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.
- Syed Ghulam Abbas Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 926 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-27Read full judgment →
- Syed Farkhund Ali vs Messrs House Building Finance Corporation and another1992 PLC 377 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
- Syed Bahadar Ali Shah vs Syed Maryam Gillani EtcK.L.R 1992 Civil Cases 147 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Syed Atif Abbas vs Government of Punjab and others1992 CLC 1467 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
- Syed Ashad Ali Sadiq vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1992 CLC 1323 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These high court appeals challenge an order restraining the completion of a property transaction and declaring a sale transfer void due to a subsisting attachment. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation filed an execution application for a foreign decree, during which a house was ordered to be attached. Subsequently, the judgment-debtor entered into an agreement to sell and a conveyance deed with the appellant. The core legal questions involved whether the attachment was valid despite a partial vacation order and minor non-compliance with procedural formalities, and whether an agreement to sell executed prior to attachment protects a subsequent transfer under execution proceedings. The court held that substantial compliance with attachment procedures suffices and that Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 renders private alienations after attachment void, distinguishing it from attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 10. The key principles laid down are that substantial compliance with Order 21 Rule 54(2) satisfies legal requirements, and that Section 64 strictly voids private transfers made after attachment during execution proceedings regardless of prior agreements.
Questions settled- Whether an attachment of immovable property is rendered invalid if the bailiff fails to conduct a proclamation by beating of drum while other requirements of Order 21 Rule 54(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are fulfilled?
- Does Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render a private transfer of property void if an agreement to sell was executed prior to the attachment of the property in execution proceedings?
- Whether the provisions of Order 38 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding attachments before judgment apply equally to attachments made in execution of a decree under Section 64?
- Syed Amjad Hussain and 8 others vs Miss L.M. Stratford (deceased) and another1992 SCMR 1288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from a long-standing dispute involving displaced persons seeking the implementation of a 1961 order by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners, who hold verified claims, sought the transfer of evacuee property as alternate accommodation after failing to secure the specific building housing a school. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioners, having verified claims and a prior administrative order in their favor, were entitled to the transfer of available evacuee property in lieu of their claims after decades of litigation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were indeed entitled to the transfer of alternate evacuee property to satisfy their verified claims. The Court emphasized that the Settlement authorities have a duty to implement the Chief Settlement Commissioner's prior orders and directed them to take energetic steps to identify and transfer available evacuee property to the petitioners. This decision reinforces the principle that administrative authorities must ensure the implementation of verified claims for displaced persons and cannot indefinitely delay the resolution of such entitlements.
Questions settled- Are displaced persons with verified claims entitled to the transfer of alternate evacuee property when their primary claim cannot be satisfied?
- Does the failure of Settlement authorities to implement a Chief Settlement Commissioner's order for decades constitute a valid ground for judicial intervention?
- What is the obligation of Settlement authorities regarding the transfer of available evacuee property to satisfy verified claims?
- Syed Afsar Ahmad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 917 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Syed Abul Hassan Rizvi vs Mehtab MirK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 468 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-08Read full judgment →
- Swe-Pak Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Registrar, Trade Unions, Balochistan and another1992 PLC 405 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by SWE-PAK Pharmaceuticals Ltd. challenging the registration of its employees' trade union and the issuance of a Collective Bargaining Agent certificate, arguing that as a subsidiary of the Shaheen Foundation established to benefit persons connected with the Pakistan Air Force, it was exempt from the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 under Section 1(3)(a). The core legal question was whether the employees of the petitioner's organization performed functions connected with or incidental to the Defence Services of Pakistan or the administration of the State. The Balochistan High Court held that the petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and marketing intravenous solutions primarily for commercial gain and general public use with Swedish collaboration, lacked any direct or incidental nexus with the Armed Forces or State administration. The court ruled that mere association of armed forces personnel as directors or beneficiaries does not warrant statutory exemption. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that commercial industrial concerns whose products are not exclusively or directly tied to military operations remain fully subject to the labor laws.
Questions settled- Whether an industrial concern established as a subsidiary of the Shaheen Foundation for commercial manufacturing is exempt from the operation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 under Section 1(3)(a)?
- Does the mere designation of Armed Forces officers as chairmen or directors of a commercial company bring its employees within the scope of services connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces?
- What is the proper test for determining whether an organization's employees perform functions connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces or the administration of the State under Section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Swe-Pak Pharamaceuticals Ltd vs Registrar Trade UnionsK.L.R 1992 Labour & Service Cases 96 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. (No,2) vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 929 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-08-22Read full judgment →
- Swans And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2141 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
- Supreme Court of Pakistani the State vs Sakhi Dost Jan1992 SCMR 1752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order of the High Court whereby the respondent was admitted to bail in a case involving the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting post-arrest bail where the recovery was effected from an open area like a garden of date-trees and the exclusive possession of the accused has not been conclusively shown at this stage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court exercised its discretion properly and not arbitrarily given the facts and circumstances where exclusive possession is doubtful and the prosecution must establish recovery through reliable evidence at trial. The key principle laid down is that where exclusive possession of contraband from an open area is not prima facie established, the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail will not be interfered with by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be sustained when the recovery of narcotics is made from an open area without showing exclusive possession of the accused?
- Does the exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail warrant interference by the Supreme Court when it is not arbitrary?
- Superintending Engineer, Electricity, Mirpur, and another vs Kashmir1992 PLD Azad J & K 7 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
- Superintendent, Telegraph Workshop, Kotri vs Nihal Ahmad1992 PLC 1123 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Lahore and 2 others vs Abdul1992 SCMR 2162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to examine whether a civil servant in the Police Department possesses a vested right to prefer a revision petition under Rule 12 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, to have it entertained by the Inspector-General of Police, and whether the Service Tribunal's suggestions for amending the rules were justified. The respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, had his dismissal converted to compulsory retirement on appeal, after which he filed a revision petition before the Inspector-General of Police, which was rejected as incompetent. The Service Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that the revision power existed and had to be entertained. The Supreme Court held that where a discretionary power is deposited with a public officer for the benefit of persons specifically pointed out, the power is coupled with a duty to exercise it when called upon by an affected party. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the revision petition was competent and must be decided on its merits.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant has a right to move a revision petition under Rule 12 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
- Does a discretionary power conferred upon a public functionary for the benefit of an affected party create an implied right for that party to demand its exercise?
- Whether the Service Tribunal was justified in suggesting amendments to the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 regarding misdirected petitions?
- Sultan Mir and 18 others vs Umar Khan and 10 others1992 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed by defendants against the dismissal of their civil revision regarding a suit for possession of Shamlat land. The plaintiffs, co-sharers in the Shamlat, sought possession against the defendants on allegations of breach of tenancy conditions, whereas the defendants asserted denial of title. The primary legal issues were whether plaintiffs could maintain the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of other co-sharers, whether civil courts had jurisdiction over revenue forums when a defense of denial of title is raised in the written statement, and whether non-party co-sharers could benefit from the decree. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that representative capacity is not barred by hypertechnical distinctions between 'same' and 'similar' interest. The Court further ruled that procedural technicalities leading to shuttling between civil and revenue courts must yield to substantive justice and Islamic jurisprudence, and reaffirmed that non-party co-sharers may benefit from a decree passed against trespassers or tenants denying title.
Questions settled- Can co-sharers maintain a suit for possession of Shamlat land in a representative capacity on behalf of other co-sharers?
- Does the Civil Court retain jurisdiction over a possession suit against alleged tenants when the defense raised in the written statement involves a denial of title?
- Should procedural technicalities dictate forum determination if it leads to unnecessary shuttling between civil and revenue courts?
- Can non-party co-sharers benefit from a decree passed in a suit for possession against defendants denying title?
- Sultan Mahmood vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-02Read full judgment →
- Sultan Mahmood vs National Logistic Cell1992 PLC 739 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-10-19Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ahmad vs Ghulam Raza and others1992 SCMR 829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the convictions and sentences of the respondents for double murder and attempted murder. The core legal question involves the proper appraisal and appreciation of ocular testimony, motive, medical evidence, and corroborative recovery evidence by the High Court in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the submissions advanced by the petitioner regarding the High Court's evaluation of the evidence, the explanation of witness presence, the medical testimony, and the crime weapon recoveries require thorough examination to determine if they align with settled legal principles. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal and issued bailable warrants for the arrest of the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court properly appraised the ocular testimony and motive in accordance with settled principles of evidence?
- Does the inability of witnesses to state specific Killa and square numbers render them untruthful when they reside on unsettled government lands?
- Whether contradictions between ocular and medical testimony regarding firing distances and injury attribution warrant the outright rejection of prosecution witnesses?
- Are weapon recoveries and crime empties sufficient corroboration to sustain convictions in murder trials?
- Sullati And Other vs Muhammad Akram And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 77 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1992-02-28Read full judgment →
- Suhail Butt vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1750 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Suhail Butt vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 304 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Sughran Begum vs Additional District Judge and others1992 CLC 1733 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner assailed the judgments of the Family Court and Additional District Judge dismissing her suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula and decreeing the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties had been married in 1986 but stayed together for less than a month before relations became strained due to a failed Watta marriage. The High Court observed that the lower courts erred by focusing on the failure to establish cruelty and the prospects of reconciliation in the Watta marriage, ignoring the immense hatred and fixed aversion developed between the spouses. Holding that the right to seek dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula is an independent right where strict proof of hatred is not required to avoid forcing a hateful union, the Court accepted the constitutional petition, set aside the impugned judgments, and decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula subject to the condition that the petitioner forego her dowry and maintenance.
Questions settled- Whether the right of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula is an independent right not prejudiced by the failure to establish other grounds such as cruelty?
- Is it necessary for a wife seeking Khula to produce extensive evidence of facts and circumstances to prove the extent of hatred?
- Can a court order separation by Khula even if the husband is not agreeable to the course when the spouses cannot live within the limits prescribed by Allah?
- Sufi Mehdi Hasan vs Malik Muhammad Sadiq and another1992 SCMR 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the executability of a compromise decree passed by a Civil Court in arbitration proceedings. The core legal question was whether a decree based on a compromise agreement, which partially incorporated an arbitration award and partially introduced new terms, constitutes a nullity and is therefore inexecutable. The Supreme Court held that the decree is not a nullity. It is valid and executable to the extent that it incorporates the arbitrators' award regarding the specified disputes. The Court clarified that while the decree might be partially based on terms outside the award, it remains enforceable regarding the award's components. The key principle laid down is that a compromise decree incorporating an arbitration award is not void merely because it includes ancillary modifications or settlements not strictly within the original award, provided the basic character of the award remains intact. The Court emphasized that such decrees should not be treated as nullities to avoid perpetuating injustice, and the executing court must determine the feasibility of performance for the specific terms.
Questions settled- Can a court pass a decree based on a compromise that modifies an arbitration award?
- Is a compromise decree that incorporates an arbitration award a nullity if it also includes terms outside the award?
- Does an executing court have the jurisdiction to determine the executability of a compromise decree that partially incorporates an arbitration award?
- Subedar Sher Ahmed and 5 others vs Feroze Din and 5 others1992 CLC 2171 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-13Read full judgment →
- Suba through his 8 L.Rs, vs Mst. Fatima Bibi through her L.Rs, and others1992 SCMR 1721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the validity of a gift of land made by a female limited owner. The property originally belonged to one Bhaga, who died issueless in 1918 under customary law, leaving his widow, Mst. Fateh Bibi, as a limited owner. In 1960, she gifted part of the land to Suba. Collaterals challenged the alienation. Following statutory changes terminating limited estates under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Acts, the core question was whether the transferee could claim the widow's 1/4th Shari share under the principles of 'feeding the grant by estoppel' or general estoppel against her legal heirs. The Supreme Court held that the gift was void in toto. The Court ruled that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 requires a transfer for consideration, and Section 115 of the Evidence Act 1872 / Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1985 does not protect a gratuitous transfer made by a known limited owner who lacked proprietary title. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a transferee under a gratuitous gift invoke the doctrine of feeding the estoppel under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 when the transferor subsequently acquires ownership rights?
- Does Section 115 of the Evidence Act 1872 (Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1985) estop the legal heirs of a female limited owner from challenging a gift made by her without consideration and without title?
- Can a female holding a life estate under customary law validly gift away proprietary rights in the estate beyond her limited interest prior to the termination of the limited estate?
- Sub. (Retd.) Allah Dad vs Mukhtar And Another1992 P Cr. L J 2388 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- State vs Rightholders of Revenue Estate1992 CLC 878 · Board of Revenue · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
- State vs Noor Muhammad And Two OtherK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 401 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
- State vs Muhammad SiddiqueK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 561 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-09Read full judgment →
- State vs Malik Muhammad SiddiqK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 196 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
- State Through The Advocate-General Sindh And Ex-Officio Public1992 PLD Karachi 347 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
- State through Deputy AttorneyGeneral vs Naeem Raza Wirk1992 SCMR 1902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State sought leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of its criminal appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court. The trial court had acquitted the respondent of smuggling charges involving contraband goods recovered from a vehicle on the ground that dividing the assessed C.I.F. value of the goods between the two co-accused brought the individual value below the minimum statutory requirement for taking cognizance. The core legal question was whether the liability for the value of recovered goods could be divided among multiple accused persons for the purpose of determining jurisdiction and cognizance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention raised a question of law and public importance regarding the joint liability of accused persons for jurisdictional purposes. The key principle laid down is that questions involving the proper interpretation of statutory thresholds and joint liability for cognizance of smuggling offences warrant a full hearing on appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the liability of accused persons can be divided to determine the minimum value requirement for taking cognizance of an offence?
- Does an acquittal based on the division of liability among co-accused warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- State through A.G. Sindh vs Muhammad Akbar Samejo1992 SCMR 2310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This acquittal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which quashed criminal proceedings pending against the respondent under sections 8, 9, and 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The respondent, employed as a driver, was apprehended while returning the licensed firearms of his employer, Asif Ali Zardari, to the employer's house after dropping him off at the airport. The core legal question was whether a servant having temporary custody or control of his master's licensed firearms in the course of his duties commits an offence under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that temporary possession or control by a servant acting under the lawful orders of his master in the discharge of normal duties does not attract penal liability under sections 8, 9, or 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, unless the servant has independent control without justification or knowledge of illegality. The court laid down the principle that mere temporary custody of a master's licensed weapon by a servant for a legitimate purpose does not constitute unlawful possession.
Questions settled- Whether temporary possession or control of a master's licensed firearm by a servant in the discharge of normal duties attracts criminal liability under the Arms Ordinance, 1965?
- Does the temporary custody of a firearm by a servant acting under the employer's directions constitute unlawful possession of arms?
- Can a servant be held criminally liable for carrying his master's weapons without knowledge that the firearms' licences had expired?
- State Life Insurnace Corporation of Pakistan vs Messrs Cooperative1992 CLC 1872 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-11Read full judgment →
- State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Nasimesahar through Legal Heirs1992 CLC 563 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an appellate order that upheld an ex parte decree passed against an insurance company. The core legal question concerns whether the service of summons on a corporation was effected in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Order 29, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the trial court was justified in resorting to substituted service via proclamation under Order 5, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that service of summons on a corporation must be effected on its secretary, director, or principal officer. In this case, the summons was merely presented to a clerk, which did not satisfy the statutory requirement. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court erred in resorting to substituted service without first attempting proper service on an authorized officer, especially after the company had pointed out procedural defects in the initial summons. Consequently, the ex parte decree was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on the merits. The principle established is that strict compliance with service requirements for corporations is mandatory, and substituted service cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass these requirements.
Questions settled- Is service of summons on a clerk of a corporation sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Order 29, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court resort to substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without first attempting proper service on an authorized officer of a corporation?
- Does the mere publication of a proclamation in a newspaper automatically constitute sufficient knowledge of a hearing date for a corporation to defeat an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- State Bank of Pakistan, Through The Banking Officer, Banking Control1992 P Cr. L J 1208 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Welcome International And 2 Others1992 P Cr. L J 777 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-20Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs the Investors And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 786 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-29Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Patleyinternational (Pvt.) Ltd. And 21992 P Cr. L J 782 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs East & West Thinkers Associates (R)1992 P Cr. L J 958 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Debnum (Pvt.) Ltd. And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 773 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-12Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Khalid Rashid CH.K.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 376 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-22Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Abdul Khaliq1992 SCMR 937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State Bank of Pakistan against the dismissal of its second appeal by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta. The respondent, a Chowkidar employed by the petitioner, was dismissed from service in 1970 for dereliction of duty after an inquiry conducted under Regulation 22 of the State Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Regulations. His departmental appeal to the Governor of the State Bank failed, whereupon he filed a civil suit challenging his dismissal. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court and subsequently the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, raising substantial questions regarding the applicability of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the maintainability of the declaratory suit, and allegations of bias concerning the competent authority under the Regulations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these submissions and stayed the fresh inquiry ordered by the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are applicable to an employee of the State Bank of Pakistan employed as a Chowkidar?
- Is a declaratory suit maintainable against an order of dismissal passed by an employer under statutory staff regulations in the absence of a breach of rules?
- Does the exercise of dismissal powers by a Manager under Regulation 22 of the State Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Regulations offend against the rules of natural justice on grounds of alleged bias?
- State Bank of Pakistan through Deputy Director, Banking Inspection1992 MLD 723 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan through Deputy Director, Banking Inspection1992 MLD 720 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-06Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan Through Deputy Director, Banking Inspection1992 P Cr. L J 686 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan Through Assistant Director, Banking Control1992 P Cr. L J 262 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
- Standard Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Ark Industrial Management Ltd.1992 CLC 1099 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
- Sri Ramamohan Motor Service vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 419 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-01-15Read full judgment →
- Soli M. Cowasjee and others vs Commissioner of Income Tax1992 PTD 1632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals regarding the allocation of super-tax paid by registered firms and the entitlement of partners to claim refunds of such super-tax when they suffer individual losses. The core legal questions were whether super-tax paid by a firm on behalf of a partner is refundable if the partner's individual assessment results in a loss, and the correct method for allocating super-tax among partners. The Supreme Court held that the proviso to the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1922, establishes a maximum limit on total tax liability (75% of income) but does not create an independent right to a refund of super-tax simply because a partner suffers an individual loss. The Court affirmed that a registered firm is a distinct assessable entity for super-tax purposes. Furthermore, while Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, allows for refunds, it requires the assessee to prove that the tax paid exceeds the amount properly chargeable under the Act, a condition not met in this case. The appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a partner claim a refund of super-tax paid by a registered firm if the partner suffers a loss in their individual assessment?
- Is a registered firm considered a distinct assessable entity for the purposes of super-tax under the Income Tax Act, 1922?
- Does the proviso to Part I of the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1922, create an independent right to a refund of super-tax?
- Sohail Habib Alias Abbi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 333 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
- Sohail Azeem vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1753 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
- Smt. Shanti Devi L. Singh and another vs Tax Recovery Officer and others1992 PTD 116 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-04-23Read full judgment →
- Smt. Radha Gajapathi Raju vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 1277 · Madras High Court · 1990-09-03Read full judgment →
- Smt. Promilla Grover vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and another1992 PTD 840 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-07-10Read full judgment →
- Smt. Meherbanoo G. Wadiwalla vs Wealth Tax Officer1992 PTD 1544 · Gujarat High Court · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
- Smt. Daljeet Kaur vs Commissioner of Income-tax.PTCL 1992 FC. 179 · Gauhati High Court · 1989-09-15Read full judgment →
- Sky International Workers Union vs Messrs Sky International, Karachi1992 PLC 861 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Siraj Umer vs Nazir Muhammad KhanPLD 1992 Supreme Court 427 . · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two appeals by leave of the Supreme Court arose from a pre-emption matter concerning two separate sales of land in favour of the respondent-vendee, which were pre-empted by the appellant through two separate suits. The core legal question was whether a vendee, who successfully resisted a pre-emption suit regarding a first purchase through a claim of statutory exemption, could use that intact purchase to acquire a co-sharer status and thereby defeat the appellant-plaintiff's pre-emption suit regarding a second, subsequent purchase. The Supreme Court held that under section 29 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950, a vendee cannot set up a defense or claim based on a transaction that is itself liable to be defeated by a pre-emption claim until the period of limitation expires and related suits are finally decided. The Court laid down the principle that a vendee's plea of an equal right of pre-emption derived from a prior purchase is defeated when that prior title remains subject to a pre-emption claim, preventing the splitting of transactions to evade pre-emption rights.
Questions settled- Whether a vendee can use a prior purchase, which is subject to a pending pre-emption claim, as a basis to defeat a subsequent pre-emption suit?
- Does section 29 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 bar a court from deciding a plea based on a right of pre-emption derived from property whose title is liable to be defeated?
- Can a purchaser defeat the law of pre-emption by splitting a transaction into two parts on different dates?
- Siraj Din vs Lahore Development Authority and others1992 CLC 102 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises out of a suit brought by the petitioner against the Lahore Development Authority and others, which was dismissed by the trial court after the petitioner's evidence was closed due to repeated failures to produce evidence, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in closing the petitioner's evidence and dismissing the suit without granting a final last opportunity, and whether unproven documents placed on the record should have been considered. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not require a specific 'last opportunity' to be given before closing evidence, and that documents cannot be considered unless duly produced and proved in accordance with law. The court laid down the principle that a party showing high negligence and carelessness in pursuing its case by failing to produce evidence despite multiple opportunities cannot challenge the closure of its evidence, and unproven documents placed on record cannot be taken into account.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require that a last opportunity must be given to a party before closing its evidence?
- Can documents placed on the record be taken into consideration by a court while deciding a suit if they are not duly produced and proved in accordance with law?
- Is a trial court justified in closing a party's evidence after multiple opportunities have been granted and the party has failed to produce any evidence?
- Siraj Din vs Ghulam Nabi and 2 others1992 SCMR 1287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on his relationship as the brother of the vendor and his status as a co-owner in the Patti. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's suit could proceed to a decree after the cutoff date of 31st July 1986, given the changes in the law of pre-emption. The High Court had previously determined that while the rejection of the plaint was procedurally improper, allowing the suit to continue would be an exercise in futility. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that the grounds for claiming a superior right of pre-emption were no longer available after 31st July 1986, rendering a decree in the petitioner's favour legally impossible. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court's refusal to allow the continuation of the proceedings was correct and unexceptional, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a suit for pre-emption proceed to a decree if the grounds for the superior right of pre-emption ceased to exist after 31st July 1986?
- Is it appropriate for a court to refuse the continuation of proceedings if the outcome would be an exercise in futility?
- Siraj Din and 11 others vs Rajada1992 SCMR 979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute involving two consolidated civil suits decided by a single judgment. The appellants filed one appeal against the consolidated judgment but inadvertently attached only the decree sheet for one suit. The District Judge decided the appeal without addressing the omission regarding the second suit. When the appellants later filed a separate appeal for the second suit, the District Judge refused to condone the delay, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent revision, citing gross negligence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the memorandum of appeal, in substance, challenged both suits. The Court emphasized that procedural technicalities, such as the failure to file a separate decree sheet for a consolidated judgment, should not defeat the ends of justice. Instead of dismissing the appeal, the court should have allowed the parties to rectify the defect. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter to be heard alongside the pending Regular Second Appeal to ensure substantial justice between the parties.
Questions settled- Whether a single appeal filed against a consolidated judgment in two suits is maintainable if it challenges the substance of both decisions?
- Should a court dismiss an appeal due to the failure to file a separate decree sheet for a consolidated judgment, or should it allow the defect to be remedied?
- Is the failure to file a separate appeal for a consolidated suit a ground for refusing to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Sindh Small Industries, Corporation, Hyderabad vs Chairman, Sindh1992 PLC 1019 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-04Read full judgment →
- Sindh Road Transport Corporation vs Muhammad Hassan1992 PLC 617 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
- Sindh Engineering (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs Saeed Ahmad , .1992 PLC 1210 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-02-20Read full judgment →
- Sikander vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 97 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
- Sikandar vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 394 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Sikandar And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1493 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Siddiq and anothers vs Chamber of Commerce and Industries, Karachi1992 MLD 651 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-24Read full judgment →
- Sibte Zahid Naqvi vs Iiird Sindh Labour Court through Presiding Officer1992 PLC 356 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-09-03Read full judgment →
- Shukar Din vs Inamullah And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a complainant in a criminal case, challenged a High Court order that remanded a murder conviction for a fresh trial. The respondent had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. During the appeal, the High Court observed that a cross-case filed by the accused had not been tried or concluded in accordance with established legal principles regarding the simultaneous trial of cross-cases. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for a fresh trial. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel conceded that the remand order could not be legally assailed regarding the failure to follow the established rule of practice for cross-cases. The petitioner argued that the defect should have been raised earlier by the respondent, but the Supreme Court rejected this, emphasizing the duty of all parties and counsel to assist the court in ensuring justice. Finding no justification for interference, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the necessity of adhering to established procedural rules for cross-cases.
Questions settled- Is a High Court justified in remanding a criminal case for fresh trial when a cross-case was not tried in accordance with established legal principles?
- Does the duty to assist the court in ensuring a fair trial rest solely on the accused or also on the complainant?
- Can a party challenge a remand order if they concede that the underlying procedural defect regarding cross-cases was not addressed at the trial stage?
- Shri Ram Washer Rahat Industries vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 813 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-05-25Read full judgment →
- Shree Ram Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 1450 · Bombay High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
- Shezan Limited vs Abdul Ghaffar and others1992 SCMR 2400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment maintaining an ejectment order against the appellant on grounds of rent default. The core legal questions concerned whether the phrase 'payable in advance' in an expired tenancy agreement, without a specified date, constitutes a fixed date for payment, thereby limiting the tenant to a 15-day grace period under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, or whether the 60-day grace period applies. Additionally, the Court examined whether notice under Section 18 of the Ordinance is mandatory upon the death of a co-owner. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a specific date for payment, the term 'payable in advance' is insufficient to trigger the 15-day grace period; thus, the 60-day grace period applies. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 18 notice is mandatory even for partial transfers of ownership via inheritance. The Court emphasized that penal provisions, such as ejectment, must be strictly construed, and beneficial provisions like Section 18 should be interpreted to advance the remedy for tenants. The appeal was allowed, and the ejectment order was set aside.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'payable in advance' in a tenancy agreement, without a specific date, constitute a fixed date for rent payment under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, mandatory when ownership of a premises changes due to the death of a co-owner?
- Does the 60-day grace period for rent payment apply when a tenancy agreement fails to specify a precise date for payment?
- Are the terms of an expired tenancy agreement binding on the parties regarding the mode of rent payment?
- Sheroo vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1490 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-09Read full judgment →
- Sher Zaman Alias Alamsher vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 409 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by Sher Zaman seeking post-arrest bail under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after his bail was cancelled by the Sessions Judge on the ground of prolonged abscondence. The core legal question was whether unexplained abscondence operates as an absolute bar to the grant of bail when a case falls under further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that abscondence does not operate as an absolute bar to the concession of bail in cases where there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed the offence and further inquiry into his guilt is warranted under section 497(2). The key principle laid down is that the disqualification attached to abscondence yields when an accused becomes entitled to bail as of right under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does unexplained abscondence operate as an absolute bar against the grant of bail in cases falling within the prohibitory clause?
- When can an accused claim bail as of right under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 notwithstanding the allegation of abscondence?
- Does ineffective firing in a charge under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Sher Muhammad vs Ghulam Hussain and 5 others1992 CLC 204 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 570 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Sher Bahadur vs The State1992 MLD 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-08-17Read full judgment →
- Sher Bahadur Khan and another vs Haji Wali Bat Khan and 7 others1992 MLD 46 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
- Sher Bahadur Alias Gul Jan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
- Sher Alis Sheru And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 921 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Sher Alias Ilyas And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 150 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-29Read full judgment →
- Sher Alias Ilyas And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 481 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1625 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-12-19Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali Akhtar and anothers vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. and another1992 CLC 1964 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Special Court (Banking), which had dismissed the petitioners' application to accept already mortgaged property as security for the purpose of obtaining leave to defend a recovery suit. The core legal question was whether property already mortgaged to a bank could legally be accepted as security for the condition of leave to defend a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The High Court held that the Banking Court erred in treating the petitioners' application as a review petition rather than a compliance request. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that the term 'security' under Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, is broad enough to include security already held by the bank against the loan. Consequently, the impugned order was declared to be without legal effect, and the petition was allowed, affirming that previously mortgaged assets qualify as valid security for the purpose of conditional leave to defend.
Questions settled- Can property already mortgaged to a bank be accepted as security for the purpose of granting leave to defend a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the term 'security' in Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, include security already held by the bank against the loan?
- Sher Ali (died) and others vs Siraj Din and others1992 MLD 148 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
- Sher Afzal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 923 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- Sheila Bry Jaggi. vs 11th Income Tax. Officer and others.PTCL 1992 FC. 199 · Bombay High Court · 1990-03-16Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Suhail Islam vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 848 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-21Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Shafique vs National Bank of Pakistan1992 PLD Lahore 60 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose out of a summary suit for recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the respondent bank. Summons was issued to the petitioner on 16th April 1980 for 30th April 1980 in Form No. 4, Appendix B, requiring him to obtain leave to defend within ten days of service. On 30th April 1980, noting that service had been effected, the trial court decreed the suit ex parte before the ten-day statutory period had elapsed.
The core legal issue was whether a trial court could validly pass an ex parte decree in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC before the expiration of the statutory ten-day period granted to the defendant to seek leave to defend.
The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner possessed a statutory right under Order XXXVII Rule 2 and Form No. 4 to seek leave to defend within ten days of service. Passing an ex parte decree prior to the expiration of that period constituted a grave procedural illegality. Applying the maxim that no person shall suffer by an act of the court, the High Court set aside the ex parte judgment and decree and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Questions settled- Can a court pass an ex parte decree in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC before the statutory ten-day period to seek leave to defend has expired?
- Whether a defendant can be prejudiced or deprived of a statutory right due to an error committed by the court in fixing a short hearing date?
- Does an ex parte decree passed prior to the expiration of the ten-day period granted in Form No. 4 of Appendix B CPC constitute a fatal procedural illegality?
- Sheikh Anisur Rehman vs Muhammad Umer and others1992 CLC 1652 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 was filed against an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller on grounds of default in rent payment and nuisance. The respondents filed cross-objections challenging the rejection of ejectment on grounds of personal requirement and conversion of premises. The High Court considered the maintainability of cross-objections, the computation of default in a statutory tenancy, liability for utility charges, and the legal standard for proving nuisance. The High Court held that cross-objections are not maintainable under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. It further held that upon expiry of a fixed-term lease, a statutory tenancy begins, allowing sixty days for rent payment; hence, rent tendered via money order was within time. Regarding gas charges, landlords cannot profit from utility collections and must prove actual consumption shares; acceptance of reduced charges without protest constitutes waiver. Lastly, nuisance requires material discomfort or frequent, severe conduct rendering life miserable, which was unestablished. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the ejectment order was set aside.
Questions settled- Are cross-objections maintainable in proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- When does default occur in a statutory tenancy following the expiry of a fixed-term agreement?
- Can a landlord claim default for utility charges without proving the tenant's actual share of consumption?
- What degree of misconduct or offensive language is required to constitute nuisance under rent laws?
- Sheikh Abdul Ghafoor and others vs Faqir Muhammad1992 CLC 586 · Board of Revenue · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary, Industries And Mineral Department And 8 Other1992 PLD LAHORE 277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several writ petitions challenging the validity of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990, and a specific notification dated 18-6-1991, which imposed stringent financial and property ownership conditions on participants in government auctions for mineral leases. The petitioners argued that the Rules suffered from excessive delegation and that the notification was ultra vires. The Court held that the delegation of rule-making power under the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948, was valid, as the legislature cannot be expected to provide for every detail and may delegate regulatory powers to the executive. However, the Court ruled that the notification issued by the Licensing Authority was invalid. The holding was based on the principle of 'delegatus non potest delegare' (a delegate cannot further delegate), noting that the Act empowered the Government to frame rules, but did not authorize the Government to sub-delegate that power to a subordinate Licensing Authority. Furthermore, the Court found the notification's conditions to be unreasonable, discriminatory, and contrary to public policy by restricting fair competition.
Questions settled- Does the delegation of rule-making power under the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948, constitute excessive delegation?
- Can a delegatee of legislative power further delegate that power to a subordinate authority without express statutory authorization?
- Is the requirement for participants in a government auction to own immovable property as a condition for bidding legally sustainable?
- Does the principle of 'delegatus non potest delegare' apply to the sub-delegation of administrative rule-making powers?
- Shaukat Ali And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1936 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali Alias Gopa vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1749 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-28Read full judgment →
- Shamsul Haq vs Mst. Nazima Shaheen And Another1992 P Cr. L J 1026 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →