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 100 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
- Nur Hussain vs The State1993 SCMR 1608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which had enhanced the appellants' sentences from 15 years' rigorous imprisonment to life imprisonment on each count under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following their apprehension for transporting 64 kilograms of heroin concealed in a truck. The core legal questions involved whether heroin is a derivative under Article 3, the legality of the Federal Shariat Court issuing a suo motu enhancement notice prior to disposing of the appeal, and whether a driver and cleaner could be convicted simultaneously under both Articles 3 and 4 for transport and possession. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Article 4 based on the principle that carriers of narcotics without proof of ownership or independent possession cannot be doubly punished under both provisions, while maintaining the conviction and sentence under Article 3. The Court laid down that police personnel are competent witnesses in the absence of bias, that mixed questions of fact and law regarding the chemical composition of narcotics must be raised at trial, and that deterrent punishment is warranted for drug carriers.
Questions settled- Whether heroin is covered as a derivative under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Can the Federal Shariat Court issue a suo motu notice for the enhancement of a sentence before the regular appeal is heard and disposed of?
- Are police personnel competent witnesses for establishing the recovery of narcotics in the absence of proof of personal bias?
- Whether a driver and cleaner transporting narcotics can be simultaneously convicted and sentenced under both Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Novelty Enterprises Limited,Tariqabad, Mirpur through General Manager vs Deputy Collector, Excise and Taxation_Sales Tax Officer and 5 others1993 CLC 1165 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition against a sales tax notice. The appellant contended that the tax was levied without legal authority, as the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council lacked legislative competence to impose it, and that the functionaries acted without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the actions taken by the authorities, even if performed under a mistaken belief regarding their appointing authority, were cured by the retrospective application of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Excises and Salt (Adaptation) Act, 1990. The Court affirmed that the Legislature possesses the competence to validate past illegal actions or irregular exercises of jurisdiction through retrospective legislation. Additionally, the Court established that when a permanent statute is repealed by a temporary Ordinance, the permanent statute revives upon the expiration or repeal of that Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the term 'levy' in tax statutes encompasses both the imposition and collection of tax. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the tax proceedings under the curative legislative measures.
Questions settled- Can the legislature validate past illegal actions or irregular exercises of jurisdiction through retrospective legislation?
- Does a permanent statute revive automatically upon the expiration or repeal of a temporary Ordinance that had repealed it?
- Does the term 'levy' in a taxing statute include both the imposition and the collection of tax?
- Is a writ petition maintainable when the jurisdiction of the authority passing the impugned order is challenged?
- Noubat vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases. 76 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →
- Not vs Not1993 PTD (Trib.) 3 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-05Read full judgment →
- Northwest Frontier Province Government, Peshawar through Collector, Abbottabad and another vs Abdul Ghafoor Khan through Legal Heirs and 2 others1993 PLD Supreme Court 418 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment upholding the trial court's dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. Filed by the N.-W.F.P. Government alleging that a decree in a land acquisition reference was obtained through fraud. The core legal questions were whether an appellate court can keep a main appeal pending while permitting a party to seek setting aside of the trial court's decree for fraud under Section 12(2) C.P.C., and whether a party can resile from a consent order enabling such procedure. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, restoring the Section 12(2) C.P.C. Application before the trial court to record evidence and report findings. The Court held that procedural rules are designed to advance justice and are non-exhaustive. Under Section 107(2), Order XLI Rules 25 and 33, and Section 151 C.P.C., an appellate court possesses plenary powers to adapt procedure and direct the trial court to investigate fraud. Furthermore, parties cannot approbate and reprobate by challenging procedural steps instituted with their consent.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court have plenary power to allow a party to file an application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. Before the trial court while keeping the main appeal pending?
- Can a litigant who consented to an order permitting Section 12(2) C.P.C. Proceedings in the trial court subsequently challenge the trial court's competence to entertain such an application?
- Whether the provisions of Order XLI and Section 107(2) C.P.C. Permit an appellate court to adopt procedures analogous to Order XLI Rule 25 C.P.C. To investigate allegations of fraud?
