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.
- Master Majeed vs Mst. Mulmah and 2 others1992 CLC 13 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
- Master Bilawal Ali Zardari vs K.D.A. And Other S1992 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-25Read full judgment →
- Marson (Inspector of Taxes) vs Morton (Brian) Same v. Morton1992 PTD 1224 · Chancery DivisionRead full judgment →
- Maroof Jan vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 147 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
- Market Committee Khudian through its Administrator vs Town1992 SCMR 1403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals by leave of the Court are directed against various judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning the alleged conflict between the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Ordinance, 1978 and the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 regarding the establishment of markets. The core legal question was whether the later enactment impliedly repealed the earlier special law or whether both statutes could operate harmoniously. The Supreme Court held that the rule of implied repeal by a subsequent statute does not apply here because the agricultural produce market legislation encompasses a much wider field, whereas the local government law touches only a limited sphere, and the legislative history shows that both subjects were re-enacted from time to time without intent to repeal the special protective framework. The Court further held that a governing notification of 1975 under the former act remained operative, requiring government sanction for establishing new markets within a notified market area. Consequently, the impugned judgments of the High Court were set aside and the appeals were allowed, establishing that Market Committees maintain their specialized jurisdiction over agricultural produce markets notwithstanding local council provisions.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 impliedly repealed the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978?
- Can a town committee establish a parallel market within the notified market area of a Market Committee without government sanction?
- What is the effect of conflicting provisions between general local government legislation and special agricultural market legislation?
- Maqsood Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 401 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Pervez Bhatti vs Textile Machinery Company (Pvt) Ltd. and another1992 PLC 387 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-09-08Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Hussain vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mirpur and 31992 CLC 2203 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the High Court's judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by a Mangla Dam affectee regarding the allotment of a disputed plot. The core legal questions involved whether the disputed plot could be treated as an 'awkward piece' of land under the relevant rules and whether the Chairman of the Municipal Committee had the authority to allot or merge such land, or if that power rested exclusively with the Committee. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that a piece of land capable of being utilized as a separate plot cannot be deemed an 'awkward piece', and further ruled that even an awkward piece of land can only be disposed of by the Committee, not by the Chairman alone. The Court established the key principles that statutory powers regarding land disposal must be strictly construed according to the governing rules, and that an applicant has sufficient personal interest to maintain a writ petition if the unlawful performance of official duties results in the loss of a potential benefit or advantage.
Questions settled- Whether a piece of land capable of being formed into a separate plot can be treated as an awkward piece of land under the Mirpur Municipal Committee Regulations for Development and Disposal of Plots/Estates, 1985?
- Does the Chairman of the Municipal Committee have the authority to dispose of or merge an awkward piece of land, or is that power vested solely in the Committee?
- What constitutes sufficient personal interest for a person to maintain a writ petition as an aggrieved party?
- Whether the regularization of encroachments under Rule 16 applies to awkward pieces of land?
- Maqsood Ahmad Sohail vs Mst. Abida Hanif and 2 others1992 MLD 219 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 822 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-07Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Hussain Tahir vs S.H.O., P.S. Nila, Tehsil and District Chakwal1992 CLC 1303 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-15Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Hussain alias Maqbool Ahmad vs Jamal Din and 7 others1992 CLC 178 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Akhtar Alias Kaku vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1103 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmed Shah vs The State11992 P Cr. L J 48 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, by a Special Court. The core legal questions concerned the legality of the appellant's prolonged detention by the Pakistan Rangers without production before a Magistrate, and the validity of the recovery of arms conducted in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that while the appellant’s wrongful detention for twenty-three days violated Article 10 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 and Sections 60 and 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, such illegality did not render the subsequent trial before a court of law invalid. However, the Court acquitted the appellant, ruling that the failure to associate independent, respectable witnesses from the locality as Mashirs, as mandated by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rendered the recovery evidence unreliable. The judgment affirmed that the prosecution must prove its case independently, and a conviction cannot be sustained upon the weakness of the defense or flawed investigative procedures.
Questions settled- Does an illegal arrest or wrongful detention by law enforcement agencies invalidate a subsequent trial before a court of law?
