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.
- Abdul Baqi vs Malik Ibrahim Khan and 9 others1993 PLD Queeta 57 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Yahya and 4 others1993 MLD 1437 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs The State1993 MLD 2045 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs S.H.O.1993 MLD 374 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Shafi1993 PLD Lahore 910 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Ashraf and 11 others1993 PLD Karachi 304 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz and anothers vs The State1993 SCMR 544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Court calls in question 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, while commuting the death sentence of one appellant to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related and injured eye-witnesses, the effect of the acquittal of co-accused on the remaining convicts, the credibility of delayed weapon recoveries, and the application of common intention under section 34. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prompt lodging of the First Information Report, corroborated by the presence of an injured eye-witness whose injury could not be self-inflicted or caused by a friendly hand, firmly established the guilt of the appellants. The Court reiterated the established legal principle that criminal courts are competent to sift grain from the chaff, acquitting some accused out of abundant caution without impairing the veracity of evidence against other co-accused whose participation is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal of some co-accused by extending the benefit of doubt necessarily impairs the credibility of prosecution evidence against the remaining convicted co-accused?
- Does the presence of an injured eye-witness provide a strong guarantee of truth regarding the time and manner of the occurrence?
- Can a delayed recovery of blood-stained weapons alone vitiate an otherwise consistent and well-supported eyewitness account?
- Whether an injury sustained by an eye-witness can be deemed self-inflicted or caused by a friendly hand without supporting medical evidence?
- Abdul Aleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 9 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aleem and 2 others vs The State and others1993 P Cr. I, J 1512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal appeals arising from a judgment by the Special Court for Speedy Trials, which convicted three appellants under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for outraging the modesty of women and acquitted five co-accused. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the convictions and the appropriateness of the sentences, alongside the validity of the acquittal of the co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the three appellants through consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence. Consequently, the convictions were maintained, though the Court reduced the sentences from two years to one year, finding the original term harsh. The State’s appeal against the acquittal of the five co-accused was dismissed, as the Court determined the complainant party had attempted to implicate an excessive number of individuals, thereby undermining the reliability of the evidence against the acquitted parties. The judgment reaffirms that while injured witness testimony is highly probative, over-implication of accused persons necessitates careful scrutiny to prevent wrongful convictions.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of injured witnesses be relied upon to sustain a conviction under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the over-implication of accused persons by a complainant party justify the acquittal of co-accused despite the conviction of the principal offenders?
- Is an appellate court empowered to reduce a sentence if it finds the original punishment imposed by the trial court to be harsh?
- Abdul Aleem alias Safdar and anothers vs Cie State1993 PLD Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
- Abbas vs The Honourable Chief Justice through the Registrar, High Court1993 SCMR 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 examines whether an employee of the High Court establishment is governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 and whether disputes relating to their terms and conditions are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Sindh Service Tribunal. The appellant challenged orders concerning his reversion from the post of Superintendent and subsequent seniority before the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal on the grounds that the dispute did not relate to terms and conditions under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 and that departmental remedies had not been properly exhausted. The Supreme Court held that by virtue of section 26 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 and Article 241 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, existing rules governing the High Court establishment continue as rules under the Act, making violations thereof justiciable before the Service Tribunal. The Court further held that a mistaken address on a departmental appeal filed within the High Court should not defeat the remedy when it lay to a bench within the same institution. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Are employees of the High Court establishment governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 for the purposes of invoking the jurisdiction of the Sindh Service Tribunal?
- Do rules governing the High Court establishment framed prior to the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 continue in force as rules under the Act by virtue of section 26 and Article 241 of the Constitution?
- Does a mistake in addressing a departmental appeal within the same institution render the remedy unexhausted when the appeal was duly presented within time?
- What is the effect of statutory savings provisions on pre-existing service rules concerning High Court employees?
- Abbas Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
- Abbas Khan and 3 others vs Mst. Sat Bherai and 2 others1993 CLC 2181 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from a civil dispute over the inheritance of agricultural land left by the deceased Gheba Khan. The core legal question was whether a divorce (Talaq) pronounced by the deceased became effective during his lifetime under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, given that he died before the expiration of the statutory ninety-day period following the notice of divorce. The Lahore High Court held that the Talaq did not become effective prior to the husband's death because the mandatory ninety-day period had not elapsed, meaning the respondent remained his wife at the time of his death and was rightfully entitled to inherit his estate as his widow. The Court further laid down that ordinary courts, including High Courts, lack jurisdiction under Article 2-A and Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 to strike down statutory provisions as un-Islamic, as such power rests exclusively with the Federal Shariat Court.
Questions settled- Does a divorce become effective before the expiration of the ninety-day period from the date notice is delivered to the Chairman under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Whether an ordinary civil court or High Court has the jurisdiction to declare a provision of a statute as un-Islamic under Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Is a wife entitled to inherit her deceased husband's estate as a widow if he dies before the completion of the ninety-day reconciliation period following a notice of Talaq?
- Which judicial forum possesses the exclusive jurisdiction to examine the validity of a statutory provision on the touchstone of the Injunctions of Islam under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Abbas and 3 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2410 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from an incident involving murder and severe injuries. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, who were declared innocent by successive police investigators but implicated in the initial F.I.R. and later suspected of conspiracy, are entitled to bail pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that notwithstanding police reports finding them innocent, a prima facie case of conspiracy could be inferred given their close familial relationship with the principal accused and the circumstances surrounding the hatching of the conspiracy. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that their case did not warrant further inquiry at this stage. The key principle laid down is that where police investigation suggests complicity by way of conspiracy and close association with absconding culprits, bail may be refused even if subsequent investigation reports placed the accused in column No. 3 of the challan.
Questions settled- Are petitioners entitled to post-arrest bail when successive police investigation reports declare them innocent but prima facie evidence of conspiracy exists?
- Does the inclusion of an accused in column No. 3 of the challan automatically entitle them to bail?
- Can a court infer criminal conspiracy for the purpose of bail based on familial ties to the principal offenders and circumstances of the crime?
- Abbas And 3 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 513 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-02Read full judgment →
- Abbas and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1468 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
- Abaid Ullah Khan and Nazi, Ahmad Bhatti, Aqil-Ur-Rehman and another vs The State and another1993 MLD 2394 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-08-04Read full judgment →
- Aamer Naveed and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1699 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
- Aainuddin Khan vs The Collector, Lahore District, Lahore1993 MLD 183 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
- A.R. Umer vs Haji Abdul Karim1993 MLD 2215 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-22Read full judgment →
- A.R. Tahir vs M/s. Muhammad Ali & Sons1993 CLC 124 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
- A.R. Bhuiyan & Co. vs Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka (South) Zone, Dhaka1993 PTD 1352 · Dhaka High Court · 1992-06-18Read full judgment →
- A.R Tahir vs Messrs Muhammad Ali and Sons1993 SCMR 1652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of the appellant's application filed under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant, a landlord seeking eviction of a tenant, had served a notice of eviction prematurely, approximately one month before the six-month window prior to his retirement date allowed by the statute. The core legal question was whether the premature service of notice rendered the eviction application invalid, specifically whether the precedent set in Syed Hasan Askari Rizvi v. Muhammad Aziz applied. The Supreme Court held that the notice was invalid because, at the time of service, the appellant did not yet fall within the category of a 'specified landlord' (a salaried employee due to retire within six months) as defined in Section 14(1) of the Ordinance. Consequently, the appellant lacked a cause of action at the time of notice. The Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal, distinguishing this case from others where the landlord already possessed the requisite status but had committed only technical defects regarding notice timing.
Questions settled- Does a landlord have a valid cause of action to serve an eviction notice under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 before attaining the status of a specified landlord?
- Is a notice of eviction served by a salaried employee more than six months prior to their retirement date legally valid under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a landlord who served a premature eviction notice file fresh proceedings after serving a new notice in accordance with the law?
- A.K.Nasir vs Controller of Estate DutyK.L.R.1993 Tax & Custom Cases 53 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-16Read full judgment →
- A.K. Nasir vs Controller of Estate Duty, Lahore1993P T D 667 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-16Read full judgment →
- A.C. Paul vs Tax Recovery Officer, Tiruneleveli and another1993 PTD 990 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-01-07Read full judgment →
- A. Rehman vs Tehsildar Lahore and another1993 CLC 1222 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the recovery proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar, Lahore, against the petitioner, the Managing Director of Progressive Journalists Ltd., for the recovery of Rs. 9,023 as arrears of land revenue owed by the company. The core legal questions were whether a company director can be held personally liable for the debts of a corporate entity and whether recovery proceedings initiated without providing the affected party an opportunity of being heard are sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that a company is a distinct legal entity separate from its shareholders and directors, and therefore, the company's liabilities cannot be transferred to its directors personally. Furthermore, the court held that the recovery proceedings were unsustainable because the authorities failed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard before determining the liability. The petition was allowed, establishing the principle that corporate veil protection prevents personal liability for directors regarding company debts and that administrative recovery actions must adhere to the principles of natural justice by granting a hearing to the affected party.
Questions settled- Can a company director be held personally liable for the debts of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913?
- Are recovery proceedings for arrears of land revenue sustainable if the affected party is not granted an opportunity of being heard?
- Is a company a distinct legal entity separate from its directors and shareholders?
- A & B Oil Industries Ltd. vs Abbas1993 CLC 1815 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Travent Karachi vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 217 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Pakistan Educational Society, Karachi vs The Government ofK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 56 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) BURNEY's Industrial & Commercial Company (Private) Limited vsK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 49 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s) Shoaib Bilal Corporation vs The Commissioner of Income TaxK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 43 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Umri vs Muhammad Boota And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 328 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sughran vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 39 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-09Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sobia Hanif vs The Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Lahore, And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 899 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sardar Begum Etc. vs Bashir Ahmad Etc.K.L.R.1993 Civil Cases 360 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Salim Akhtar vs Muhammad ShafiK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 11 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Noor Fatima And Other vs Muhammad Khan (Deceased) And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 133 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Nathi vs (Mst.) Hamidan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revnue Cases 105 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Musharraf Sultana vs Fazal HussainK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 136 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Musarrat vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 198 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-31Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Hamida Begum vs (Mst) Hussain AkhtarK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Hafeezan Bibi And Other vs Mansab AliK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 163 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Fatima Bibi vs Muhammad Sadiq, Etc.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 158 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Chan Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 207 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Arifa Parveen vs Mohammad Amin Puri And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour and Service Cases 233 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Safia Begum vs Muhammad Ibrahim And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 91 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Nazeeran Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 197 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Najma Begum vs Ghulam RasoolK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 20 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
- (DR.) (MRS.) Khalida Razi vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 20 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- [185 Itr 371] Commissioner of Income-Tax vs A. Samarapuri Chetty1992 PTD 1473 · Madras High Court · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 791 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Haider and others vs Pakistan Steel, Karachi1992 PLC 799 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-10-18Read full judgment →
- Zulfioar Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1759 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
- Zubair vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 124 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
- Zubair Alias Nana vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2127 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves consolidated post-arrest bail applications filed by Zubair alias Nana and others arising out of Crime No. 4 of 1992 registered at Police Station Liaquatabad under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the alleged recovery of 250 grams of heroin powder from each applicant. The core legal questions relate to whether police officers possess the authority to investigate, arrest, and prosecute offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, whether an alleged defect in the investigating agency affects the court's jurisdiction, and whether a woman is a competent mashir under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail applications, holding that police officers possess powers of investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure by virtue of Article 27(1) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and that any irregularity or lack of authority in the investigating agency does not vitiate the competence or jurisdiction of the trial court. The court laid down the principle that deeper appreciation of evidence is to be avoided at the bail stage and that defects in investigation do not bar trial proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether police officers have the power to investigate, arrest, and prosecute offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Does a lack of authority or an illegality in the investigating agency affect the competence and jurisdiction of the trial court?
- Whether a deeper examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits should be avoided while deciding bail applications?
- Zubair Akbar' vs Mst. Mehreen Hayat and others1992 CLC 1940 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition challenged an order of the Judge, Family Court, Lahore, which closed the petitioner's evidence and decreed a suit for dissolution of marriage. The core legal questions were whether the Family Court provided adequate opportunity for evidence and whether it could summarily decree the suit without considering the evidence on record. The High Court held that the Family Court's decision to close the petitioner's evidence was a reasonable and judicious exercise of discretion, given multiple adjournments and the petitioner's failure to produce evidence despite undertakings. However, the High Court ruled that the Family Court erred in decreeing the suit forthwith without adverting to and discussing the evidence already on record and without recording findings on the relevant issues. The principle laid down is that even after closing evidence, a decision must be on the merits of the case, based on available evidence, and not a summary decision as a penalty. The case was remanded for a fresh decision on merits by a different Family Court.
Questions settled- Can a Family Court close a party's evidence after granting multiple adjournments for compromise and evidence?
- Does the court's discretion in granting adjournments and closing evidence warrant interference in writ jurisdiction if exercised reasonably?
- Can a suit be decreed summarily after closing the defendant's evidence without considering the plaintiff's evidence on record?
- What is the legal requirement for a decision 'forthwith' under Order XVII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Zltlfiqar Ahmad And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1101 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Ziaul Khalique through Legal Heirs vs Mrs. Shirin Siddiq and another1992 CLC 1688 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
- Ziaul Ghani and others vs Additional District Judge and others1992 CLC 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
- Ziarat Gul vs Messrs Metropolitan Steel Corporation Limited, Karachi1992 PLC 960 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- Zawar Hussain vs Mst. Shamsunnisa and another1992 CLC 2293 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-22Read full judgment →
- Zareef Khan vs M/s. General Tyre & Rubber Company of Pakistan1992 PLC 1209 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
- Zardad and others vs Syed Haider Shah and others1992 SCMR 835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment of the High Court, which accepted the respondents' Regular Second Appeal in a suit for possession. The core legal question concerns the enforcement of an agreed arrangement and statement made by the parties in earlier litigation regarding the exchange of land parcels. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were bound by their undertaking to provide an equivalent piece of land, especially since the respondents unequivocally surrendered any claim to the land involved in the previous litigation. The key principle laid down is that parties cannot resile from formal statements and agreements made in judicial proceedings that form the basis of settlement of disputes.
Questions settled- Whether parties can resile from an agreed arrangement and statement made in earlier litigation regarding the exchange of land?
- Can a party contest a suit for possession when they have previously agreed in court to give an alternative piece of land?
- Zar Wali Shah vs Yousaf Ali Shah and 9 others1992 SCMR 1778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a dispute over the ownership of an evacuee property, where the appellant claimed a one-third share based on a financial contribution and an agreement (Iqrarnama) executed by his late uncle, whose heirs contested the claim and secured favourable judgments in the lower courts. The core legal question concerned the genuineness of the disputed Iqrarnama and signatures of the deceased, and whether the courts could allow further evidence to reach a just decision. The Supreme Court held that visual comparison of signatures was inconclusive, and since the trial court failed to collect sufficient evidence, the case warranted a remand. The Court laid down the principle that the concept of a bar against filling gaps in evidence is no longer applicable in Pakistan jurisprudence, and courts possess ample power to collect necessary evidence and grant facilities for fresh adjudication to advance justice in accordance with Islamic principles.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court remand a case for fresh decision to allow the production of additional evidence when the trial court failed to properly examine a disputed document?
- Does the concept of a bar against filling gaps in evidence apply in Pakistan jurisprudence when recording and admitting evidence?
- Whether visual comparison of disputed signatures by an appellate court is sufficient to conclusively determine the genuineness of an agreement?
- Zamir Hussain And 7 Other vs Rasul Butt1992 PLD Lahore 427 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-14Read full judgment →
- Zaman Iqbal vs The State1992 MLD 90 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Zaighum Saleem Khan vs Muhammad Saleem Khan and another1992 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 38 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Zahoor Khan vs Messrs Shahabuddin & Sons1992 PLD KARACHI 230 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Zahir Shah vs The Commissioner Malakand Saidu Sharif, Swat And AnotherK.L.R Labour and Service Cases 77 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Zahid Imran And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 587 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Zahid Hussain vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Local1992 CLC 2396 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over an Octroi collection contract for the Union Council, Landhi, for the year 1992-93. The plaintiff, having secured a contract via the Union Council, sought an injunction against the government's subsequent award of the same contract to a third party. The core legal question was the validity of these contracts, which were concluded without adherence to mandatory open auction procedures. The Court held that both the plaintiff's and the defendant's contracts were prima facie void, as they failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Court affirmed that public contracts for tax collection must strictly follow open auction procedures, with negotiated contracts permissible only under specific statutory provisos subject to government approval. Consequently, the Court found no prima facie case for an injunction, as specific performance cannot be granted for void contracts. Exercising inherent powers, the Court directed the parties to engage in a competitive process to ensure maximum public revenue, vacating the interim injunction.
Questions settled- Can a court grant an interim injunction to enforce a contract that is prima facie void?
- Does the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, mandate open auctions for the award of Octroi collection contracts?
- Can a local council award a contract through negotiation without complying with the statutory requirements for open auctions?
- Does the High Court have the inherent power under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to direct a competitive bidding process for public contracts when existing contracts are found to be void?
- Zahid and another vs The State and another1992 SCMR 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the cancellation of the petitioners' bail by the High Court in a murder case, which bail had been initially granted by the Sessions Court. The core legal question concerns the distinct legal principles governing the refusal of bail versus the cancellation of bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly where the accused sustained numerous injuries and no specific overt act or fatal injury was attributed to certain petitioners. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the considerations for cancelling bail are fundamentally different from those applicable to refusing bail, and that bail once granted should not be lightly cancelled under subsection (5) of section 497, Cr.P.C. without strong grounds. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed bail to the petitioner Zahid who had no injuries and whose bail cancellation was unjustified, while upholding the High Court's order cancelling the bail of the other petitioner, Saeed Mustafa. The key principle laid down is that the threshold and criteria for cancellation of bail are distinct and stricter than those for initial refusal of bail.
Questions settled- Are the considerations for cancellation of bail different from those for refusal to grant bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail once granted by a lower court be cancelled without satisfying the principles governing cancellation under subsection (5) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of an attributed overt act and the presence of injuries on the accused justify the grant or retention of bail in a murder case?
- Zaheer Mirza vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2344 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-22Read full judgment →
- Zaffar Iqbal vs The.State1992 P Cr. L J 1106 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs S.S.P. Sahiwal and 8 others-1992 P Cr. L J 722 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
- Zafar And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2594 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
- Zafar Alias Pappu vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2421 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali vs Judge, Family Court and another1992 CLC 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-04Read full judgment →
- Zafar Alam Babar And 2 Others vs Syed Baqar Ali Shah Gilani and 21992 P Cr. L J 655 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-24Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 493 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
- Yusuf Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme CourtIn the matter of vs Not1992 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous petition was filed under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, seeking to recall an earlier order removing the petitioner, an Advocate of the Supreme Court, from practice under Rule 30 of Order IV of the Rules due to professional misconduct. The core legal questions concerned whether the Supreme Court lacked competence to frame Rules 2 and 30 of Order IV under Article 191 of the Constitution, whether those rules were ultra vires the Bar Councils Act, 1973, whether they operated retrospectively against the petitioner, and whether the action was warranted on merits where a controversial letter was written to a judge. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding that the rules were competently framed and consistent with the Bar Councils Act, 1973, that the disciplinary rules applied prospectively to conduct occurring while they were in force, and that the impugned letter improperly interfered with court working. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court retains the constitutional and statutory power to regulate practice, procedure, and enrolment conditions, including debarring advocates from practice before it, without conflicting with the exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction of bar councils over general practice.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court has the power under Article 191 of the Constitution to frame rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Court that provide for the removal of an advocate from practice?
- Are Rules 2 and 30 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, ultra vires the provisions of the Bar Councils Act, 1973?
- Can disciplinary rules of the Supreme Court be applied retrospectively to an advocate who signed the Roll of Advocates prior to the enactment of those rules?
- Does addressing a letter to a judge asking them not to hear cases constitute professional misconduct warranting removal from practice under the Supreme Court Rules?
- Yousaf vs Sodagar1992 CLC 504 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-20Read full judgment →
- Younus vs Mst. Nazeran and others1992 CLC 42 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-15Read full judgment →
- Younis Masih vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 905 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
- Yogendra Chandra vs Commissioner of Wealth-Tax and others1992 PTD 814 · Himachal Pradesh High Court · 1990-07-13Read full judgment →
- Yasin vs The State1992 P-Cr. L J 1087 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
- Yaseen vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 488 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
- Yara vs The State1992 SCMR 1283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court reversing the acquittal of the appellant and convicting him under section 302, P.P.C., sentencing him to life imprisonment. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, an application was filed stating that the parties had entered into a compromise. Initially, the compromise involved the giving of two girls in marriage, which was found invalid as badal-i-sulh under the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1991. Subsequently, a fresh compromise was filed along with a cash compensation of two lacs rupees, and reports were called from the District Magistrate to verify its genuineness. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent compromise, involving genuine monetary compensation and pardoning by the legal heirs, satisfied the requirements of the law. The Court accepted the compromise and consequently allowed the appeal, ordering the release of the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether giving a female in marriage is a valid badal-i-sulh under the criminal laws?
- Can a criminal appeal against conviction for murder be disposed of on the basis of a valid compromise between the parties?
- How is the genuineness of a compromise verified by the court in a murder case?
- Yar Muhammad vs Shabbir Hussain and others1992 CLC 798 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
- Yar Muhammad and 3 others vs The State1992 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which reversed the trial court's acquittal of the appellants and convicted them under section 302 read with 149, P.P.C., among other offences, sentencing them to imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's order of acquittal and whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt through reliable ocular and corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the trial court's view was reasonable and based on sound evaluation of the evidence, and that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused due to material discrepancies, interested witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, and unexplained delays in forensic analysis. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court's judgment is perverse, completely illegal, or constitutes a glaring miscarriage of justice, and that where two conclusions are equally possible, the finding of acquittal must be maintained.
Questions settled- What are the established principles and scope of interference by an appellate court when hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal?
- Whether the mere relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased renders their testimony unreliable without independent corroboration?
- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature and freshness of injuries warrant independent corroboration?
- Is a recovery witness who is not an inhabitant of the locality and is closely related to the complainant party considered a reliable mashir under criminal jurisprudence?
- Yaqub Masih Jacob vs Mrs. Louisa De Souza1992 SCMR 1799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Sindh High Court maintaining the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a shop on the grounds of personal and bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlady and the impairment of the value and utility of the building due to unauthorized alterations. The eviction application was originally filed under section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on multiple grounds, and while the High Court set aside the finding regarding default in rent, it affirmed the concurrent findings regarding personal requirement and impairment of utility. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence and successfully withstanding cross-examination will not be interfered with in the absence of misreading or ignoring material evidence. It was further established that a landlord's statement on oath regarding bona fide personal use, once surviving cross-examination, is sufficient proof. The petition was accordingly dismissed with a six-month grace period granted to vacate the premises upon certain conditions.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal and bona fide requirement can be interfered with by the Supreme Court without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is a landlord's statement on oath regarding personal and bona fide use sufficient without further corroborative evidence if it withstands cross-examination?
- Does unauthorized addition and alteration made without the consent of the landlady constitute a valid ground for eviction under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Yaqub Masih Jacob vs (Mrs.) Louisa De SouzaK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 571 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
- Yaqub Eusuf Mayet vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, Karachi1992 CLC 1444 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the decision of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority to cancel a plot previously purchased by the petitioner from an original allottee, a transfer which the Authority had initially approved. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority could unilaterally cancel the plot allotment without providing the petitioner with prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Sindh High Court held that the cancellation order was invalid due to the violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the failure to provide a show-cause notice and a hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order. The judgment establishes the principle that before a statutory or public authority takes adverse action affecting the property rights of an individual, such as the cancellation of an allotment, it is mandatory to issue a prior show-cause notice detailing the grounds for the proposed action and to grant the affected party a full and fair opportunity of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Can a housing authority cancel a plot allotment without providing the allottee a prior show-cause notice and an opportunity to be heard?
- Is the principle of natural justice applicable to the cancellation of plot allotments by a public authority?
- Workers Union, United Industries Ltd. Faisalabad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and 4 others1992 SCMR 2121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which challenged the privatization and transfer of shares of United Industries Ltd. The core legal questions involved whether the Privatisation Commission had the lawful authority to conduct the bidding process, and whether the petitioner labor union possessed an absolute, independent right to purchase the managed establishment through buy-out negotiations without participating in or submitting a competitive bid under the prescribed public bidding procedure. The Supreme Court held that the Privatisation Commission acted validly under the authority of the Federal Government and Cabinet approval, and that under Section 5-A of the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Industry (Control and Development) Act, 1973, read with Package 'C' of the Memorandum of Agreement, the employees' right to negotiation was contingent upon first submitting a competitive bid in response to public advertisements. The Court laid down the principle that an employee management group cannot bypass competitive bidding requirements to claim a mandatory right of buy-out negotiations, and failure to participate in the proper bidding process disentitles them from seeking equitable relief.
Questions settled- Whether the Privatisation Commission possesses the lawful authority to invite and accept bids for the transfer of shares of a managed establishment on behalf of the Federal Government?
- Does Section 5-A of the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Industry (Control and Development) Act, 1973 give a management group of employees an independent right to buy-out negotiations without participating in the public bidding process?
- Whether the failure of a labor union to submit a competitive bid in accordance with the advertised bid documents disentitles them from claiming preferential transfer rights?
- Whether a writ petition challenging the transfer of a managed establishment suffers from laches when filed after the execution of the sale agreement and handing over of management to the new owners?
- Workers Union, Army Welfare Sugar Mills vs Messrs Army Welfare1992 PLC 977 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Wisal Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 398 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
- Wiqar Avais vs Raja Muhammad Shah Janjua and 4 others1992 CLC 8 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal arose from an interlocutory order in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a residential plot. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction to stop pendente lite alienation of the property. On appeal, the sole legal question was whether a court has the power and jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to impose conditions or terms, such as the deposit of the balance sale consideration, when granting a temporary injunction. The appellant argued that the court lacks statutory authority to attach conditions to such equitable relief. The Lahore High Court held that because temporary injunctions and specific performance are equitable and discretionary remedies, courts possess inherent power to impose reasonable terms to safeguard the interests of both parties. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, granting the temporary injunction restraining alienation subject to the appellant depositing the balance consideration and the respondents depositing the advance earnest money in the trial court.
Questions settled- Does a court have the jurisdiction to impose conditions or terms when granting a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance be required to deposit the balance sale consideration as a condition for obtaining a temporary injunction?
- Is the grant of a temporary injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a purely statutory right or an equitable remedy subject to judicial discretion?
- West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation vs M/s. Sheikh1992 CLC 2047 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals arising from a suit for damages following a breach of contract for the purchase of sugar. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction, whether the buyer was justified in repudiating the contract due to alleged inferior quality, and whether the seller was entitled to forfeit the earnest money. The Court held that the High Court had territorial jurisdiction because the contract was modified at the seller's Karachi office, establishing a cause of action within its limits. Regarding the quality dispute, the Court ruled that the buyer failed to prove the sugar was inferior, as the contract did not specify a particular quality and the mill produced only one standard. Furthermore, the Court determined that the earnest money could not be forfeited because the contract lacked an express forfeiture clause; consequently, it was correctly adjusted against the damages awarded. The judgment affirms that a party claiming damages must mitigate losses and that forfeiture of earnest money requires explicit contractual authorization.
Questions settled- Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction over a contract dispute if the contract was modified at the defendant's office within the court's jurisdiction?
- Can a party forfeit earnest money in the absence of an express forfeiture clause in the contract?
- Is a buyer justified in repudiating a contract for goods based on alleged inferior quality if the contract did not specify a particular quality standard?
- What is the duty of a party claiming damages for breach of contract regarding the mitigation of losses?