- Noorul Amin Bachani and others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department and others1993 CLC 727 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of a sanction granted to the petitioners under the West Pakistan Industrial (Control on Establishment and Enlargement) Ordinance 1963 to establish a sugar mill in Sanjar Chang, Tehsil Tando Allahyar. Following the sanction, the petitioners had prepared a feasibility report, obtained financial commitments, entered into contracts for machinery, and acquired land. Thereafter, the Government of Sindh cancelled the sanction without issuing a show-cause notice or affording a hearing, and granted permission to another entity for the same location. The core legal question was whether administrative sanction cancellation requires compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, even if the terms of the sanction letter or statute do not explicitly provide for notice. The High Court held that any administrative or judicial order adversely affecting vested rights or property must be preceded by an opportunity of hearing. The absence of an explicit notice requirement does not exclude audi alteram partem. Consequently, the court set aside the cancellation orders as unlawful.
Questions settled- Is an administrative authority required to observe the principle of audi alteram partem before cancelling an industrial sanction?
- Does the absence of an explicit notice provision in a sanction letter exclude the right of a hearing before passing an adverse order?
- Can an order affecting a person's rights or property be legally sustained if passed without giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard?
- Nooruddin and 3 others vs M/s. Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd.1993 CLC 2204 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing an injunction application in a suit for injunction, recovery of possession, and alternative compensation. The appellants claimed exclusive ownership of certain lands allegedly encroached upon by the first respondent for an industrial estate without lawful land acquisition. The core legal question was whether a temporary injunction should be refused and possession disturbed or permitted in cases involving public utility projects where ownership is disputed and compensation remains unpaid. The court held that while public projects of great importance should not be abruptly halted by injunctions and the balance of convenience might lie against disturbing ongoing works, authorities cannot grab land without complying with legal acquisition formalities. Consequently, the High Court modified the impugned order, refusing to disturb the ongoing project land to prevent greater inconvenience, but granting an injunction in respect of the land not utilized so far and not immediately in use. The key principle laid down is that while the balance of convenience may preclude injunctions against active public utility projects, private property cannot be lawfully appropriated without adhering to statutory acquisition procedures.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary injunction can be refused solely because the plaintiff alternative prayed for compensation?
- Does the existence of a public utility project permit an agency to occupy private land without following statutory land acquisition procedures?
- Whether an injunction should be granted in respect of land not yet utilized or immediately in use for a public project despite ongoing development on other parts of the property?
- Nooruddin and 3 others vs Mrs. Kaityun B. Khambatta1993 MLD 2217 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1437 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs The State. and 4 others1993 PLD Karachi 355 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and others vs Ahmad Din1993 CLC 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and 6 others vs Khameesa1993 CLC 586 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and 6 Other vs KhameesahK.L.R.1993 Civil Cases 290 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and 12 others vs Wali Muhammad and 5 others1993 CLC 1577 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
- Noor Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 511 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-17Read full judgment →
- Noor Hussain vs The State1993 MLD 2189 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
- Noor Hussain vs The State1993 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-appeals arising from a murder conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant challenged his conviction, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment to death. The core legal questions were whether the ocular testimony of interested witnesses, given the background of long-standing enmity, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court held that the conviction was well-founded, noting that the prompt FIR, the consistency of the ocular account with medical evidence, and the improbability of substituting a single accused in a daylight occurrence supported the findings of the lower courts. The Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed both appeals, holding that the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given the mitigating factor of the long-standing blood feud and the significant passage of time since the conviction. The principle affirmed is that where ocular evidence is consistent, prompt, and corroborated by medical findings, it may sustain a conviction even if the witnesses are related to the deceased.
Questions settled- Can the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses sustain a conviction in a murder case?
- Is the substitution of a single accused in a daylight occurrence a plausible defense?
- Does a long-standing blood feud constitute an extenuating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing in a murder case?
- Noor Hasan vs Eid Akbar and others1993 SCMR 1848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three criminal appeals filed by the complainant against the acquittal of respondents in a murder case involving the deaths of four individuals. The core legal question was whether the trial courts, whose judgments were upheld by the High Court, misread or failed to read the evidence when acquitting the accused. The Supreme Court held that the trial courts had provided reasonable grounds for acquittal, including significant delays in lodging the First Information Report, contradictions between medical evidence and the prosecution's version of the firing, and the implausibility of the alleged eye-witnesses remaining unharmed during the attack. The Court affirmed that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless there is a clear case of misreading or non-reading of evidence; the mere possibility that a different inference could be drawn from the evidence is insufficient to set aside an acquittal. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that abscondence of an accused, while a relevant factor, is not sufficient in itself to establish guilt. The appeals were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal merely because a different inference from the evidence is possible?
- Is the abscondence of an accused person sufficient, by itself, to sustain a conviction?
- Does the failure of alleged eye-witnesses to be harmed during a fatal attack on their companions affect the credibility of their testimony?
- Noor Din vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others1993 CLC 2424 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
- Noor and Sons vs Income Tax Officer , .1993 PTD 582 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
- Noor Ali and another vs Syed Fareeduddin1993 MLD 1832 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
- Noor Alam and others vs Qambar Sultan and others1993 SCMR 2357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over Shamlat land between co-sharers. The appellants filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief, challenging the exclusive possession entries of the predecessor of the respondents in the Khasra Girdawari and seeking a permanent injunction or joint possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the defendant entitled to remain in possession until partition. The first appellate court reversed this and decreed the suit, but a learned Single Judge of the High Court restored the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court heard the appeal and noted the concessions by both parties. The Supreme Court held that the appellants and respondents are co-owners in joint possession, and since no case of ouster or dispossession was pleaded, a decree for joint possession or setting aside entries was inappropriate; instead, a declaratory decree along with a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from claiming exclusive ownership was granted. The court laid down the principle that consequential relief must be strictly based on facts pleaded and set out distinctly in the plaint.
Questions settled- Whether consequential relief can be granted without being distinctly pleaded and set out in the plaint?
- Can a co-sharer claim exclusive possession and ouster without specific pleadings of ouster?
- What is the appropriate relief when co-sharers dispute entries in the Khasra Girdawari regarding Shamlat land?
- Noor Ahmed vs Muhammad Anwar and another1993 SCMR 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the conviction of the respondent under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, was set aside. The prosecution case was that the respondent inflicted hatchet blows on the appellant during daylight, causing serious injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction in light of the eyewitness testimony, the serious injuries sustained by the appellant, and the improbability of substitution in a single-accused case. The Supreme Court held that while there was sufficient evidence against the respondent and the conviction ought to be restored, considering the passage of time, the fact that the respondent had already undergone a period of imprisonment exceeding two years, and the desire to maintain harmony between the parties, the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone, coupled with an enhanced fine to be paid as compensation to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court may mould the sentence by balancing the sufficiency of evidence for conviction with mitigating circumstances such as prolonged custody and post-offence reconciliation between the parties.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be restored in an appeal against acquittal when evidence sufficiently proves the charge?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while upholding a conviction and enhancing compensation?
- Whether substitution of an accused is considered a rare phenomenon in cases involving a single accused and daylight attacks with serious injuries?
- Noor Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1517 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad and another vs The State1993 MLD 2047 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
- Nizamuddin and 11 others vs Ch. Muhammad Saeed and another1993 CLC 2130 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of the Executing Court which dismissed the judgment-debtors' objection regarding the limitation period for an execution petition. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for filing an execution application under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 commences from the date of the trial court's decree or from the date of the final order passed by the Supreme Court in collateral proceedings challenging a term of that decree. The Court held that the execution petition was within time. It reasoned that the principle of merger applies to decrees challenged in higher forums, including revisional jurisdiction. Even where no stay order is issued, the decree of the court of last instance is the only executable decree, regardless of whether the lower court's decree was affirmed, reversed, or modified. The principle laid down is that the period of limitation for execution begins from the date of the final decree passed by the court of last instance, as the decree of the trial court merges into the final appellate or revisional order, rendering that final order the only executable instrument.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of merger apply to decrees passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for execution?
- Does the limitation period for the first execution application under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 commence from the trial court's decree or the final order of the court of last instance?
- Is the absence of a stay order during pending appellate or revisional proceedings relevant to the determination of the starting point of limitation for executing a decree?
- Nizam Din vs Manzoor Ahmed, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station, Khudian1993 P Cr. L J 2198 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
- Nishan vs Muhammad Mansha and others1993 CLC 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-21Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmed Khuhro vs Syed Qabool Muhammad Shah and another1993 MLD 1575 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2434 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
- Nippon Paint Co. Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Marks1993 MLD 1094 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-18Read full judgment →
- Niaz alias Niazoo and anothers vs The State1993 SCMR 1966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which altered the appellants' death sentence under section 302/34, P.P.C. to imprisonment for life for the murder of Subhan Ali. The Supreme Court examined whether the conviction was in conformity with the principles governing the safe dispensation of justice, particularly regarding the reliability of closely related and interested eye-witnesses in the presence of severe pre-existing enmity. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the evidence of the interested eye-witnesses lacked independent corroboration, that the alleged motive could equally support false implication, and that the medical evidence and recoveries did not sufficiently corroborate the ocular account. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses are closely related and deeply inimical towards the accused, their testimony requires independent and unimpeachable corroboration, and previous enmity cuts both ways as a potential motive for both the crime and false implication.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of closely related and interested eye-witnesses requires independent and unimpeachable corroboration in criminal cases involving severe previous enmity?
- Can previous enmity between the complainant party and the accused serve as sufficient corroboration for an ocular account?
- Does medical evidence providing ambiguous findings regarding the number of assailants or weapons furnish the requisite corroboration for an interested witness's testimony?
- Should an accused be acquitted when the prosecution fails to provide corroboration for unconvincing statements of interested witnesses whose presence at the spot remains unexplained?
- Niaz Ali and 16 others vs Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others1993 CLC 1374 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-08Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali and 16 others vs Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and 13 others1993 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning agricultural land over which the plaintiff alleged that mutations of cancellation of lease and subsequent sale were fake, fraudulent, and collusive. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale transaction was proved and that a suit for declaration simpliciter was barred. The Lahore High Court examined the record under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and held that the lower courts misallocated the burden of proof, as the beneficiary of the mutation must prove the underlying transaction. The Court observed that revenue mutation entries carry no presumption of truth regarding title, are summary in nature, and require strict proof of admissions. Reviewing the evidence, the Court found the mutation proceedings tainted, irregular, and not conducted in open assembly as mandated. Consequently, the High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, held that the vendee failed to discharge the onus of proof, and decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession.
Questions settled- Whether entries in duly sanctioned revenue mutations carry a presumption of truth regarding title or are merely admissible as evidence?
- Upon whom does the initial onus of proof lie to establish a transaction of sale embodied in a revenue mutation?
- Can a second appellate court review and interfere with concurrent findings of fact when the lower courts have misread the evidence and applied a wrong legal approach?
- Whether an oral sale of immovable property worth more than one hundred rupees is valid without a registered instrument under the Transfer of Property Act?
- Niaz Ahmed Elmi vs S. Maqbool Ahmed1993 CLC 2375 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ahmad vs Noor Samand alias Noori and others1993 P Cr. L J 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
- New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd.s vs M/s. P & 0 and B.I. Cunard1993 PLD Karachi 533 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Nazzaz Ali vs Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue and 3 others1993 MLD 1333 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- Nazir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 291 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
- Nazir Hussain vs Maqsood Ahmad and others1993 CLC 1534 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Nazir Begum vs Mst. Fatima Bibi and 2 others1993 MLD 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 280 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 217 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail appeal challenged a conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for possession of 50 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the recovery of the contraband. The court held that while police officials are competent witnesses, their testimony, when forming the sole basis of the prosecution case, must be scrutinized with utmost care. The court found significant discrepancies in the police witnesses' accounts regarding the place of recovery and weighing, coupled with their failure to associate public witnesses despite the availability of such persons nearby, and an unexplained delay in dispatching the sample to the Chemical Examiner. These factors collectively created a high degree of doubt regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on police testimony if there are material discrepancies in their evidence?
- Does the failure to associate public witnesses in recovery proceedings, despite their availability, create reasonable doubt?
- Can an unexplained delay in dispatching a sample to the Chemical Examiner, coupled with other defects, lead to acquittal?
- When does the testimony of police officials require utmost care and caution in scrutiny?
- Nazir Ahmad vs The State1993 SCMR 1993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Nazir Ahmed sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing his post-arrest bail petition in a case registered under section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the theft of Rs. 7,00,000 from a bank branch. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was declared innocent during the investigation and that a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been released on bail by the High Court, a position left uncontroverted by the respondent. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and admitted the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.
Questions settled- Whether an accused declared innocent during investigation is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the release of a co-accused on bail with similar allegations entitle another accused to bail on the rule of consistency?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Muhammad Rafiq1993 CLC 257 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a suit for specific performance of a contract. The core legal question was whether the agreement to sell was legally proved under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, specifically whether a scribe can be considered an attesting witness when one of the two marginal witnesses was not produced, and whether a photocopy of the agreement was admissible given the original was destroyed. The Court held that the scribe, having witnessed the execution and signing of the document by the parties and attesting witnesses, qualifies as an attesting witness, thereby satisfying the requirements of Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Furthermore, the Court ruled that objections regarding the admissibility of secondary evidence (the photocopy) cannot be raised for the first time in revision if not challenged during the reconstruction of the file or in the appellate court. The principle laid down is that a scribe who witnesses the execution of a document can be treated as an attesting witness, even if they did not sign in that capacity.
Questions settled- Can a scribe of a document be treated as an attesting witness for the purposes of proving execution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
- Can an objection regarding the admissibility of a photocopy of a document be raised for the first time during revisional proceedings?
- Does the failure to produce all marginal witnesses invalidate a document if the scribe witnessed the execution?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and 2 others1993 CLC 1943 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the orders of revenue authorities directing the implementation of a 1969 cancellation order regarding land allotments. The original allottee's claim was declared bogus and cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands) under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Despite this cancellation, the land remained in the allottee's name in revenue records, and was subsequently sold to the petitioner by the allottee's successors. The petitioner argued that as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, he was protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the principle of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is inapplicable to purchasers of land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Court affirmed that such purchasers are deemed to have knowledge that allotments are subject to the incidence of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. Consequently, the Court ruled that fraud vitiates all subsequent transactions, and a successor cannot confer a better title than they possess.
Questions settled- Can a purchaser of land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, claim protection as a bona fide purchaser under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
- Does the failure of revenue authorities to timely implement a cancellation order validate subsequent transfers of the affected land?
- Can successors in interest confer a valid title to land if the original allotment was based on fraud and subsequently cancelled?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Collector Lahore District Lahore and 3 others1993 CLC 241 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Chaudhry, Fca for Appellant. vs Naseer Ahmad, Da for Respondent1993 PTD (Trib.) 20 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-17Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Chatta vs Director of Agricultural and another1993 CLC 195 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-27Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Javaid vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 109 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, dated 8-4-1991, whereby the accused-appellant Shaukat Javaid was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Maqboolur Rehman and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine and compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case was founded on an eyewitness account of a sudden quarrel over the distribution of a drink (Sharbat) near the victim's shop, corroborated by medical evidence establishing death by firearm wounds. The appellant raised a plea of alibi and false substitution, alleging enmity with third parties and police collusion. The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence, repelled the contentions regarding the credibility of related and apprentice eyewitnesses, explained minor discrepancies and delays in reporting, and noted that substitution of a single accused is a rare phenomenon. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a related or household-associated witness can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship or association with the deceased?
- Is substitution of a single accused person considered a common phenomenon in criminal jurisprudence?
- Does a minor delay in lodging the First Information Report necessarily vitiate the prosecution case when a plausible explanation is provided?
- What is the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused fails to examine himself on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Nazima Begum and others vs Hasina Begum:1993 CLC 2409 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
- Nazim Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2423 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
- Nazim F. Haji, Chief Citizen, Police Liaison Committee, Karachi vs Commissioner Karachi and others1993 PLD Karachi 79 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
- Nazeer Ahmad alias Nazeera vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2207 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2085 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-18Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad and 2 others vs The State1993 SCMR 1329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question was whether the incident arose from a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel without premeditation, thereby attracting Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the altercation began over a domestic dispute regarding marital obligations and exchange marriages, escalating into a sudden quarrel and fight without preplanning, where no undue advantage was taken by the accused. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction from section 302/34 to section 304 Part-I/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reduced the sentence, establishing that sudden fights arising from domestic disputes without premeditation fall squarely within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300.
Questions settled- Whether Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is attracted when a fatal incident results from a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel without premeditation?
- Can a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 304 Part-I when the evidence establishes the absence of preplanning and the presence of a sudden domestic altercation?
- Whether injuries sustained by both parties during an occurrence point towards a sudden mutual fight rather than a premeditated assault?
- Nazar Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2076 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain vs Mst. Hassan Ara Begum and others1993 CLC 702 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2236 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-11Read full judgment →
- Nazar Akram vs The State1993 MLD 2274 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-05Read full judgment →
- Nazar Abbas Malik vs Mst. Sagheera Begum1993 MLD 1150 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
- Nayyar Mumtaz vs District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner (Karachi1993 MLD 840 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
- Nawadat Khan vs Mst. Surraya1993 PLD Karachi 491 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This statutory rent appeal was filed under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 against the Rent Controller's order granting the landlord's eviction application. The landlady sought eviction of the tenant from a shop on the ground of personal bona fide requirement for her adult, unemployed son. The tenant contested the claim, arguing that the landlady failed to specify the nature of the proposed business, availability of capital, or prior experience, and that a prior eviction application had been withdrawn by her late mother. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, the landlord is only required to show that the requirement is made honestly and in good faith. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that non-disclosure of the specific business, capital, or experience is not fatal to the application, as such details do not form part of the cause of action.
Questions settled- Is a landlord required to state the specific nature of the business to be conducted when seeking eviction for personal use under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does the non-disclosure of available capital or business experience disentitle a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of personal bona fide requirement?
- How is the term 'good faith' defined and applied in rent proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Nawabzada Hamidullah Khan And 17 Other vs DeputyK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 132 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nawabzada Hameedullah Khan and 12 others vs Deputy1993 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from a dispute where the petitioners sought a declaration that the suit property was their private property and not public property, and to restrain the Deputy Commissioner and Municipal Committee from leasing it. Initially, the Civil Court returned the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The petitioners then approached the Tribunal under the N.-W.F.P. Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977. The Tribunal held that the property was public property and that it lacked jurisdiction because no official proceedings under the Act had been initiated. On writ petition, the High Court examined the evidence, noting that the Municipal Committee had been in possession, management, and control of the property since 1952. The High Court held that under Section 13 of the Act, the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate whether a property is public property. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the land was public property, clarifying that the Tribunal did possess jurisdiction to make this determination despite the absence of formal enforcement proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a Tribunal under the N.-W.F.P. Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 1977 have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a property is public property?
- Can a Tribunal adjudicate whether a property is public property in the absence of formal enforcement or removal proceedings initiated by the authorities under the Act?
- Does long-term possession, management, and control of land by a Municipal Committee satisfy the statutory definition of public property under the N.-W.F.P. Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 1977?
- Nawab Ma,Nsoor Ahmad Khan and 8 others vs Province of Punjab, through Collector_Deputy Commissioner, Khushab and 7 others1993 MLD 716 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Nawab Khan and 3 others vs Painde Khan and another1993 SCMR 2316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning rival pre-emption suits over agricultural land sold by registered sale deed in 1978. The trial court decreed the suits in favour of both pre-emptors, dividing the land equally, and the District Judge dismissed subsequent appeals. The High Court later decreed the suit entirely in favour of one pre-emptor based on a concession. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that no decree could be passed after 31 July 1986 based solely on relationship with the vendor, and that the suit was a nullity because two petitioners were minors when sued as majors. The Supreme Court held that since a decree had in fact been passed prior to 31 July 1986, the rule laid down in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali governed the matter, and further found that the minors were duly represented upon amendment, rendering the suit valid. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption decree can be passed after 31st July 1986 on the sole ground of relationship with the vendor?
- Does the initial misdescription of minors as majors render a suit a nullity when they are subsequently represented through their father and counsel upon an amendment?
- Nawab Din and others vs Ismail through Legal Heirs1993 PLD Lahore 408 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the plaintiff claiming a right of pre-emption as a co-sharer and a collateral of the vendors. Prior to the institution of the suit, consolidation of holdings took place under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, resulting in new land being allotted in lieu of the subject land, and the plaintiff ceased to be a co-owner in the new Khata. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed it, relying on precedent. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor who loses his status as a co-sharer due to consolidation proceedings prior to the suit can successfully maintain a pre-emption claim. The Lahore High Court held that a plaintiff must retain his preferential right of pre-emption at three crucial stages: the date of the sale, the date of the suit, and the date of the decree. Because the consolidation of holdings occurred before the institution of the suit and the plaintiff lost his co-owner status in the new Khata, he failed to maintain the required preferential right. The appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emptor lose the right of pre-emption if he ceases to be a co-owner as a result of consolidation of holdings before the institution of the suit?
- At what three stages must a plaintiff retain their preferential right of pre-emption to succeed in a pre-emption suit?
- Does the ratio decidendi of Qaim Din v. Said Ahmad apply when a pre-emptor loses their underlying qualification of co-ownership prior to the filing of the suit?
- Nawab Asghar and 2 others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 537 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-02Read full judgment →
- Naveed Saeed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2596 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
- Naveed Ahmad Alias Billu vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 395 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-21Read full judgment →
- National Wood Industries, Gujrat vs Mst. Fazal Begum and another1993 CLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- National Embroidery Mills Ltd. and others vs Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution1993 SCMR 1201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan resolves a set of appeals concerning the definition and scope of the word "wages" under Section 2(30) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The core legal controversy centers on whether specific allowances and payments—namely house rent allowance, attendance allowance, and leave encashment—constitute "wages" for the purpose of employer contributions under the Ordinance. The Court held that rendering of service or availability for service is a precondition for payment of remuneration, and payments received as a matter of legal or contractual right, with a direct nexus to the performance of work and regular in character, fall within the definition of wages. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court concluded that house rent allowance, attendance allowance, and payments towards leave encashment all form part of "wages" under the Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that beneficial labor legislation must be interpreted liberally to fulfill its purpose, and any regular, fixed remuneration paid in exchange for services rendered or availability for service, which is not strictly excluded by the statute, constitutes wages.
Questions settled- Does house rent allowance form part of wages under Section 2(30) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Can attendance allowance be termed as wages for the purposes of social security contributions?
- Whether payments made towards leave encashment constitute wages under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- What are the essential characteristics of "wages" as defined under Section 2(30) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- National Development Finance Corporation vs M/s. Rawal Papers1993 MLD 1562 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
- National Development Finance Corporation vs Fazal Sugar Mills Ltd.1993 CLC 642 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed by the National Development Finance Corporation seeking the winding up of Fazal Sugar Mills Limited under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, due to the company's failure to repay a substantial loan. The core legal question was whether the respondent company could be wound up for inability to pay debts when it alleged a bona fide dispute regarding the debt and had initiated a separate civil suit for damages against the creditor. The Court held that the winding-up petition should be granted. It established that while a bona fide dispute regarding a debt can preclude winding-up proceedings, the mere filing of a civil suit for damages does not automatically constitute such a dispute. The burden lies on the company to demonstrate a genuine, prima facie dispute, which the respondent failed to do. Furthermore, the court found the project defunct and the company unable to prove its commercial solvency. Consequently, the court ordered the winding up of the company and appointed an Official Liquidator to manage its affairs.
Questions settled- Does the mere filing of a civil suit for damages by a company against a creditor constitute a bona fide dispute sufficient to defeat a winding-up petition?
- What is the legal test for determining whether a company is unable to pay its debts under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish a bona fide dispute in winding-up proceedings?
- Can a winding-up petition be maintained when a company is unable to prove its commercial solvency?
- National Detergents Limited vs Mod International (Pvt.) Ltd.1993 MLD 590 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for an interim injunction in a suit for declaration, damages, and accounts filed by National Detergents Limited against Mod International (Pvt.) Limited. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from infringing its registered trade mark "Flair" and from passing off its goods by using the deceptively similar trade mark "Flare" or "French Flare". The core legal question was whether the defendant's use of the phonetically and visually similar trade mark constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's registered trade mark and warranted an interim injunction. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff established a good prima facie case of trade mark infringement and passing off, finding phonetic and visual similarity between "Flair" and "Flare" and noting that the addition of descriptive words like "French" did not cure the infringement. The court laid down the principle that where a defendant uses a mark identical or nearly resembling a registered trade mark, statutory protection is absolute, and additions or variations by the defendant will not save them from an action for infringement.
Questions settled- Whether the use of a phonetically and visually similar trade mark constitutes an infringement of a registered trade mark?
- Does the addition of a prefix or word to an infringing trade mark save the defendant from an action for trade mark infringement?
- What constitutes a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction in trade mark infringement and passing off suits?
- Is it necessary to examine the likelihood of deception or confusion when the defendant's trade mark is virtually identical to the registered trade mark?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Shaukat Hussain1993 MLD 2578 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Sh. Muhammad Sharif and 3 others1993 CLC 2272 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a bank, challenged an ejectment order issued under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on grounds of personal use. The core legal questions addressed whether the landlord's failure to specify the nature of the intended business in the application, the non-examination of the beneficiaries of the premises, and the existence of other available spaces invalidated the claim of bona fide personal need. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Rent Controller’s finding of bona fide requirement. The Court held that specifying the nature of the intended business is not a material fact required in an ejectment application, nor is there a legal obligation to produce the specific beneficiaries as witnesses. Furthermore, the Court established that the assessment of the suitability and sufficiency of accommodation remains the landlord's prerogative, not the tenant's. The judgment clarified that "good faith" is the central criterion for personal need, and once established, the landlord's claim prevails regardless of the hardship caused to the tenant.
Questions settled- Is it a mandatory requirement to specify the nature of the intended business in an ejectment application filed under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does the failure to produce the beneficiaries of the premises as witnesses in court invalidate a landlord's claim for personal use?
- Is the determination of the suitability and sufficiency of accommodation a prerogative of the landlord or the tenant?
- Can a landlord's claim for personal use be defeated solely by the existence of other open spaces in the building that are reserved for parking under approved construction plans?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 24 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Maan Crockery Store and 21993 MLD 1019 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan and anothers vs Emirates Bank1993 SCMR 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that dismissed an application for leave to defend a suit filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question was whether Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908, which prescribes a ten-day period for seeking leave to defend in summary suits, applies to proceedings under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, or whether the residuary Article 181 applies. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908 is indeed applicable. The Court reasoned that the summary procedure under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is inextricably linked to the limitation period in Article 159. Furthermore, as the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, does not exclude the Limitation Act 1908 and operates in addition to existing laws, the specific limitation period for summary suits must apply to ensure the Ordinance’s objective of expeditious loan recovery is not defeated.
Questions settled- Does Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to applications for leave to defend suits filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Is the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to applications for leave to defend under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 exclude the application of the Limitation Act 1908 for suits filed under its provisions?
- National Bank of Pakistan And Another vs Mukhtar Ahmed And OtherK.L.R. Labour & Service Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan and 7 others vs Emirates Bank International1993 CLC 2009 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was directed against an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge directing the appellants (intervenors) to deposit Rs. 29.5 million in court on account of the sale of pledged goods. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an interlocutory order passed by a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 is maintainable before the High Court. The court held that the appeal was not maintainable, ruling that the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 is a special law overriding general law, and its Section 12(1) expressly bars appeals against interlocutory orders that do not dispose of the entire case. The key principle laid down is that to achieve the legislative intent of expeditious recovery of bank loans and speedy disposal of suits, interlocutory orders of Special Courts cannot be challenged in appeal or revision before the High Court until the final determination of the entire case.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Does the bar against appeals from interlocutory orders under section 12(1) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 apply to intervenors and non-parties as well?
- Can the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 override the express restrictions on appeals contained in a special enactment like the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Nasrullah Khan vs The Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and another1993 PLD Supreme Court 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeal brought by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dated 26-11-1990, which dismissed the appellant's appeal against the termination of his service. The appellant, initially recruited as a temporary employee (first as a Chowkidar and later as a Driver), was terminated following his arrest in a criminal case under Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal issue was whether a temporary employee is automatically regularised or confirmed upon completing the statutory probationary period, thereby requiring formal inquiry and adherence to disciplinary rules prior to removal. The Supreme Court held that the civil service law contains no provision for automatic confirmation without an express certification of successful probation and a specific order converting the employment from temporary to regular. Consequently, the appellant remained a temporary employee whose services could be terminated pursuant to Section 11(3) of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the completion of a probationary period result in the automatic confirmation or regularisation of a temporary civil servant without a specific order?
- Can a temporary civil servant's services be lawfully terminated without conducting a formal inquiry under efficiency and discipline rules?
- What statutory requirements must be fulfilled under civil service law to convert a temporary employment into a regular one?
- Nasrullah alias Nasir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2428 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
- Nashik vs State of Maharashtra1993 SCMR 2246 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-03-23Read full judgment →
- Naseeruddin vs Ali Qadir Abbas and another1993 P Cr. L J 1684 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Naseer-Ud-Din vs Ali Qadir Etc.K.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Naseer Shaikh vs Karachi Cooperative Housing Societies United1993 MLD 162 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmad vs The State1993 MLD 185 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1613 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →