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.
- Sakhi Muhammad vs Munshi Khan1992 PLD Supreme Court 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the rejection of a plaint in a pre-emption suit, due to the failure to deposit one-fifth of the probable value of the property (zar-e-panjam) within the court-mandated time, precludes the filing of a second suit on the same cause of action. The appellant argued that such rejection constitutes a decree, thereby barring a subsequent suit under the principles of res judicata or the doctrine of double jeopardy. The Court rejected these contentions, holding that the rejection of a plaint for non-deposit of pre-emption money is analogous to a rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), which, under Rule 13, does not bar a fresh suit. The Court emphasized that for res judicata to apply, the matter must have been decided finally on its merits, which did not occur here. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Islamic jurisprudence takes precedence over conflicting Western legal principles within the constitutional framework of Pakistan. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the rejection of a plaint for non-payment of zar-e-panjam under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 bar a second suit on the same cause of action?
- Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, rule 11 C.P.C. prevent a plaintiff from filing a fresh suit?
- Is the principle of res judicata applicable when the previous suit was not decided on the merits of the controversy?
- Sakhi Muhammad and aNother vs Fateh Muhammad and 3 others1992 CLC 182 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
- Sakhi Muhammad And 9 Other vs Hakim Ali And 14 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a civil dispute challenging the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court due to a deficiency in court-fee. The core legal question was whether a memorandum of appeal could be dismissed for court-fee deficiency without following the procedure outlined in relevant procedural rules and established precedent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal and failing to properly apply the principles established in Siddique Khan's case, reiterating that Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to memoranda of appeals and that a party should not suffer due to the court office's failure to specify the exact deficiency. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment set aside, and the case remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Whether a Regular Second Appeal can be dismissed by the High Court on the ground of a deficiency in court-fee without complying with the procedure under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to memoranda of appeals as well as plaints?
- Should a litigant suffer on account of a wrong act or omission by the office of the court regarding the specification of court-fee?
- Sakhi Dost Muhammad vs The State1992 SCMR 1753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the High Court's order rejecting the appellant's application for post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of a significant quantity of narcotics, including 300 kilograms of opium, and chemicals for manufacturing, from the appellant's residence. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the status of the investigation. The Supreme Court observed that the recovery occurred long after the initial incident and during a period when the area was under the control of the Kharan Rifles, suggesting that the appellant lacked access to the premises at the time of the search. Furthermore, the Court noted that the challan had been submitted, the trial had not yet commenced, and there was no allegation that the appellant had misused the concession of bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the interim bail previously granted to the appellant, emphasizing that the case required further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether the recovery of contraband from a premises under the control of security forces warrants the grant of bail to the owner of the premises?
- Does the submission of a challan without the commencement of trial constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Is bail appropriate when the prosecution's case regarding the timing and access to the recovery site requires further inquiry?
- Sajid Ali Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2082 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
- Saifullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2589 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
- Saiful Malook and others vs The State and others1992 SCMR 1597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected petitions arise from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the convicts' appeal and enhanced the sentence of one appellant from life imprisonment to death for a murder committed in 1985. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the sufficiency of corroborative evidence including recovered electric bulbs and cardboards, and the propriety of enhancing the death penalty where multiple accused fired but only one fatal injury was caused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the conviction of the appellants for murder in furtherance of common intention was well-founded based on prompt reporting, natural presence of witnesses, and abscondence, the enhancement of the sentence to death was unwarranted since only a single gunshot wound was attributed to the fatal act. Consequently, the Court partially accepted the appeal to reduce the death sentence back to life imprisonment, and dismissed the remaining petitions for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether abscondence of an accused for a sufficiently long time serves as an additional strong piece of corroboration of evidence?
- Is capital punishment of death called for when two persons are charged with firing at the deceased but the medical and ocular evidence shows only one fatal firearm injury?
- Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses is rendered unreliable merely due to prior enmity between the parties?
- Saif Ul Islam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1444 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-19Read full judgment →
- SaIDaN Gul SHaH vs Sardar MUMTaZ aLI KHaN and others1992 CLC 1796 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-20Read full judgment →
- Said Shah and others vs Muhammad Aslam1992 CLC 1190 · Board of Revenue · 1991-10-06Read full judgment →
- Said Jamal and others vs Ghulam Zohra and others1992 CLC 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition is directed against the concurrent orders of the lower courts whereby an application for the deletion and recasting of an issue and shifting the burden of proof in a declaratory suit was allowed. The core legal question involved was whether the onus to prove the validity of a disputed Will lies upon the plaintiff challenging it or upon the defendants claiming rights under it as beneficiaries. The Lahore High Court dismissed the constitutional petition in limine, holding that since the defendants claimed rights under the disputed Will and its execution was denied by the plaintiff, the burden of proof was rightly placed upon the defendants to establish its valid execution. The key principle laid down is that the beneficiary of a disputed Will who relies upon it must establish its valid execution, and a trial court's order recasting issues and shifting the burden accordingly involves no jurisdictional defect warranting interference under extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the burden of proof to establish the valid execution of a disputed Will lies upon the plaintiff or upon the defendants claiming rights under it?
- Can a trial court delete, recast issues and shift the burden of proof before the recording of evidence in a declaratory suit?
- Does an order of a revisional court upholding the recasting of issues by the trial court suffer from any jurisdictional defect warranting constitutional interference?
- Said Ghulam And Another vs Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad1992 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
- Said Akbar Khan and others vs Ali Muhammad1992 CLC 1195 · Board of Revenue · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2213 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-06Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada Sheheryar Abbasi vs Samia Abbasi and another1992 MLD 159 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada Ka.K. Afridi vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1992 SCMR 1379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan resolves appeals arising from judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning the competency of the Labour Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from orders of Labour Courts in matters involving the dismissal or removal from service of workmen. The core legal question examined was whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal possessed appellate jurisdiction over decisions made by Labour Courts pursuant to grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance read with Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, notwithstanding amendments to the statutes. The Supreme Court held that the right of appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal survives as a substantive right attached to the institution of proceedings unless explicitly and retrospectively taken away by statute, and that decisions rendered by Labour Courts under section 25-A remain appealable under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Court laid down the principle that the right to an appeal is a vested substantive right governed by the law in force at the commencement of proceedings, and that the incorporation of grievance procedures by reference does not impliedly oust statutory rights of appeal unless expressly excluded.
Questions settled- Whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal is competent to hear appeals from decisions of Labour Courts in matters arising out of the dismissal or removal from service of workmen?
- Does an amendment altering the appellate forum or removing an appellate tier affect pending proceedings or accrued rights of appeal where not made retrospective by express words or necessary intendment?
- Whether the omission of a cross-reference to section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance operates to take away the right of appeal against a Labour Court's decision?
- What criteria determine whether an employee holding a supervisory or managerial designation qualifies as a 'workman' under the labour laws?
- Sahibzada Ka.K. Afridi the Punjab Agricultural Development and Suppl_71ea86d31992 PLC 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals concern the competence of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals against decisions of Labour Courts regarding the dismissal or removal of workmen. The core legal question was whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain such appeals, particularly when the grievance petition was filed under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, which does not explicitly reference the appellate provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal is indeed competent to hear these appeals. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that the absence of an express reference to Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 in the Standing Orders implied a lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Court established that the right of appeal is a substantive right that survives statutory amendments unless explicitly removed. Furthermore, it affirmed that Labour Courts, when adjudicating grievances under Standing Order 12(3), operate under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, rendering their decisions subject to the appellate mechanisms provided therein.
Questions settled- Is the Labour Appellate Tribunal competent to hear appeals from the orders of Labour Courts in matters arising out of the dismissal or removal of workmen?
- Does the absence of an express reference to the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 preclude the right of appeal against a Labour Court's decision?
- Does the right of appeal survive statutory amendments if the amending legislation does not expressly or by necessary intendment take it away?
- Does a Labour Court act as a persona designata when adjudicating a grievance petition under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Sahib Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
- Sahib Khan & Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 300 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
- Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 1205 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
- Saghir Ahmad and another vs Messrs Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd.1992 PLC 889 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Saffar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 789 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, impugning an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehar, under section 4/14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal question concerns the legality of proceedings initiated on vague and general allegations without specific instances of criminal acts and where the accused had only been challaned rather than convicted in prior cases. The court held that the allegations were vague and general, and the impugned order was passed mechanically without application of mind, failing to comply with the provisions of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the pending proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were quashed, establishing the principle that proceedings under preventive maintenance statutes cannot be sustained when based on vague police reports lacking specific instances and mere involvement in challaned cases without convictions.
Questions settled- Can proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act be initiated on the basis of vague and general police reports?
- Does mere involvement and challan in criminal cases, without conviction, suffice for passing an order under the Sindh Crimes Control Act?
- Whether an order passed mechanically without application of mind under section 4/14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act is liable to be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Safeer Hussain Qureshi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1072 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
- Safeer Ahmad alias Muhammad Shafiq vs Abdul Rasheed and another1992 CLC 1896 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Civil Revision Application challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the applicant's suit regarding a disputed property. The applicant, claiming title through a gift from his grandmother, sought mutation of the property in his name. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the grandmother's lack of title, the collusive nature of the proceedings, and the lack of registration of the gift deed under the Registration Act. The core legal question was whether the unregistered deed of gift was valid and whether the suit could be summarily dismissed despite the respondent's admission of the applicant's title. The High Court held that the document in question was merely a written declaration affirming a prior oral gift and delivery of possession, which did not require registration. Furthermore, the Court determined that the lower courts erred in summarily dismissing the suit, noting that even possessory title is transferable unless prohibited by law. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the case to the trial court for a decision in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does a written declaration of a prior oral gift and delivery of possession require registration under the Registration Act 1908?
- Can a suit be summarily dismissed when the defendant has admitted the plaintiff's title in a counter-affidavit?
- Is possessory title of a property transferable in the absence of a legal prohibition?
- Safdar Zaman vs The State1992 MLD 357 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Safdar Munir vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1757 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
- Safdar Khan vs Salfi Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi and another1992 PLC 882 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
- Safdar Hussain Shah vs Mst. Nisa Fatimah1992 CLC 39 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-10-23Read full judgment →
- Saeeduddin vs Iiird Senior Civil Judge (East), Karachi And Another1992 PLD Karachi 302 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a family suit for the dissolution of marriage filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint, arguing that the respondent failed to comply with Rule 4(2)(c) of the Sindh Muslim Family Courts Rules, 1965, by providing the address of her advocate instead of her own residential address. The petitioner contended that this provision is mandatory and that non-compliance necessitates the rejection of the plaint. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the requirement to provide a specific address under the Sindh Muslim Family Courts Rules, 1965, is mandatory, such that its breach warrants the rejection of the plaint. The Court held that while the rule uses the word "shall," the Rules contain no penal provision prescribing the rejection of a plaint for such non-compliance. Consequently, the Court determined that the provision is directory rather than mandatory. The petition was dismissed in limine, establishing the principle that procedural requirements in the Sindh Muslim Family Courts Rules, 1965, lacking explicit penal consequences for non-compliance, are directory in nature.
Questions settled- Is the requirement to provide a residential address under Rule 4 of the Sindh Muslim Family Courts Rules, 1965, mandatory or directory?
- Does the failure to provide a personal address in a family court plaint automatically result in the rejection of the plaint?
- Can a plaint be rejected for non-compliance with procedural rules where the governing statute prescribes no specific penalty for such non-compliance?
- Saeed- vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 137 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant involved in a case registered under sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the murder of a police official. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the police testimony, identification, recovery of the weapon matching empty shells at the crime scene, and medical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that there was prima facie sufficient material connecting the applicant to the commission of the offence, noting that the accused was named in the F.I.R., witnessed firing by police personnel who previously knew him, and a weapon corresponding to the recovered forensic evidence was recovered from him. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that at the bail stage, evidence cannot be deeply sifted or detailed, and where reasonable grounds exist connecting the accused to a heinous crime, bail must be refused.
Questions settled- Whether evidence can be sifted in detail at the bail stage?
- Does the absence of private witnesses when police officials are available vitiate the prosecution case for the purpose of bail?
- Whether a delay of two hours in lodging the F.I.R. is fatal when properly explained by humanitarian rescue efforts?
- Can bail be granted when the accused is specifically nominated in the F.I.R., identified by witnesses, and linked through matching weapon recovery?
- Saeed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1817 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-02Read full judgment →
- Saeed Khan And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
- Saeed Gul vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-26Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad vs Mammi1992 CLC 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad Khan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lahore vs The State1992 SCMR 1369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court containing adverse observations against the appellant, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, during bail proceedings. The core legal question concerns the power and jurisdiction of the High Court to make sweeping observations regarding the inefficiency and corruption of an investigating officer and to direct departmental proceedings without a formal inquiry. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court had the jurisdiction to examine the investigating officer regarding the merits of the case during bail hearings, the specific observations declaring him corrupt and directing departmental action should have been avoided in favour of advising the department for proper legal action. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of by diluting the detrimental character of the observations made by the High Court, establishing that unverified condemnatory remarks impacting a public servant's career should not be summarily recorded in bail matters.
Questions settled- Does a judge hearing a bail petition have the jurisdiction to summon and examine the investigating officer on oath?
- Can a High Court judge make summary observations declaring an investigating officer corrupt and direct departmental proceedings without a formal inquiry?
- What is the appropriate legal recourse when adverse observations detrimental to a public servant's career are recorded in bail orders?
- Saee Muhammad vs Haji Mahla Khan and another1992 CLC 1624 · Board of Revenue · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
- Saee And Other vs Zulfiqar Ali And Other1992 PLD Lahore 241 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
- Sadio Al vs Taj Din And Other1992 PLD Lahore 158 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves four civil revision petitions concerning land sale transactions challenged by the vendor on the grounds of violating paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (Land Reforms Regulation, 1959). The core legal question was whether Civil Courts or Revenue Authorities, acting under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate whether these sales contravened the Regulation. The High Court held that the determination of such violations falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Land Commission or the Chief Land Commissioner. The Court emphasized that the Land Reforms Regulation and the Land Revenue Act create distinct legal entities and powers; Revenue Officers cannot exercise authority under the Regulation without specific delegation. Consequently, the Court declared the orders of the Revenue Authorities and the lower courts, which had purported to decide the validity of the sales under the Regulation, to be without lawful authority. The principle established is that jurisdiction to enforce the Land Reforms Regulation is reserved solely for the designated Land Commission hierarchy, and cannot be conflated with general revenue powers.
Questions settled- Does a Revenue Officer acting under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 have the jurisdiction to determine if a land sale violates paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959?
- Are the powers exercised by Revenue Officers under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 distinct and separate?
- Which authority has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a land transaction violates the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959?
- Sadaqat Ali Alias Pitti vs The State And Another1992 PLD Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- Sabir Khan vs Messrs Faran Hotel1992 PLC 340 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-08-13Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hussain vs Messrs Crescent Garment Industries (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi1992 PLC 312 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-10-12Read full judgment →
- Sabir Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
- Saba Atiq Khan And Other vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenew Cases 81 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-08-16Read full judgment →
- Saad vs Mamoon Sadiq Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 65 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
- S.S.M.R. No.1/I of 1991: In the matter of vs N/A1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 518 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-11-14Read full judgment →
- S.P.G.C. Metal Industries (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner or Income-Tax1992 PTD 834 · Madras High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
- S.M. Zafar Babar and anothers vs Province of Punjab through Chief1992 SCMR 741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the regularisation of service for Additional District and Sessions Judges. The appellants, initially appointed on an ad hoc basis in 1974, sought regularisation from their initial date of induction rather than the later date approved by the Government. The Service Tribunal, while acknowledging the hardship caused to the appellants, declined to grant relief, stating it could not provide what was not permitted by law, and instead recommended that the Government reconsider the appellants' prayer. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by merely making a recommendation rather than adjudicating the merits of the case. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred in law by failing to exercise its vested jurisdiction. Relying on established principles, the Court affirmed that it is the obligation of the Service Tribunal to decide all questions of law and fact raised by an appellant. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and remanded the cases to the Service Tribunal for adjudication on merits in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction and obligation to decide all questions of law and fact raised by an appellant?
- Can a Service Tribunal dispose of an appeal by making a recommendation to the Government instead of adjudicating the merits of the case?
- What are the powers of the Service Tribunal under Section 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 regarding the modification or setting aside of orders?
- S. Rifat Ali vs Messrs McDONALD Layton and Company1992 PLC 981 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- S. Rajagopala Vandayar. vs Commissioner of Income-taxPTCL 1992 FC. 108 · Madras High Court · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
- S. Mujtaba Ali Naqvi vs (Mst). Noor Jehan BegumK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases I6 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
- S. Muhammad Din & Sons and anothers vs Allied Bank of Pakistan, Bank1992 SCMR 1795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the Company Judge of the Lahore High Court concerning an application for the reconstruction and reorganization of a company. The parties had previously entered into a consent order regarding the bifurcation of the company and the settlement of liabilities to creditor banks. The appellant subsequently sought to reopen the accounts for rechecking, which the Company Judge declined, holding the parties bound by the terms of the original consent order. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an order passed by a Company Judge in proceedings for company reconstruction/reorganization is competent under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, in the absence of a winding-up order. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was incompetent. The ratio established that the right of appeal under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, is strictly limited to cases where a company has already been ordered to be wound up, and such provisions are distinct from those governing reconstruction or reorganization. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Is an appeal against an order of a Company Judge competent in proceedings for company reconstruction where no winding-up order has been passed?
- Does the right of appeal under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, extend to orders made in proceedings other than winding-up?
- Are the provisions for company reconstruction and winding-up under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, distinct and separate for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction?
- S. Mubashir Hussain vs The Accountant General Government of the Punjab, Lahore And Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 83) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- S. Khurshid Alam vs Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Limited, Karachi and others1992 CLC 480 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
- S. Anwar Ali Shah vs Syed Muhammad Ali1992 CLC 867 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Russie M. Dinshaw vs Government of Pakistan and others1992 CLC 1168 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
- Salehon and others vs Sardara1992 CLC 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
- Russie M. Dinshaw vs Government of Pakistan And 4 Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 172) · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
- Rusi Jal Dubash vs Messrs Brigstock Eduljee and Company and others1992 PLC 1037 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-24Read full judgment →
- Rupali Polyester Limited vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development and 2 others1992 CLC 796 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated constitutional petitions challenging the imposition of export tax by the Zila Council, Lahore, on goods in transit. The petitioners, industrial entities, import raw materials and machinery through the Dry Port, Lahore, which are then transported to their manufacturing plants in District Sheikhupura. The core legal question was whether the Zila Council could levy export tax on goods merely passing through its jurisdiction while in transit. The Court held that the goods, being in transit and not intended for use or consumption within the Lahore district, did not constitute an 'export' under the relevant statutory framework. Consequently, the Zila Council lacked the authority to impose export tax on such transit goods. The Court clarified that the reliance by the respondents on the Punjab Zila Council Export Tax Rules, 1990, was misconceived, as the mere physical presence of goods within the district limits for a short duration does not trigger tax liability where no actual export occurs. The petitions were accepted, affirming that transit goods are exempt from such local taxation.
Questions settled- Can a Zila Council levy export tax on goods that are merely in transit through its district?
- Does the presence of goods within a district for less than 24 hours justify the imposition of export tax under the Punjab Zila Council Export Tax Rules, 1990?
- What constitutes an 'export' of goods for the purpose of taxation by a Zila Council under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Rtd. Lt.Col. Jamilur Rehman Qureshi vs Abdul Qayyum1992 CLC 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
- Rozi Khan And Other vs Syed Karim Shah And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple consolidated appeals and petitions involving common questions regarding the impact of section 35 of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 on pending pre-emption suits and appeals instituted under the repealed N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, and determining the persons entitled to exercise pre-emption rights. The core legal questions concern the interpretation of the term 'final' in section 35(2) of the 1987 Act regarding judgments and decrees, and whether pending suits saved under section 35(3) require compliance with the demand of pre-emption (Talabs) under section 13. The Supreme Court held that the phrase 'judgments and decrees passed by the Courts have become final' under subsection (2) of section 35 means those judgments and decrees wherein the pre-emptor's suit has been decreed by the rendering court. Furthermore, pending suits saved from abatement are only those where the pre-emption right vests under section 6 and where the pre-emptor has made the mandatory demands of pre-emption (Talabs) under section 13 of the 1987 Act. The appeals were accordingly disposed of.
Questions settled- What is the impact of section 35 of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 on suits and appeals instituted under the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 that were pending when the 1987 Act was enforced?
- What is the true meaning of the words 'judgments and decrees passed by the Courts have become final' under subsection (2) of section 35 of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987?
- Who are the persons entitled to exercise the right of pre-emption under the provisions of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987?
- Are pending suits saved under section 35(3) of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 restricted only to those where the pre-emptor has made the demands of pre-emption (Talabs) as required by section 13?
- Roshti Khan and others vs Shahiada Khusraul Mulk and others1992 SCMR 1317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from eleven appeals by special leave against the dismissal of constitutional petitions by the Peshawar High Court regarding land disputes in Chitral. The core legal questions involve whether limitation periods for review petitions under the President's Order No. 12 of 1980 could be extended by a general administrative order, whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review fully implemented or declaratory orders of the Federal Land Commission, and whether validating ordinances barred such reviews. The Supreme Court held that the Chairman of the Tribunal possessed the authority to extend limitation periods and that objections to limitation not raised before lower forums cannot be raised for the first time before the apex court. Furthermore, declaratory orders of the Federal Land Commission do not amount to fully implemented orders merely by issuance, and the power of review was not ousted by validating ordinances. The appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether limitation of 90 days provided by the Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Order, 1980 was open to review without showing grounds for condonation of delay?
- Whether the Chairman of the Tribunal Land Disputes, Chitral, could entertain a time-barred review petition through a general order of extension?
- Whether a declaratory order passed by the Federal Land Commission can be deemed to be fully implemented upon issuance so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Reviewing Authority?
- Whether the promulgation of validating ordinances had the effect of ending the power of review enjoyed by the Tribunal over orders of the Federal Land Commission?
- Rohail Naseem Alias Kala vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1037 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-09-01Read full judgment →
- Rifatullah Khan Lodhi vs Mukhtar All Khan Lodhi and 12 others1992 CLC 1117 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the defendants seeking rejection of a plaint on the grounds of limitation. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, partition, and possession regarding land originally allotted to his deceased father. The plaintiff alleged that his brother, the ancestor of the defendants, fraudulently transferred the land in his own name to the exclusion of other heirs. The core legal question was whether the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the application for rejection of the plaint should be dismissed, as the issue of limitation required evidence and could not be determined solely on the face of the plaint. The Court noted that the suit involved claims to joint family property, potentially invoking Article 127 of the Limitation Act 1908, which provides a twelve-year limitation period. The principle laid down is that when a suit involves complex questions of fact regarding limitation, such as the date of exclusion from joint family property, the plaint should not be rejected summarily under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording evidence.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation without recording evidence when the claim involves joint family property?
- Does Article 127 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a suit for partition filed by a person claiming to be excluded from joint family property?
- Is the possession of a co-sharer or co-heir deemed to be on behalf of other co-heirs in the context of joint family property?
- Rifaoat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2005 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-09Read full judgment →
- Riaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 909 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
- Riaz Mustafa vs Fauji Sugar Mills, Khoski through its General Manager1992 PLC 344 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-08-29Read full judgment →
- Riaz Muhammad and anothers vs Sarwer Shah and 2 others1992 CLC 2462 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-09Read full judgment →
- Riaz Mahmood Butt alias Towna vs The State1992 MLD 210 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2248 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs Ijaz Ahmad and others1992 CLC 1583 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs Ghulam Ahmad1992 PLD Lahore 156 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs Director(C)(R&G)/Deputy Settlement Commissioner,1992 CLC 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-03Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad Shahzad vs Manager, Bhanaro Textile Mills, Kotri , .1992 PLC 701 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad And Other vs Lal Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 201 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1745 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali and 9 others vs Rahim Bakhsh and others1992 CLC 2193 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The respondent-plaintiff claimed the appellant's vendor had entered into an agreement to sell the land to him, while the appellant contended the agreement was forged and that he was a bona fide purchaser. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding the agreement unproven, but the first appellate court reversed this, decreeing the suit. In this appeal, the High Court examined whether the first appellate court's finding on the genuineness of the agreement was sustainable under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the first appellate court's finding was based on a misreading of evidence, particularly ignoring the discrepancy between the plaintiff's oral testimony regarding the purchase of stamp paper and the documentary evidence itself. Emphasizing that documentary evidence often outweighs oral testimony, the Court restored the trial court's finding that the agreement was not proved. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate decree and dismissed the suit, establishing that appellate findings must be supported by logical reasoning and evidence on record.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can a finding of fact by the first appellate court be interfered with in a regular second appeal?
- Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to a sale deed executed during the period between the dismissal of a suit and its subsequent restoration?
- Can a court in a second appeal set aside an appellate finding that is based on a misreading of evidence or ignores material documentary contradictions?
- Revenue) Mst. Yasmeem vs Muhammad Sarfraz and others1992 CLC 1286 · Board of Revenue · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
- Residents of Chak R.S., Tehsil Shujabad vs Haji Abdul Ghafoor and others1992 CLC 1443 · Board of Revenue · 1989-12-27Read full judgment →
- Residents of Chak R.S. Tehsil Shujabad vs Haji Abdul Ghafoor And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 51 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1992-12-27Read full judgment →
- Residents of Chak R. Tehsil Shujabad Versus Haji Abdul Ghafoor And Other Residents of Chak R. Tehsil Shujabad vs Haji Abdul Ghafoor And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 51 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah vs Khalilurrehman and another1992 CLC 1844 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Nawaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1019 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Khan vs Anjum Hayat Mirza1992 CLC 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Khan and others vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) and others1992 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Elahi vs Messrs Hoyo Kabushiki Kaisha1992 PLD Supreme Court 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals were filed against the High Court of Sindh's judgment setting aside an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks who had accepted the appellant's counter-statement beyond the statutory extension period. The core questions before the Supreme Court were the proper calculation of a 'month' under Rule 76 of the Trade Marks Rules, 1963, and whether an order granting an extension beyond the maximum permissible period is appealable under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act. The Supreme Court held that 'month' denotes a calendar month reckoned according to the British Calendar, and an extension from an arbitrary date expires on the day in the succeeding month immediately preceding the corresponding date. Since the 5th extension expired on 9-3-1986, the 6-month maximum limit ended on that date. Consequently, the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to extend time to 11-3-1986. Under Section 15(3) of the Act, default in filing a counter-statement within time results in statutory abandonment of the application. The Court affirmed that while routine procedural extensions are non-appealable, an order passed beyond jurisdiction that triggers statutory abandonment affects substantive rights and is appealable.
Questions settled- How is the term 'month' to be calculated when computing a period of limitation under statutory rules?
- Does the Registrar of Trade Marks have jurisdiction to extend the time for filing a counter-statement beyond the aggregate period of six months under Rule 76 of the Trade Marks Rules, 1963?
- What is the legal effect of an applicant's failure to file a counter-statement within the maximum period prescribed by law under Section 15(3) of the Trade Marks Act?
- Is an order of the Registrar extending time beyond the statutory limit appealable under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act?
- Rehmat Ali vs Mst. Allah Wasai And Another1992 PLD Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-19Read full judgment →
- Rehman vs Ghulam Qadir Khan Alias Qadir Khan And Another1992 P Cr. L J 1513 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected criminal miscellaneous petitions arising from FIR No. 333 registered under the charge of Zina at Police Station Saddar, Bannu. The Sessions Judge had granted pre-arrest bail to the father, Ghulam Qadir Khan, while two courts below declined post-arrest bail to the son, Ubaidullah. The complainant sought cancellation of the father's pre-arrest bail, whereas the son sought the grant of bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the pre-arrest bail granted to the father was unexceptionable as the charge against him appeared tainted with mala fides aimed at pressuring him for the restoration of the abductee, and no common intention with the son was established at this stage. Conversely, the Court held that the son's case stood on a different footing, as he was directly charged with abduction, implicated by confessional statements prima facie connecting him to the crime, and the four-month delay in lodging the report did not warrant bail. Both petitions were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be sustained when the charge against the accused is shown to be tainted with mala fides?
- Can the legality and propriety of confessional statements be scrutinized at the bail stage?
- Does a delay in lodging the first information report per se constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in heinous offences?
- Whether a father can be vicariously held liable for the offense of his adult son without proof of common intention at the bail stage?
- Rehan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1260 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
- Registrar of High Court vs Editor of the English Daily `the News' And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1893 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-21Read full judgment →
- Raziuddin, Shahabuddin Haider, Ahmad Naseem vs Chairman, Pakistan1992 PLD Supreme Court 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the Federal Service Tribunal's judgments upholding the appellants' removal from service under Section 10(2) of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956. The primary legal questions were whether PIAC was obligated to disclose specific grounds and conduct a full inquiry to fulfill the requirement of personal hearing, whether Section 10(2) violated fundamental rights and Islamic principles of natural justice, and whether the appellants were entitled to statutory pay in lieu of notice. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals but held that the relationship between a statutory corporation and its employees without statutory rules is governed by the master and servant principle. The Court ruled that Section 10(2) allows removal simpliciter without assigning reasons or conducting a formal inquiry, provided the employee is informed of the underlying reason during the personal hearing. The Court held that a preliminary show-cause notice expressing intent to remove cannot substitute for statutory 90 days' notice, thus granting the appellants 90 days' pay in lieu of notice along with their terminal benefits.
Questions settled- Does Section 10(2) of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 require the framing of a formal charge-sheet and conducting a full-dress departmental inquiry before an employee can be removed?
- What constitutes a meaningful and fair opportunity of hearing under Section 10(2) of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956?
- Can a show-cause notice proposing removal be treated as the mandatory 90 days' notice of removal required under Section 10(2) of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956?
- Does the general principle of master and servant apply to statutory corporation employees whose service regulations have not received government sanction or been gazetted and laid before the legislature?
- Raza Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1299 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- Raza Muhammad Korai vs Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organisation, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad ,1992 PLC 892 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
- Raz Ahmad And 7 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2346 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a petition for pre-arrest bail arising from a case registered under sections 295-A, 295-C, and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning alleged misuse of Islamic epithets and defiling the name of the Holy Prophet by printing certain invitation cards. The core legal questions involved whether the bar under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidates the entire F.I.R., whether the offenses fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that while bail was rightly granted to certain petitioners due to lack of incriminating material or applicability of statutory exceptions for women, the remaining petitioners charged under sections 295-C and 298-C were not entitled to bail given the prima facie gravity of the accusations. The court laid down the principle that the bar to cognizance under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not affect the initial registration of an F.I.R. by a private person, and that the unauthorized use of Islamic symbols and Darood by non-Muslim groups constitutes prima facie offenses under sections 295-C and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Does the bar contained in section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against court cognizance invalidate the registration of an F.I.R. by a private person?
- Whether the use of Islamic symbols and expressions by Qadianis constitutes an offense under section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does sending Darood on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad amount to an offense punishable under section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether an offense under section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Rasool Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1992 CLC 374 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-02Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bux vs Deputy Collector of Customs And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1403 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bux Baloch vs Muhammad Wahid And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 2578 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bibi vs Waryam and 11 others1992 SCMR 1520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from the dismissal of the appellant's civil revision by the High Court, which upheld the lower courts' dismissal of her declaration suit relating to the inheritance of her deceased husband. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant was the lawful widow of the deceased and whether her suit was barred by the principle of res judicata based on an earlier compromised suit. The Supreme Court held that the appellant successfully proved her status as the widow through proper evidence, including a written Nikahnama and supporting witness testimonies, and that the earlier suit did not operate as res judicata since it was not decided on contest and the compromise was not properly established. The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts due to misreading of evidence, allowed the appeal, and decreed the appellant's suit to the extent of her 1/4th share in the property.
Questions settled- Whether a suit is barred by res judicata when the earlier suit was disposed of on the basis of a compromise rather than a contested adjudication?
- Whether all persons mentioned in a Nikahnama must be examined in court to establish a valid marriage?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts can be set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground of misreading of evidence?
- Rashid vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2385 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-06-14Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ali vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi through Chairman1992 PLC 304 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-12-01Read full judgment →