- Is the failure to associate independent, local witnesses as Mashirs during a search fatal to the prosecution's case regarding the recovery of incriminating items?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the weakness of the defense case?
- Maqbool Ahmed Lehri, Ex-Mayor, Municipal . Corporation, Quetta vs _Government of Balochistan Through Secretary LocalPL D 1992 Quetta 47 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmed Fateh Ally and others vs The Collector, District1992 SCMR 2342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves nine appeals against a High Court judgment upholding land acquisition compensation awards for lands acquired for an industrial estate. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the appellants' produced sale-deeds in favor of revenue record mutations and whether the compensation adequately reflected the land's potential value. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court correctly preferred revenue records over the appellants' specific sale-deeds—which involved small, developed plots near a highway, unlike the bulk, undeveloped land acquired—the valuation required adjustment to account for the land's future potentiality. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals in part, increasing the compensation rate by Rs. 2,000 per acre, alongside statutory interest and acquisition charges. The judgment affirms that determining market value under the Land Acquisition Act requires an objective assessment of evidence, where courts may reject sale-deeds if they do not represent comparable transactions. Furthermore, it establishes that while mutation entries are standard, courts must consider the land's potential use and future prospects, rather than relying solely on historical sales or unrepresentative data.
Questions settled- Can a court prefer mutation entries in revenue records over registered sale-deeds when determining the market value of acquired land?
- Is it permissible to reject sale-deeds as evidence of market value if the lands in those deeds are not comparable to the bulk land acquired?
- Must the potential future use of acquired land be considered when determining the compensation payable to landowners?
- Mohammad Nasim Butt vs Mahmoodul Hassan1992 CLC 767 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad vs L.D.A. and 15 others1992 CLC 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad Alias Kooli And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2256 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-22Read full judgment →
- Manzoor vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1374 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-bis-Sabab following the death of a person by electrocution from a water tank. The core legal question was whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the prosecution's argument that the act might actually constitute an offence under Section 301 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a heavier penalty. The Court held that since the police challan was submitted under Section 322, it could not presume the offence fell under Section 301 at the bail stage. The Court determined that the offence under Section 322 does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and even if the prosecution's alternative theory were considered, it would constitute a matter for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail. The key principle established is that the court should not stretch the law in favour of the prosecution at the bail stage, especially when the prosecution's own challan classifies the offence as non-prohibitory.
Questions settled- Does an offence punishable by Diyat under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court, at the bail stage, reclassify an offence from the section cited in the police challan to a more serious section based on the prosecution's arguments?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception where an offence is non-bailable but does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Manzoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 460 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-07Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs Zahoor Ahmed and 4 others1992 SCMR 1191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through leave of the Court arose from a inheritance dispute wherein the appellant's legitimacy as the son of the deceased from a valid Muslim wedlock was decided against him by the lower courts. The core legal question concerned the proof of valid marriage and legitimacy in light of documentary and oral evidence, particularly where the mother had a past as a prostitute. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgments, holding that the lower courts erred by leaning towards stigmization rather than legitimacy, ignoring the possibility of repentance (Tauba) and leading a normal married life, and failing to properly appreciate the abundant documentary evidence creating probabilities in favour of legitimacy as per Islamic jurisprudential principles. The key principles laid down are that Islamic jurisprudence leans heavily in favour of legitimization rather than stigmization, that a woman with a past as a prostitute can reform through Tauba and enter a valid marriage, and that documentary probabilities supported by continuous recognition must be given due weight over strict direct evidence of marriage.
Questions settled- Whether courts should lean in favour of legitimization rather than stigmization in Muslim family law disputes?
- Can a woman with a past as a prostitute contract a valid Muslim marriage after repentance (Tauba)?
- How should documentary evidence and continuous recognition be evaluated to prove legitimacy under Islamic legal principles?
- Manzoor Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 155 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs Raja Shah and others,1992 CLC 602 · Board of Revenue · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises from a dispute over a gift mutation of landed property. The donor (respondent No. 1) gifted land to his son (petitioner) and daughter (respondent No. 2) via Mutation No. 785. Subsequently, the donor sought to revoke the gift, claiming it did not align with Shariat Law shares and that the daughter had not accepted the gift. The Board of Revenue addressed whether a completed gift, where possession has been transferred, can be unilaterally revoked by the donor. The Board held that once possession is delivered, a gift to a son cannot be revoked except under specific legal exceptions, none of which applied here. It was further held that the donor's desire to redistribute shares according to Shariat Law does not constitute a valid ground for revocation once the gift is complete. However, the Board found that the gift to the daughter was incomplete due to lack of acceptance and possession, allowing revocation only to that extent. The principle established is that a completed gift involving delivery of possession cannot be revoked by the donor without a court decree.
Questions settled- Can a donor unilaterally revoke a gift of land after the delivery of possession has been completed?
- Is a gift to a son revocable on the grounds that the donor intended to distribute the property according to Shariat Law shares?
- Does the absence of the donee at the time of mutation attestation invalidate a gift if possession was otherwise transferred?
- Under what circumstances can a completed gift be revoked under Islamic Law?
- Manzoor Hussain vs District Collector Sahiwal and 3 others1992 CLC 246 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain and others vs Aziz Anwar Hussain and others1992 CLC 1192 · Board of Revenue · 1991-10-27Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ali And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2330 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-08Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed vs S.H.O. and others-1992 P Cr. L J 2236 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-29Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed vs Razia Khatoon and others1992 CLC 1331 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-24Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1478 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-11Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 561 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application was filed by the petitioner, Manzoor Ahmad, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was charged with causing a fatal injury, distinguishing his case from co-accused who had previously been granted bail. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the specific attribution of a fatal injury, given the existence of two conflicting versions of the occurrence and allegations of partial investigation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the incident appeared to have flared up suddenly without premeditation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to substantiate claims that injuries sustained by the petitioner's mother were unrelated to the incident. Emphasizing the principle that the suppression of injuries on the accused party warrants further inquiry, the Court granted bail, concluding that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, thereby entitling him to the concession of bail.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party entitle them to the concession of bail?
- Is bail appropriate when there are two conflicting versions of an occurrence and the investigation appears partial?
- Can an accused be granted bail even if a fatal injury is specifically attributed to them, provided the incident lacked premeditation?
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Sindh Labour Court No.VII, Sukkur and another1992 PLC 673 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Razia Khatoon And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 182 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-24Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Mst. Akhtar Begum and 2 others1992 CLC 520 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 347 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Manzoor A. Yousufani and 11 others vs Registrar, Trade Unions, Sindh1992 PLC 820 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Raza Zaidi vs Chief Secretary And Another(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 120) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Alias Mansab vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 178 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
- Mango Alias Manthar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1963 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
- Mandhi Khan vs Province of Punjab through Collector Faisalabad1992 CLC 1577 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-24Read full judgment →
- Manazir Hussain Shah vs Superintendent of Jail, Lahore1992 P Cr. L J 1406 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Manager, Indus Dyeing and Manufacturing Co., Hyderabad vs Muhammad Suleman ,1992 PLC 953 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
- Manager, Forest Operation (Malakand Circle) vs Muhammad Zaman1992 PLD Peshawar 173 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Malla And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
- Malik Taj Muhammad and anothers vs Bibi Jano and 25 others1992 SCMR 1431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan examining the correctness of a Balochistan High Court judgment holding that the High Court lacked writ jurisdiction over tribal areas where the disputed land was situated. The appellants had originally instituted a civil suit under the Frontier Crimes Regulations in 1958 concerning land ownership and an injunction against digging a Karez. A Jirga found in favor of the appellants, leading to a decree by the Additional District Magistrate. Unbeknownst to the appellants, a revision was subsequently allowed by the Additional Commissioner holding that the land belonged to the State. The appellants challenged this order via a Constitution Petition in 1979 upon discovering it. The Supreme Court considered constitutional provisions and historical instruments regarding the extension of laws and jurisdiction to tribal areas, along with the location of the cause of action. The Court held that the subject matter and substantial cause of action were located within the tribal area where the property and rights existed, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction at the relevant time in 1960. Furthermore, the impugned order did not cause prejudice as it left open the remedy of a civil suit against the State. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 in matters concerning tribal areas where the subject matter and substantial cause of action are located within such areas?
- Does an order passed without notice to a party warrant being set aside if no actual prejudice has been caused to the aggrieved party?
- What is the effect of historical constitutional instruments and enactments on the extension and restriction of superior court jurisdiction in the tribal areas of Balochistan?
- Malik Rais Khan vs Abdul Manan and another1992 SCMR 1822 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that affirmed a decree for possession through redemption of mortgaged land. The petitioner contended that the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964, impliedly barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain redemption suits, citing Sections 7 and 17 of the Act. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, affirming that Civil Courts possess inherent jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to try all suits of a civil nature unless explicitly barred by statute. The Court held that the Act provides an additional, summary remedy for specific types of mortgages but does not extinguish the right to file a regular redemption suit under the Transfer of Property Act. The jurisdictional bar under Section 17 of the Act is limited to proceedings concerning the restitution of mortgages under Chapter III. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Civil Courts maintained jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's suit, finding no legal infirmity in the lower courts' decisions.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964, impliedly bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try suits for the redemption of mortgages?
- Is the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suits for redemption of mortgages excluded by the existence of summary remedies under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964?
- Does the jurisdictional bar under Section 17 of the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964, apply to all redemption suits or only to matters under Chapter III?
- Malik Pir Bakhsh and others vs Ali Muhammad1992 SCMR 1031 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals regarding the interpretation of pre-emption rights granted to tenants under Martial Law Regulation No. 115, specifically the temporal meaning of the phrase "as from Kharif." The core legal questions addressed whether a tenant who became an owner before the Kharif season could claim pre-emption rights, the exact commencement date of the Kharif season in Punjab and N.-W.F.P., and whether a failure to timely rectify court-fee deficiencies necessitates the dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The Supreme Court, relying on established precedents, held that a tenant who acquired ownership status prior to the vesting of the right under the Regulation could not claim pre-emption as a tenant. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that the Kharif season commences on May 1st in the relevant provinces and that a failure to make up court-fee deficiencies does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a suit. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the sales in question were subject to pre-emption claims.
Questions settled- When does the Kharif season begin in the Punjab and N.-W.F.P. for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Can a person who ceased to be a tenant by becoming an owner before the enforcement of a law granting pre-emption rights to tenants invoke those rights?
- Does the failure to make up a deficiency in court-fee automatically render a pre-emption suit liable to dismissal?
- Malik Pir Bakhsh And Other vs Ali MuhammadK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals addressed the interpretation of the expression 'as from Kharif a tenant shall have the first right of pre-emption in respect of the land comprised in tenancy' under Martial Law Regulation No. 115, specifically determining the exact point in time when the Kharif season begins in the Punjab and whether a tenant who became an owner prior to the crucial date could invoke erstwhile tenancy rights to defeat a pre-emption suit. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and restoring the decrees of the first appellate court. Relying on settled precedents, the Court held that a vendee who ceased to be a tenant before the relevant date by acquiring ownership cannot claim pre-emption rights as a tenant, that pre-emption suits are not liable to dismissal solely due to delayed deficiency in court-fees under the established standards, and reaffirmed that the Kharif season in the Punjab begins on the 1st of May.
Questions settled- What does the expression 'as from Kharif a tenant shall have the first right of pre-emption' imply in exact point of time for pre-emption purposes?
- Can a tenant who ceased to be a tenant before Kharif by becoming an owner invoke their erstwhile tenancy to defeat a pre-emption suit?
- When does the Kharif season exactly begin in point of time in the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province?
- Under what circumstances can a plaintiff's pre-emption suit be defeated on the ground of failure to make up a deficiency in court-fee?
- Malik Niamat Ali vs Muhammad Arshad And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1129 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
- Malik Nazar Muhammad vs The District Council And1992 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Ismail and others vs Settlement Commissioner and another1992 CLC 282 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Land) which canceled an allotment of agricultural land previously granted to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Ajaz Din. The land had originally been granted to the respondent, a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir, as a maintenance grant. The petitioners argued that the respondent’s appeal against the allotment was time-barred and that the land was part of the compensation pool. The Court held that land granted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees for maintenance purposes was excluded from the compensation pool and vested in the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs. Consequently, the Settlement Authorities lacked jurisdiction to allot such land to third parties. The Court further ruled that the original allotment to Ajaz Din was void ab initio, as it was made without notice to the respondent, violating the principles of natural justice. It was established that where an order is void for lack of notice, the plea of limitation is unsustainable. Furthermore, factual contentions not raised before the Settlement Authorities cannot be introduced for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can Settlement Authorities cancel a maintenance grant allotment made to a Jammu and Kashmir refugee?
- Does the principle of natural justice render an allotment order passed without notice void ab initio?
- Can a plea of limitation be sustained against an order that is void ab initio for lack of notice?
- Can a question of fact not raised before the Settlement Authorities be agitated for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Malik Muhammad Ilyas vs Khawaja Muhammad Younas1992 CLC 526 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenged an order of the Additional District Judge, which upheld the Rent Controller's decision to strike off the appellant's defense for failing to deposit rent as directed. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller possessed jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition despite the appellant's claim that the premises constituted an industrial concern outside the scope of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether the defense was properly struck off. The Court held that the Rent Controller acted within jurisdiction, as the tenancy agreement concerned a building, not a pre-existing factory. The Court affirmed that the Rent Controller was justified in striking off the defense upon the tenant's failure to comply with the rent deposit order. Additionally, the Court clarified that an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-payment of court-fees without the court first determining the exact amount payable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision on the merits regarding the rent deposit.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defense for failure to deposit rent as ordered?
- Does the Rent Controller have jurisdiction over premises if a tenant claims they are an industrial concern?
- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-payment of court-fees without the court calculating the exact amount payable?
- Malik Mazharul Haq vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Education Department and 5 others1992 SCMR 2386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Service Tribunal judgment concerning the provincialization of teachers under the West Pakistan Local Councils High Schools (Taking Over) Ordinance, 1970. The appellant, a teacher transferred from a Local Council to the Government, contended that he was entitled to be treated at par with general cadre Government teachers, arguing that the creation of a separate "self-diminishing sub-cadre" for transferred staff discriminated against them regarding promotion prospects. The core legal question was whether the Government possessed the authority to place transferred employees into separate sub-cadres rather than merging them into the general Government cadre. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Government acted within its competence. The Court affirmed that the Ordinance vested the Government with the power to determine service terms not explicitly preserved. It ruled that there is no legal bar to maintaining transferred staff in separate cadres, and employees possess no vested right to specific promotion prospects or to the enlargement of such prospects upon provincialization. The decision establishes that administrative categorization of transferred civil servants into distinct sub-cadres is a valid exercise of governmental authority.
Questions settled- Can the Government create a separate 'self-diminishing sub-cadre' for teachers transferred from Local Councils to Government service?
- Does the provincialization of service under the West Pakistan Local Councils High Schools (Taking Over) Ordinance, 1970, grant employees a vested right to be merged into the general Government cadre?
- Does a civil servant have a vested right to a specific prospect of promotion?
- Malik Khuda Bakhsh vs Mst. Sharifan Begum1992 MLD 221 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-29Read full judgment →
- Malik Khan Afsar vs The State And 3 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-12-23Read full judgment →
- Malik Jamal Educational Society and anothers vs Syed Shamim Ahmed1992 CLC 1111 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
- Malik Islam Akber vs Mustafa Hussain1992 CLC 1753 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant landlord's rent application for the eviction of the respondent tenant from a commercial shop on the ground of bona fide personal requirement for his son. The core legal questions involved whether the landlord established a genuine and bona fide personal need, the impact of the suppression of material facts such as the possession of other commercial premises, and whether a stipulation in a lease agreement barring eviction except for default overrides statutory eviction rights. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant failed to prove his bona fide requirement, having concealed material facts regarding previous litigation and the possession of other shops, and having rented out another shop during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court affirmed that while statutory rights of a landlord under rent laws cannot be permanently nullified by a restrictive covenant in a lease agreement, the landlord must nevertheless establish genuine good faith and clean hands, which the appellant failed to do. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a landlord seek ejectment on the ground of personal requirement without establishing good faith and clean hands?
- Does the suppression of material facts regarding other properties owned or possessed by a landlord adversely affect a claim of bona fide requirement?
- Whether a stipulation in a lease agreement barring eviction on grounds other than default can completely nullify a landlord's statutory right to seek ejectment.
- Does the renting out of another property by the landlord during the pendency of eviction proceedings militate against the bona fides of the personal requirement claim?
- Malik Hasiiim Din and others vs F\Shir Ahmad1992 CLC 754 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the appellate judgment and decree which had reversed the trial court's decision in favor of the petitioners in a suit for possession through demolition. The core legal question concerned whether the transfer of a specific evacuee property (a chaubara) carried with it the roof of an independently transferred neighboring property (a shop) as its courtyard, and whether easement rights could be established over evacuee property through user. The Lahore High Court held that independent evacuee properties remain distinct, and the transfer of one specific property does not include parts of another unless explicitly mentioned in the transfer documents. Furthermore, rights of easement over government or evacuee property cannot be acquired by a user of less than sixty years. The Court concluded that the lower appellate court misread the record, and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment, restoring the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of a single-storeyed evacuee property include ownership rights extending to its roof?
- Can the transferee of one specified evacuee property claim a portion of another property as part of their transfer without explicit mention in the transfer document?
- What is the requisite period of continuous use required to acquire a right of easement over evacuee property?
- Does the absence of a staircase leading directly to the roof of a shop deprive the owner of their rights over the roof?
- Malik Anjum Farooq Paracha vs Manzur Ul Haq And 5 Other1992 PLD Lahore 444 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were directed to execute bail bonds for their appearance following the issuance of non-bailable warrants upon a private complaint under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on facts identical to a previously dismissed pre-arrest bail matter. The core legal questions involved whether a subsequent court can entertain and grant bail on the same facts after a prior court of concurrent jurisdiction has refused pre-arrest bail, and whether powers under section 91, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked to bypass the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that successive applications on similar facts must be heard by the same court or appropriately referred, and that bail cannot be granted mechanically under section 91 without considering the restrictive conditions of section 497 for capital offences. The court recalled the impugned bail order and directed the immediate arrest of the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether a successive bail application or relief on identical facts can be granted by a different judge when a prior pre-arrest bail has already been dismissed?
- Do the restrictive conditions for the grant of bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when directing execution of appearance bonds under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the proper judicial procedure when a subsequent complaint involving the same facts and offences comes before a judge who did not hear the earlier bail application?
- Malik Abdur Rahim And Another vs Anayatullah Khan And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 251 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Malak Muhammad Khan vs Inspectorgeneral of Police and others1992 SCMR 1136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his reversion from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police to Assistant Sub-Inspector as time-barred. The reversion order was passed following departmental proceedings on charges of corruption and inefficiency. After exhausting departmental appeals up to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the petitioner made a further representation to the Inspector-General of Police before approaching the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing a second departmental appeal or representation not provided for by the rules could be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that since the applicable rules only provide for a single appeal and the order of the appellate authority is final, the time spent on an incompetent further representation to the Inspector-General of Police cannot be excluded when computing limitation. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the time spent on a second departmental appeal or representation not provided for under the relevant rules can be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Does Rule 13(b) of the Sindh Police (E&D) Rules, 1983 permit more than one departmental appeal against an original order?
- Is an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal beyond the prescribed period of limitation, excluding the time spent on incompetent departmental representations, liable to be dismissed as time-barred?
- Major Pervez Shakoor Und 4 Other vs Muhammad UsmanK.L.R.1992 Civil Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-02Read full judgment →
- Major (Retd.) Sattar Muhammad vs N.W.F. