Latest 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.

• Naseem Ahmed vs Haji Usman and another1993 MLD 1695 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Naseem Ahmad and anothers vs Air Botswana (Pty) Ltd. and 5 others1993 SCMR 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-20
  civil revisionalternate remedyterritorial jurisdictionCarriage by Air Act 1934Code of Civil Procedure 1908carrier liabilityremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave arose out of a suit for recovery of damages filed in the Court of Civil Judge at Karachi against multiple international airlines regarding damaged and short-delivered air-freighted household goods. The trial court dismissed the suit on a preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction. The appellants directly approached the High Court of Sindh via a civil revision application, which was dismissed as incompetent because the appellants had bypassed the alternate remedy of an appeal before the District Judge. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed its previous jurisprudence and held that while courts ordinarily decline revisional jurisdiction when an alternate appeal lies, this rule is not inflexible and departure is justified under special circumstances. Because the matter involved substantial legal questions concerning territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Article 28 of the First Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act 1934 involving multiple foreign airlines, the High Court erred in dismissing the revision on a procedural technicality. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for adjudication on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is the rule barring a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an alternate remedy of appeal is available an inflexible rule?
  • Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction directly when an appealable order raises important and novel questions of law regarding territorial jurisdiction?
  • Under what circumstances can a court depart from the normal rule that an aggrieved party must pursue an appeal before the District Judge rather than a direct revision before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2411 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-23Read full judgment →
• Nasar Ullah Khan Hunjra vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control (Interior Division), Islamabad and 3 others1993 P Cr. L J 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
• Nasar Mehmood vs The State1993 MLD 367 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
• Nargis Shahen vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (Generalr)K.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 409 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Namdar Khan vs Muhammad Akram Khan and 14 others1993 SCMR 434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-09
  pre-emptiondecretal amountfunctus officiojudicial omissionrestoration of decreecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court decreed the suit, directing the plaintiffs to deposit a specific sum by a set date, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The first appellate court initially stayed the deposit of the balance amount, then dismissed the suit entirely. The High Court, in second appeal, restored the trial court's decree but omitted to specify a new timeframe for the deposit of the decretal amount, which had lapsed. The respondents subsequently filed a miscellaneous application, which the High Court allowed, granting time to deposit the balance. The appellant challenged this, arguing the High Court was functus officio. The Supreme Court held that the High Court, having restored the trial court's decree, had the inherent power to ensure the decree was effective. Since the original deadline had passed due to judicial proceedings and the court's own omission, the Court applied the maxim that acts or omissions of a court should not prejudice a litigant. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's order allowing the deposit, as it was necessary to make the decree fruitful.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court, upon restoring a trial court's decree in appeal, grant time for the deposit of the decretal amount if the original deadline has lapsed due to judicial proceedings?
  • Does the maxim that acts or omissions of a court should not prejudice a litigant apply to the extension of time for depositing pre-emption money?
  • Is a High Court functus officio to amend a decree to allow for the deposit of pre-emption money after the appeal has been decided?
  Read full judgment →
• Naik Muhammad Khan vs Barkat UllahK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 173 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
• Naik Muhammad Khan vs Barkat Ullah1993 PLD Lahore 55 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
• Naik Alam and 3 others vs Muhammad Yaseen and 13 others1993 CLC 2174 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26
  civil revisionnon-joinder of partiesjoint decreeappellate jurisdictionimpleadment of partieslimitation periodmiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from the dismissal of an appeal by the District Court, which held that the appeal was improperly constituted due to the non-joinder of a co-plaintiff. The core legal question was whether an appeal filed by some co-plaintiffs against a joint decree of dismissal is maintainable without joining all co-plaintiffs, and whether the appellate court erred in refusing to implead the omitted party. The High Court held that the appeal was maintainable, as Order 41, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allows one plaintiff to successfully challenge a joint decree. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Order 41, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, an appellate court possesses the jurisdiction to implead a necessary party even after the expiration of the limitation period. The key principle laid down is that the non-joinder of a co-plaintiff is not fatal to an appeal against a joint decree, and courts must exercise their power to implead parties to prevent a miscarriage of justice, particularly when the omission was unintentional.

  Questions settled

  • Can one plaintiff challenge a joint decree of dismissal without joining all other co-plaintiffs in the appeal?
  • Does an appellate court have the jurisdiction to implead a necessary party after the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal?
  • Is the non-joinder of a co-plaintiff fatal to an appeal against a joint decree of dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 1544 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-03-26Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 769 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-01-11
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurder referencejoint recoverylast seen evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, convicting the appellants under sections 302 and 411 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing them to death and imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including an initial missing person report, subsequent discovery of a dead body, alleged 'last seen' evidence, joint recovery of ornaments, and motive relating to prior enmity. The Federal Shariat Court examined the record and found multiple material contradictions and infirmities, including unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., untrustworthy 'last seen' testimony, inadmissible joint pointation for recoveries, and an absence of a credible motive or conclusive medical evidence linking the appellants to the crime. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions and death sentences were set aside, the murder reference was answered in the negative, and the appellants were granted the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. The key principle laid down is that where circumstantial evidence is riddled with material discrepancies, belated improvements, and inadmissible recoveries, it cannot form the basis of a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether joint pointation and recovery of articles from multiple accused persons is admissible in evidence under criminal law?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on weak circumstantial evidence and delayed F.I.R. riddled with material contradictions?
  • Whether 'last seen' evidence introduced belatedly after a significant delay in reporting can be relied upon without corroboration?
  • What is the effect of material infirmities in the prosecution's circumstantial chain upon a capital sentence and murder reference?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar and 2 others vs The State through S.H.O., Police Station City, Sargodha1993 MLD 577 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Nadir through Legal Heirs vs Malik through Legal Heirs1993 PLD Lahore 700 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Khan vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar and another1993 PLD Supreme Court 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-13
  unfair meansexamination malpracticedisciplinary actionparental jurisdictionprovisional admissioncancellation of paperstudent discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to disciplinary action taken by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education against a student, Nadeem Khan, for using unfair means during an examination. The core legal question was whether the findings of the Jury of Appeal regarding the possession of cheating material were sustainable and whether the punishment of paper cancellation was justified. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record and the Jury's findings, upheld the decision that the candidate possessed objectionable material in the examination hall, which constitutes an offence warranting the cancellation of the relevant paper. The Court affirmed the punishment as valid and unexceptionable. Furthermore, in the exercise of its parental jurisdiction, the Court permitted the student to continue his studies at the Engineering University on a provisional basis, subject to his success in clearing the examination in the subject in question. The key principle laid down is that the possession of objectionable material in an examination hall is a punishable offence, and while the Court may exercise parental jurisdiction to mitigate the consequences for a student's future, such relief remains conditional upon the student successfully clearing the examination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of objectionable material in an examination hall constitute an offence justifying the cancellation of the paper?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise parental jurisdiction to allow a student to continue studies provisionally despite disciplinary action?
  • What are the consequences for a student's provisional admission if they fail to clear the examination in the subject for which they were disciplined?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bakhsh Soomro vs Karachi Development Authority and another1993 MLD 463 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-19Read full judgment →
• N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology vs Tariq Ali and 21993 PLD Karachi 626 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19
  rejection of plaintdismissal for non-prosecutionbar of fresh suitcivil revisionres judicataadjourned date of hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the trial court, which was subsequently set aside on appeal and remanded for trial. The applicant university contended that the respondent's fresh suit was barred under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as a previous suit on the same matter had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The High Court of Sindh examined whether a mere statement in the plaint regarding the dismissal of a prior suit for non-prosecution automatically attracts the penal bar of Order IX Rule 9. The Court held that the bar under Order IX Rule 9 is an exception to the general rule, penal in nature, and must be strictly restricted to its precise terms, which require the defendant's presence at the time of dismissal under Rule 8. Since such facts could not be conclusively spelled out solely from the face of the plaint, the rejection of the plaint was unjustified. The revision was dismissed, and the matter was remanded for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 solely because it mentions that a previous suit was dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Is the bar against filing a fresh suit under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable if the defendant's presence on the date of dismissal is not established?
  • Does a dismissal of a suit for default or non-prosecution constitute a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the purposes of res judicata?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s..Shoaib Bilal Corporation, U.B.L. Super Market, Circular Road,1993 PTD 332 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-07
  Self-Assessment Schemevested rightlimitation periodstay orderincome tax assessmentaudit immunityconcealment of income
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the issuance of a notice under section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and the subsequent assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner association of persons, which had filed its income tax return for the assessment year 1987-88 under the Self-Assessment Scheme. The core legal questions involve whether an assessee acquires a vested right to escape assessment if the Income Tax Officer fails to pass an order within the mandatory limitation period under section 59(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, whether a stay order passed by the High Court operates from the moment of its issuance regardless of communication, and whether immunity from audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme can be arbitrarily denied. The Lahore High Court held that the failure of the Income Tax Officer to pass an order before the statutory deadline conferred a vested right upon the petitioner, rendering subsequent assessment null and void. Furthermore, an assessment order passed after the issuance of a stay order by the court is a nullity in law, irrespective of when it was communicated to the authority. The key principle laid down is that statutory limitation periods for assessment are mandatory, creating vested rights, and that departmental authorities cannot benefit from their own defaults to deny statutory immunities arbitrarily.

  Questions settled

  • Does an assessee acquire a vested right to escape assessment if the Income Tax Officer fails to pass an order within the period specified under section 59(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a stay order passed by the High Court operate from the exact moment it is passed, irrespective of the time of its communication to the respondent authority?
  • Can an Income Tax Officer arbitrarily deny the benefit of immunity from audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme due to a minor short payment of tax where the scheme does not provide for such loss of immunity?
  • Is an assessment order finalized after the issuance of a stay order by the High Court considered a nullity in the eyes of law?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Zasha Limited (Public) Limited Company, Lahore vs Agricultural1993 PLD Lahore 914 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-05
  writ of mandamuspromissory estoppelconstitutional jurisdictioncontractual obligationsstatutory bodydisbursement of loanforeign currency loanletter of creditretrospective application
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a public limited company seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (ADBP) to disburse the remaining foreign currency loan and release local currency importation funds for setting up a solvent oil extraction plant. ADBP raised a preliminary objection that contractual obligations cannot be enforced in constitutional jurisdiction, and further argued that the petitioner failed to meet revised policy requirements mandating cash deposits of equity. The Lahore High Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that ADBP is a statutory corporate body carrying out public/state functions under the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance 1961 and bound by statutory rules. The sanction of loan constituted a promise by a public authority acting under statutory powers, rendering the doctrine of promissory estoppel applicable. The Court further held that retrospective policy changes cannot unilaterally alter financial terms to a beneficiary's detriment. The writ petition was accepted with costs, and mandamus was issued directing loan disbursement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory financial institution perform administrative acts that attract the doctrine of promissory estoppel in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether contractual obligations arising from a loan sanction by a statutory corporate body can be enforced via a writ of mandamus under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a statutory bank retroactively apply new policy conditions regarding cash deposits to existing sanctioned loans to the detriment of the borrower?
  • Whether Section 24(c) of the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance 1961 applies to statements in personal guarantees that do not create a charge over property or influence loan approval?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Zahra Industries Ltd. through Managing Director vs Government of1993 CLC 1659 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• M/s. Vohra Corporation vs Federation of Pakistan and others1993 CLC 1912 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-18Read full judgment →
• M/s. Valika Woollen Mills Company Ltd., Karachi vs Government of1993 MLD 1291 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-03Read full judgment →
• M/s. Uzin Export & Import Enterprises for Foreign Trade vs M/s. M.1993 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-15
  stay of legal proceedingsarbitration agreementforeign arbitration clausecounter-claimsteps in the proceedingsinjunctionArbitration Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of a High Court appeal upholding the refusal to stay a suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellants had entered into a turnkey contract for a cement plant and appointed respondents as sub-contractors. When respondents attempted to remove machinery, appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction without mentioning the arbitration clause. Respondents filed a written statement containing a counter-claim, prompting appellants to file an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act to stay the counter-claim proceedings based on the arbitration clause providing for arbitration by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. The Supreme Court held that the appellants did not take steps in the proceedings or abandon their right to arbitration by attempting a compromise or waiving notice for a counter-claim amendment. Furthermore, the Court held that while foreign arbitration clauses are valid and treated like domestic arbitration clauses, taking proceedings to Paris would be inconvenient and expensive given that the contract was executed and work performed in Pakistan. Consequently, the Court allowed the stay of suit proceedings, directing the parties to resolve their dispute through arbitration with a venue at Karachi.

  Questions settled

  • Whether filing a suit for an urgent injunction without mentioning an arbitration clause amounts to an abandonment of the right to invoke arbitration?
  • Does waiver of notice for a counter-claim amendment in an effort to reach an amicable settlement constitute a 'step in the proceedings' under section 34 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Can a plaintiff in the original suit file an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of proceedings with respect to a counter-claim raised by the defendant?
  • Whether a foreign arbitration clause providing for arbitration outside Pakistan ousts the jurisdiction of domestic courts or should be treated at par with domestic arbitration clauses?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. United Bank Ltd. vs Haji Abdul Razzak & Co.1993 MLD 2575 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
• M_S. Ujagar Prints Etc. Etc. , Kwality Silk Mills And Another Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Other Etc.Union Of India And OtherPTCL 1993 FC. 1 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• M/s. Tahir BROTHERSs vs Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance and1993 SCMR 1894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-24
  customs dutytariff classificationload switchesrated voltagetesting voltageBill of Entrysales tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition in limine, which had challenged concurrent departmental orders regarding the customs duty and sales tax assessment on imported load switches. The core legal question concerned the proper classification of the imported load switches under the Pakistan Customs Tariff, specifically whether assessment should be based on their rated voltage or their testing voltage. The Supreme Court held that the working and operational capacity of switches is based on their rated or maximum voltage, not their testing voltage, which merely denotes robust construction. Consequently, the switches were correctly assessed under the applicable tariff heading for pressures not exceeding 999 volts. The key principle laid down is that customs duty and tariff classification must be determined by the rated or maximum operational specifications of goods at the time of filing the Bill of Entry, rather than transient or diagnostic testing parameters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether customs duty assessment of imported switches should be based on their testing voltage or their rated voltage?
  • Does the date of filing of the Bill of Entry determine the applicable law for the assessment of import duty?
  • Can a testing voltage be regarded as the rated or maximum voltage for tariff classification under the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Shahtaj Sugar Mills vs Government of the Punjab and others1993 MLD 2423 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. Settlers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Mst. Khalida Begum1993 MLD 2310 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. S.M. Abdullah & Sons, Karachi vs M/s. Crescent Star Insurance1993 MLD 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-08
  insurance premiumvoid contractillegal contractstatutory penaltyinsurance policyrecovery of premium
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court upholding a decree in favor of an insurance company for the recovery of unpaid insurance premiums. The core legal question was whether an insurance policy issued in contravention of statutory requirements regarding the advance collection or guarantee of premiums is rendered null and void, or illegal. The court held that where a statute prescribes penalties for the non-observance of its provisions without expressly declaring transactions made in breach thereof to be void or illegal, such contravention does not invalidate the underlying contract. The key principle laid down is that the nullification of a contract by implication is not warranted merely due to the statutory breach of a provision whose object is primarily to ensure the recovery of dues or revenue, provided the statute itself provides specific penalties for the violation and does not prohibit the contract.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of an insurance policy without receiving the premium in advance render the contract void or illegal?
  • What is the legal effect of a statutory breach when a statute imposes penalties but does not explicitly declare the contravening transaction void?
  • Can a contract be declared void by implication merely due to the non-observance of provisions relating to the collection of insurance premiums?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Rafidian Bank, Iraq vs M.L. International (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi and 31993 MLD 1234 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Paragon Company vs Government of Sindh through Director Local1993 MLD 853 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-29Read full judgment →
• M/s. National Motors Ltd./Decreeholder/Judgment Debtor vs The1993 CLC 923 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
• M/s. National Cables (Pvt). Ltd vs The Additional Secretary, Ministry OfPTCL 1993 CL. 278 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Na. Industries, Karachi vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central1993 PTD 45 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-12
  advisory jurisdictionincome tax referencereview applicationmaintainabilitymerger doctrineIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application was filed by the petitioner seeking a review of a judgment delivered by the Sindh High Court on 19-9-1991, which had declined to answer a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to review its own judgment rendered in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under the Income Tax Ordinance. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the High Court's jurisdiction in income tax references is purely advisory and special, not original or appellate, and thus not subject to review. The Court upheld this objection, noting that the High Court does not act as a Civil Court in such references, thereby precluding the application of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding review. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had already unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, causing the High Court's judgment to merge into the Supreme Court's order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review application as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to review a judgment rendered in its advisory capacity regarding an income tax reference?
  • Is the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in income tax references considered original or appellate jurisdiction?
  • Does the doctrine of merger apply when a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment has been dismissed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. N.A. Industries, Karachi vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1993 CL. 60 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-19Read full judgment →
• M/s. Muhammad Hanif Awan & Company and 3 others vs The Secretary1993 PLD Lahore 26 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited vs Government of Sindh through1993 SCMR 920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-21
  Agricultural Produce Markets ActSugar Factories Control Actnotified market areamarket feedealerprocedural requirementdirectory provisionlicensing
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing the appellant sugar mill's constitutional petition, which challenged notifications issued under Sections 3 and 4 of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 (A.P.M. Act) and subsequent demands for licensing and market fees. The appellant contended that the Section 3 notification was defective for failing to explicitly name 'sugar-cane' as the regulated agricultural produce, that Section 4 was consequently invalid, and that the A.P.M. Act conflicted with the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950.

  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that both statutes co-exist without conflict as they operate in distinct fields. Section 3 of the A.P.M. Act is procedural and directory; because 'sugar-cane' falls within the statutory definition of agricultural produce and the appellant had full knowledge of the licensing requirement, the omission caused no prejudice. The Court further held that a sugar mill purchasing sugarcane for manufacturing sugar is a 'dealer' under Section 2(aa) and cannot avoid liability for market fees by failing to obtain a mandatory licence.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 and the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950 in conflict with each other regarding the regulation of sugarcane?
  • Does the omission of the specific name of an agricultural produce in a notification issued under Section 3 of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 invalidate subsequent notifications under Section 4?
  • Is a sugar manufacturing mill that purchases sugarcane from growers considered a 'dealer' under Section 2(aa) of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939?
  • Can a buyer or dealer evade statutory liability for market fees merely by failing to obtain the prescribed licence?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd. vs The Collector of Central1993 MLD 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10
  Sales Tax Actpre-deposit of taxdirectory vs mandatoryright of appealstatutory interpretationtax penaltyconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of several constitutional petitions involving a common question of law regarding the interpretation of section 45(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which requires an appellant to deposit the tax demanded or penalty levied before filing an appeal. The core legal question was whether the requirement of pre-deposit under section 45(3) is mandatory or directory, and whether an appeal can be summarily dismissed for non-compliance without examining the merits. The Lahore High Court held that section 45(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 is directory rather than mandatory. The court reasoned that the provision does not specify penal consequences for non-compliance, is framed in affirmative language, and must be interpreted to protect the beneficial and substantive right of appeal, keeping in view Islamic principles of jurisprudence. The ratio laid down is that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-deposit of the demanded tax or penalty without first examining the facts of the case, applying its mind, and determining whether a pre-deposit is warranted in the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provision of section 45(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 requiring the pre-deposit of tax or penalty is mandatory or directory?
  • Can an appellate authority summarily dismiss an appeal under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 solely on the ground of non-deposit of the demanded tax without examining the merits of the case?
  • How should statutory provisions limiting the right of appeal be construed under fiscal statutes in light of Islamic principles of interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited, Lahore vs The Collector OfPTCL 1993 CL. 656 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. M.Z. Corporation, Karachi through Proprietor Muhammad Zahcer1993 MLD 1764 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-19Read full judgment →
• M/s. Latif Brother vs Deputy Collector, Customs, LahorePTCL 1993 CL. 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-05
  customs valuationunder-invoicingmisdeclarationnormal priceburden of proofimport trade controlcountry of origin
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the valuation of imported Teak Plywood by the appellant, M/s. Latif Brothers. The Customs authorities rejected the declared value, alleging under-invoicing and misdeclaration, and imposed penalties based on price comparisons with goods imported from Singapore and other Far East countries, rather than the country of origin, Thailand. The core legal question was whether the Customs authorities could validly reject the declared value based on price lists from countries other than the country of origin. The Supreme Court held that the "normal price" under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, must be determined based on the open market price in the country of origin. The Court ruled that the Customs authorities failed to discharge their burden of proof, as they did not provide evidence from the country of origin to substantiate the allegation of under-invoicing. Consequently, the Court set aside the departmental orders, establishing the principle that valuation for customs purposes must rely on the prevailing commercial price in the country of origin, and arbitrary comparisons with other nations are legally insufficient to establish misdeclaration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'normal price' for customs valuation under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, refer to the market price in the country of origin or the place of importation?
  • Can Customs authorities reject a declared import value based solely on price comparisons with goods from countries other than the country of origin?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that an importer has made a misstatement of value in a bill of entry?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Lanvin Traders vs Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property1993 SCMR 1707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-23
  Evacuee Trust PropertyOpen AuctionMartial Law RegulationLease ConfirmationPublic SaleVested RightMarket Value Determination
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged a High Court judgment that upheld a Tribunal's refusal to confirm a lease of evacuee trust land. The land was disposed of by the Evacuee Trust Property Board through an invitation for bids rather than an open auction, as required by Martial Law Regulation 57. The core legal question was whether inviting bids via advertisement constitutes an "open auction" and if the appellant acquired a vested right. The Supreme Court held that an "open auction" necessitates public competition where bidders can observe and raise competing bids. Consequently, the disposal method used, which involved restricted bidding, failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of an open auction. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal correctly scrutinized the transaction under the Martial Law Regulation 57 (Amendment) Ordinance, 1989. However, in the interest of justice, the Court remanded the matter to the High Court to determine the current market value of the property, granting the appellant an option to acquire the leasehold rights at that price, failing which the respondents may dispose of the property according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the invitation of bids in writing or sealed covers satisfy the legal requirement of an open auction?
  • What are the essential characteristics of an open auction for the disposal of public property?
  • Is a transaction of evacuee trust property subject to cancellation if the disposal process failed to comply with the statutory requirement of an open auction?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Kaghan Impex and others vs Deputy Collector, Customsii and1993 CLC 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-24
  customs valuationimport dutynatural justiceright to be heardbill of entryarbitrary assessmentremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the arbitrary rejection of declared import values by Customs Authorities regarding V-Belts imported from Korea. The core legal question was whether the Customs Authorities could unilaterally reject the declared value of imported goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, without providing the importer an opportunity to be heard or disclosing the evidence relied upon for such valuation. The Court held that the valuation fixed by the Customs Authorities was without lawful authority, as it was determined without evidence or notice to the petitioners. Following the precedent set in Indus Automobile (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue, the Court remitted the matter to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) for redetermination. The key principle laid down is that while Customs Authorities possess the jurisdiction to determine the value of imported goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, such assessments must be based on disclosed evidence, and the importer must be granted a fair opportunity to meet that evidence and present rebuttal material before a final valuation is determined.

  Questions settled

  • Can Customs Authorities reject the declared value of imported goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969 without disclosing the evidence relied upon?
  • Is it mandatory for Customs Authorities to provide an importer an opportunity to be heard before determining the value of imported goods?
  • What is the appropriate remedy when Customs Authorities fix the value of imported goods without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. International Trade and Marketing through Proprietor vs Integra1993 CLC 2223 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• M/s. Hoechst Pakistan Ltd. vs M/s. Cooperative Insurance Societies1993 MLD 2464 · Lahore High Court
  rejection of plaintstatutory noticecooperative societybusiness of the societyguarantorremand of suitcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Civil Judge, Lahore, rejecting the appellant's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on the failure to serve statutory notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925. The appellant sued the respondent cooperative society in its capacity as a guarantor. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint on a preliminary objection regarding the necessity of statutory notice without recording evidence, particularly when the issue of whether the suit related to the 'business of the society' was already a framed issue requiring factual determination. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court committed an illegality by deciding a mixed question of law and fact—whether the guarantee transaction constituted the 'business of the society'—without allowing the parties to lead evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the suit for trial on the framed issues, emphasizing that such controversies cannot be resolved summarily without evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of non-service of statutory notice without recording evidence on the issue?
  • Does a suit against a cooperative society in its capacity as a guarantor necessarily relate to the 'business of the society' under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
  • Is it legally permissible for a trial court to decide a framed issue requiring factual determination through a miscellaneous application without trial?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Hilal Tanneries Limited vs The Registrar of Companies Government1993 CLC 1398 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
• M/s. Grain Systems (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Agricultural Development1993 MLD 1031 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21
  territorial jurisdictionbanking companies recovery of loansarrears of land revenuereturn of plaintspecial court bankingloan agreementcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against orders returning plaints for want of territorial jurisdiction in suits filed by a borrower against the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan regarding loan recovery proceedings. The core legal questions were whether the Civil Court at Islamabad possessed territorial jurisdiction, whether Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act barred the suits, and whether the subsequent application of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, to the Bank ousted the Civil Court's jurisdiction. The Court held that while the Civil Court initially possessed territorial jurisdiction and the suits were not barred by Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act—as the amount was not yet judicially determined as 'due'—the subsequent notification applying the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, to the Bank rendered the Civil Court incompetent. The Court established that jurisdiction is determined by the plaint's contents at the initial stage, and that coercive recovery under the Land Revenue Act requires a prior judicial determination of the 'due' amount. Ultimately, disputes arising from loan agreements with banking companies fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court Banking.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the defendant's business office is located within its territorial limits?
  • Can a banking institution initiate coercive recovery proceedings under the Land Revenue Act before the disputed loan amount is judicially determined as due?
  • Does the application of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, to a banking entity oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters arising from loan agreements?
  • At the initial stage of proceedings, what material should a court consider to determine its territorial jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Globe Textile Mills (O.E.) Limited, Karachi vs Textile Commissioner,1993 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-17
  constitutional petitionimport machinerycustom duty exemptionclean hands doctrineacquiescencestatutory authorityremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court of Sindh was justified in denying relief to the appellant manufacturing company despite recording a finding largely in its favor. The appellant had originally applied for a No Objection Certificate to import machinery for initial installation, but later sought a modification to treat the import under the Balancing, Modernization, and Replacement (BMR) scheme to claim exemption under S.R.O. 702(1)/80. The Textile Commissioner rejected the request on the ground that the mill had not completed three years of working. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition, holding that the appellant had unclean hands, failed to satisfy all conditions of the S.R.O., and had acquiesced by applying for initial installation. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had made a full and truthful disclosure in its petition, that ignorance or mistake does not amount to legal acquiescence, and that the condition regarding three years of working was a non-statutory and irrelevant consideration. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and remanded the case to the Scrutiny Committee for decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an initial mistake or misconception in applying for an import permit under a wrong category disentitle a party from relief under the clean hands doctrine?
  • Can acquiescence be established where the root and basis of the conduct are ignorance or unawareness of one's legal rights and entitlements?
  • Is a condition requiring a manufacturing unit to complete three years of working, not found in the text of S.R.O. 702(1)/80, a valid ground for denying tax or duty exemptions?
  • Does addressing an application under a wrong provision of law or to an inappropriate officer in the same hierarchy cause a person to lose their right to relief under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. General Construction Limited vs M/s. Pakistan Defence Officers1993 MLD 1282 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• M/s. Erum Developers through Abdul Hamid Habib vs Karachi Trucks1993 MLD 1778 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Eastern Poultry Services, And Another vs The Government ofK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 93 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Eastern General Insurance Company Limited vs Azhar Ali and 21993 PLD Supreme Court 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-29
  third-party insurancecontract of indemnityinsurable interesttransfer of vehiclemotor vehicle accidentinsurance policy lapsestatutory liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the liability of an insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, when a motor vehicle is involved in an accident after its ownership has been transferred, but the insurance policy remains in the name of the original owner. The core legal question is whether an insurance policy for third-party risks remains valid and enforceable against the insurer after the insured has transferred the vehicle, and whether a driver not specifically named in the policy is covered if they were not driving with the permission of the original insured. The Supreme Court held that a motor insurance policy is a contract of personal indemnity. Upon the transfer of ownership of the vehicle, the original insured loses their insurable interest, causing the policy to lapse. Consequently, the insurer is not liable for accidents occurring after the transfer, as the new owner is not the insured party and the driver cannot be deemed to be driving with the permission of the original insured. The principle established is that an insurance policy is non-transferable without novation, and the insurer's liability is strictly confined to the insured or those using the vehicle with their express or implied permission.

  Questions settled

  • Does a motor vehicle insurance policy remain valid after the insured transfers ownership of the vehicle?
  • Is an insurance company liable to indemnify a driver who is not the insured person if the driver did not have the permission of the original insured?
  • Can a contract of indemnity be assigned to a new owner upon the sale of a motor vehicle without a formal novation?
  • Does the statutory liability of an insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, extend to accidents occurring after the insured has parted with the vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Dehkan Agro through Partner vs Agricultural Development Bank1993 PLD Lahore 545 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ciba-Geigy (Pak) Limited vs Muhammad Safdar1993 MLD 997 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• M/s. Chohan Flying Coach Service, Sahiwal vs Regional Transport1993 CLC 1853 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-01
  administrative lawstatutory discretionwrit jurisdictionexhaustion of remedieslacheslocus standitransport licensingultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitution petition challenged the decision of the Regional Transport Authority to grant a 'D-Class' stand license to a competitor, arguing the decision was made under the dictative influence of the Chief Minister of Punjab and without mandatory consultation with the local authority. The core legal questions concerned whether the Regional Transport Authority exercised its statutory discretion independently, whether the failure to consult the local authority rendered the license void, and whether the petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy and the plea of laches. The Court held that the Regional Transport Authority acted without lawful authority by mechanically following executive directives, violating the independent exercise of statutory discretion required by the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is not an absolute bar when an order is void or passed without jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that statutory bodies must exercise their discretion independently, free from external influence, and must strictly adhere to mandatory procedural requirements, such as consultation, to ensure the validity of their administrative actions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory authority validly exercise its discretion under the dictation of a superior executive authority?
  • Does the failure to consult a local authority, as required by statute, render a licensing decision void?
  • Is the principle of exhaustion of remedies an absolute bar to invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does a competitor have locus standi to challenge the grant of a transport stand license to another party?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Chaudhry Brothers vs Province of the Punjab through1993 MLD 2437 · Lahore High Court
  contractual liabilitysales taxstatutory interpretationwrit jurisdictiontax burdenSale of Goods Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, suppliers of printing paper to the provincial government, challenged the refusal of the respondents to reimburse sales tax paid by the petitioners on goods supplied under contracts executed in May 1990. Following the execution of these contracts, the Finance Act, 1990 imposed a sales tax where none existed previously. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to recover this subsequently levied tax from the purchaser under Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, or whether contractual terms shifted this liability to the suppliers. The Court held that the contractual clause requiring suppliers to indicate taxes separately did not constitute a stipulation shifting the tax burden, but rather facilitated the application of Section 64-A. The Court ruled that Section 64-A entitles a seller to recover taxes imposed after the contract's execution from the purchaser in the absence of a specific contrary stipulation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a constitutional petition is maintainable when the claim is founded upon statutory provisions rather than purely contractual obligations. The petitions were allowed and remanded for determination of the refundable amounts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contractual requirement to separately indicate taxes in a tender shift the liability for subsequently imposed taxes to the seller?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for a claim arising from a contract when the right sought to be enforced is conferred by statute?
  • Under Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act 1930, is a seller entitled to recover taxes imposed after the execution of a contract from the purchaser?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Bombay Cloth House, Lahore vs Income Tax Officer, Circle 1, Zone1993 PTD 728 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
• M/s. Bayer Pharma Ltd., Karachi vs Commissioner of Income Tax "a1993 PTD 1327 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ashrafi Abbasi Associates vs New Town Cooperative Housing1993 PLD Karachi 543 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. And Other vs Federation Of Pakistan AndPTCL 1993 CL. 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  excise duty exemptionpromissory estoppelvested rightsretrospective operationtaxationsugar industryfiscal policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns twenty civil appeals challenging the withdrawal of excise duty exemptions on sugar production via two SROs issued in 1989. The core legal questions involved whether the Federal Government could rescind exemption notifications, the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the government in tax matters, and whether excise duty liability arises at the point of manufacture or clearance. The Court held that while the government possesses the power to rescind notifications, it cannot retrospectively impair vested rights. The Court affirmed that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is available against the government in its executive functions, provided the party acted to their detriment and did not pass the tax burden to consumers. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 3-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, excise duty liability is determined at the time of clearance for home consumption. Consequently, the Court allowed certain appeals, remanding them to the Central Board of Revenue to verify if the tax burden was passed on to purchasers, while dismissing others.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply against the government in the exercise of its executive functions regarding tax exemptions?
  • Is excise duty liability determined at the time of manufacture or at the time of clearance for home consumption under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944?
  • Can a beneficial notification granting tax exemption operate retrospectively to confer rights?
  • Does the rescission of an exemption notification by the government constitute a valid exercise of power if it impairs vested rights?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Arfah Shipping Co. vs M/s. Kuwait Flour Mills Co. and 2 others1993 SCMR 812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-03
  admiralty suitarrest of vesseljoinder of partiesprivate alienationattachment of propertybona fide purchaseraction in rem
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an admiralty suit concerning cargo damage where the vessel was arrested, subsequently removed from jurisdiction, and then re-arrested. The core legal question was whether an alleged purchaser of a vessel, who acquired it after the vessel's arrest, qualifies as a necessary or proper party to be impleaded under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not a necessary or proper party. The Court affirmed that the sale of the vessel during the subsistence of an arrest order was void under Section 64, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as it constituted a private alienation of property after attachment. The Court emphasized that when the bona fides of such a transaction are highly suspect—given the vessel's illegal removal from jurisdiction and the purchaser's prior relationship with the seller—the court is justified in refusing to implead the purchaser. The ruling establishes that a purchaser of attached property cannot intervene in the main suit to assert title when the transfer is legally void against the decree-holder's claims, leaving the purchaser to seek remedies against the seller independently.

  Questions settled

  • Is a purchaser of a vessel who acquires title after the vessel's arrest a necessary or proper party under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the private alienation of a vessel during the subsistence of an arrest order render the transfer void under Section 64, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court refuse to implead a party under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the party's claim of ownership is based on a transaction that is legally void against the decree-holder?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Alrehman International through Chairman vs Tariq Rashed and1993 CLC 2258 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-12
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentlandlord and tenantsublettingagreement to sellrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal arising from an ejectment order passed by the Sixth Rent Controller South, Karachi, directing the appellant and respondent No. 2 to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to respondent No. 1 on the ground of default in the payment of rent and unlawful subletting. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the appellant remained liable to pay rent as a tenant despite setting up an agreement to purchase the premises from the landlord, where no final sale-deed had been executed. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that until ownership is formally transferred via a registered sale-deed, the relationship of landlord and tenant persists, and the tenant remains under a legal obligation to pay rent regularly. The court laid down the principle that an agreement to sell does not extinguish the tenancy or absolve the tenant from the liability to pay rent unless the sale transaction is fully completed through a registered conveyance, and failure to pay rent during this period constitutes valid grounds for eviction due to default.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to purchase leased premises extinguish the relationship of landlord and tenant prior to the execution of a registered sale-deed?
  • Is a tenant liable to pay rent during the pendency of an agreement to sell when the sale has not been finalized?
  • Does failure to pay rent from the stipulated date constitute valid grounds for eviction on the basis of default?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Allied Bank Ltd.---Appellaht vs M/s. Rahmat Sons Ltd.1993 MLD 844 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-17Read full judgment →
• M/s. Agha & Co. Contractors and 4 others vs M/s. Mari Gas Co. Ltd.1993 SCMR 1658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-08
  trade union registrationindependent contractorslabor lawcollective bargaining unitleave to appealestablishment definition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns five petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the registration of a trade union representing employees of twelve independent contractors. The petitioners, who are independent contractors engaged by Mari Gas Co. Ltd. for security arrangements, challenged the registration certificate granted to the respondent trade union, which comprised workers employed by these twelve distinct contractors. The petitioners contended that a trade union cannot be legally formed by workers employed at different establishments run by several independent employers, arguing that such a union lacks the requisite unity of employer. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether a trade union can be validly established by workers employed at different establishments owned or operated by several independent employers. The Court, recognizing the general importance of this issue regarding the interpretation of trade union formation under labor laws, granted leave to appeal to determine the legality of such a collective bargaining unit structure. The proceedings focus on the statutory requirements for trade union registration and the definition of an establishment in the context of multiple independent employers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trade union can be established of workers employed at different establishments owned or run by several independent employers?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Adamjee Insurance Company Limited vs P & 0 and B.I. Cunard1993 PLD Karachi 606 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Abdul Wahid Abdul Majid vs Government Of Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1993 CL. 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-24
  customs dutyimport licensevested rightspromissory estoppelbill of entrystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a claim against increased customs duty rates on imported edible vegetable oil. The core legal question is whether the issuance of an import license creates a vested right against subsequent increases in customs duty rates, and whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents such increases. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the issuance of an import license does not create a vested right against future customs duty variations. The Court affirmed that under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969, the applicable rate of duty is determined by the date of filing the bill of entry, not the license issuance date. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, effectively nullified the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel regarding customs duty exemptions, ensuring that duty changes apply even after the conclusion of contracts or the opening of letters of credit. The State makes no representation that it will not increase duty rates when issuing import licenses.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of an import license create a vested right against the subsequent imposition or increase of customs duty?
  • Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against the legislature or laws framed by it regarding customs duty?
  • Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, permit the application of new customs duty rates to goods after the opening of a letter of credit?
  • Is the rate of customs duty determined by the date of the import license or the date of the bill of entry?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ab Sukab vs M/s. Ghee Corporation of Pakistan Opponent1993 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. A.F. Ferguson & Co. vs Commissioner, Sindh Employees' Social1993 SCMR 887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-08
  social security contributionemployee definitioncontract of servicetrainee studentschartered accountant firmwages definitionemployer-employee relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns whether students receiving stipends while undergoing practical training at a Chartered Accountant firm qualify as 'employees' under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, thereby obligating the firm to pay social security contributions. The appellant contended that these trainees were not employees and that the firm was not an industrial establishment. The Supreme Court examined the definitions of 'employee' and 'wages' under the Ordinance, noting that the trainees were bound by a contract of service requiring them to serve the principal, maintain confidentiality, and refrain from other occupations. The Court held that the contractual relationship established between the firm and the trainees satisfied the statutory definitions of employment, regardless of whether the trainees were formally notified as apprentices under other labor laws. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that the trainees were employees and the demand for social security contributions was legal and proper, as the remuneration provided—supplemented by training—constituted wages under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Are students receiving stipends while undergoing practical training at a firm considered employees under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Does the definition of 'employee' under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, require the existence of a formal contract of apprenticeship?
  • Is a firm liable for social security contributions for trainees if the trainees are not formally notified as apprentices under the Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Abdul Wahid Abdul Majid vs Government of Pakistan and others1993 SCMR 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-24
  customs dutyimport licencevested rightspromissory estoppelbill of entryletter of credit
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition. The petitioner challenged the increase in customs duty on the import of edible vegetable oil, arguing that the enhancement after obtaining import licenses and opening letters of credit violated their vested rights. The core legal question was whether an importer acquires a vested right to a specific rate of customs duty prevailing at the time of issuing an import license or opening a letter of credit, and whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked against the state in such circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the date of issuance of an import licence has no nexus with the rate of customs duty, which is governed by Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969, based on the date of presentation of the bill of entry. The Court further held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot override statutory provisions or be invoked against legislative measures, particularly after the enactment of Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of an import licence create a vested right in a specific rate of customs duty?
  • Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against the legislature or statutory laws regarding customs duty?
  • What date determines the applicable rate of customs duty for goods cleared for home consumption under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 924 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan & Other vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 338 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Iqbal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 125 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-16
  quashment of proceedingsrevisional jurisdictiondesecration of Holy Quranbail cancellationinherent powersinterlocutory stage
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought quashment of proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an order of the Sessions Judge passed in revision under section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which set aside a bail order granted by a Magistrate and held that the case attracted section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than section 295, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby negating the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The core legal questions involved whether the Sessions Judge rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction to cancel bail based on the correct applicable penal provision, and whether the High Court should interfere under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at an interlocutory stage to evaluate witness credibility. The Sindh High Court held that where the F.I.R. discloses burning of the Holy Qur'an, section 295-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies, rendering the Magistrate's initial bail order without jurisdiction, and that the High Court will not hold inquiries into witness reliability or interfere at an interlocutory stage under inherent jurisdiction when other remedies and specific provisions exist. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate has jurisdiction to grant bail in a case falling under section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to assess the reliability of witnesses at an interlocutory stage?
  • Does the recording of statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contrary to the prosecution version automatically warrant quashment of proceedings?
  • When can a Sessions Judge exercise suo motu revisional powers under section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an improper bail order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Hussain Mughal vs Vice Chancellor Aj.&.K University, and 4K.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 194 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., and 2 others vs Muhammad Umar Malik1993 PLD Lahore 281 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-07
  master and servanttermination of servicedeclaratory suitreinstatementcivil revisionbanking companydamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a judgment where the respondent, an employee of Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, challenged his termination through a declaratory suit, which was decreed by the lower courts on the ground that the termination order was not passed by a competent authority. The Lahore High Court examined whether the employment was governed by statutory rules or the principle of master and servant. The Court held that the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 were framed under the memorandum and articles of association rather than statutory powers, meaning the relationship between the bank and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, an employee whose terms of service are not regulated by statute cannot challenge termination through a declaratory suit or seek reinstatement, and the exclusive remedy for wrongful termination lies in a suit for damages. Furthermore, the Court found that the termination decision was validly made by the Executive Board. The petition was allowed and the lower courts' decrees were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the employment relationship of a banking company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance is governed by the principle of master and servant?
  • Can an employee of a non-statutory company challenge their termination of service by filing a suit for declaration and seeking reinstatement?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for an employee whose services have been wrongfully terminated in the absence of statutory service rules?
  • Does section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 bar the specific enforcement of a contract of personal service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Akbar Fibre Mills Ltd. and 4 others1993 CLC 2209 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mushtaque Ahmad vs Registrar, N.E.D. University of Engineering &1993 CLC 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2389 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Hussain vs The State1993 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-26
  Section 382-B CrPCcommutation of sentencedeath sentenceundertrial detentioncriminal proceduresentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a convict sentenced to death which was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment, filed a petition seeking the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, requesting that his period of detention as an undertrial be considered toward his sentence. The core legal question was whether the benefit of Section 382-B is applicable to a convict whose original sentence was death, even after commutation to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the petition was incompetent. The Court reasoned that Section 382-B applies only where a court decides to pass a sentence of imprisonment on an accused. Since the petitioner was originally sentenced to death, not imprisonment, the provision was inapplicable. Relying on the precedent set in Bashir and 3 others v. The State (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 1145), the Court affirmed that the statutory relief regarding the calculation of detention time is not available in cases where the initial sentence was capital punishment, regardless of subsequent commutation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 available to a convict whose original sentence was death, even if later commuted to life imprisonment?
  • Does Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases where the court did not originally pass a sentence of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ali and 5 others vs Syed Latifuddin Fakhri1993 CLC 1696 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed vs Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd.1993 CLC 1299 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Tahira Yasmin and others1993 CLC 193 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Qadri vs Noor Hussain1993 MLD 1972 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-20Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2247 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1993 MLD 2250 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-21Read full judgment →
• Musawar Hussain Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 60 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Musawar Hussain Shah vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 706 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Musa Wazir and 2 others vs N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission through its Chairman and others1993 SCMR 1124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-10
  public service commissioncompetitive examinationwaiting listrecruitment policyzonal allocationfundamental rightsadvertisement of vacanciesseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines the legality of the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission's practice of maintaining a waiting list of qualified candidates from a single combined competitive examination to fill subsequently received requisitions for government posts without readvertising them. The appellants, who secured lower service allocations than candidates ranking below them on the merit list due to this practice, challenged the system in the High Court, which dismissed their petitions on the grounds of maintainability and past-and-closed transaction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the practice of maintaining a waiting list in a competitive examination system is arbitrary, unfair, and violative of fundamental rights regarding recruitment transparency. The Court ruled that when vacancies are reported subsequent to a competitive examination, they must either be assimilated into the original open-ended advertisement or carried forward for a separate examination. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing that the appellants be restored to their proper preferences and seniority based on their original merit, subject to suitability and zonal allocations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the practice of maintaining a waiting list of qualified candidates from a single competitive examination to fill subsequent requisitions is legally sustainable?
  • Are candidates who accepted initial service offers considered 'aggrieved persons' under Article 199 to challenge subsequent irregular allocations from the same examination?
  • Whether vacancies reported after the initial advertisement of a competitive examination must be readvertised or can be filled from the existing merit list?
  • Does a selection made out of one combined competitive examination constitute a single transaction that cannot be bifurcated into multiple separate selections?
  Read full judgment →
• Musa Wazir And 2 Other vs N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission And 19K.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  competitive examinationpublic service commissionwaiting listzonal allocationsubsequent requisitionlocus standiservice structure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether selections made from a single combined competitive examination could be treated as separate and distinct simply because requisitions for additional posts were received by the Public Service Commission at a subsequent stage. The N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission followed a practice of maintaining a waiting list of qualified candidates from a competitive examination to fill subsequent requisitions received within six months or revalidated thereafter, without re-advertising the vacancies or re-allocating preferences based on the original merit list. The High Court had dismissed the appellants' constitutional petitions, holding they lacked locus standi and that the selection was a past and closed transaction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the competitive examination was one and indivisible, and a waiting list could not be maintained in a competitive examination system to make piecemeal selections without fresh advertisement. The Court ruled that additional vacancies reported in the near future should be assimilated into the original advertisement or carried forward for a separate examination, and that the appellants were entitled to preference and seniority according to their merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public service commission can maintain a waiting list in a competitive examination system to fill up subsequent requisitions without a fresh advertisement?
  • Whether selections made from the same combined competitive examination can be bifurcated into separate selections simply because requisitions for additional posts were received at a later stage?
  • Whether candidates appearing in a competitive examination have a right to re-allocation of their preferences based on merit when additional posts are requisitioned?
  • Whether the practice of filling piece-meal requisitions from a waiting list without advertising vacancies violates fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Murtaza Khan vs The State1993 MLD 546 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Murid Hussain vs The State and another1993 MLD 2402 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-29Read full judgment →
• Mureed Hussain vs P.S., Civil Lines, D.G. Khan1993 MLD 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Murari Mohan Dutta vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1993 PTD 1074 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-09-11Read full judgment →
• Murad Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 245 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muqeem and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Munshi Khan and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2231 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
• Munsaf Khan alias Kala vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 729 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
• Munir and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The State1993 MLD 578 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1147 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Manzoor and 7 others1993 SCMR 2055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-08-01
  acquittalleave to appealmiscarriage of justiceappellate reviewcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that acquitted seven respondents who had previously been convicted by a trial court. The Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by the petitioner to determine if the High Court's appellate decision involved any legal error, misappraisal of evidence, or miscarriage of justice. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found no merit in the challenge. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the High Court had ignored any vital piece of evidence, misapplied established principles of law, or acted in violation of any rule that would warrant interference with the acquittal order. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. The judgment reinforces the principle that an appellate court's order of acquittal will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court unless it is shown to be based on a misreading of evidence or a violation of settled legal principles resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
  • Does the failure to show misapplication of law or misreading of evidence justify the dismissal of a petition against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →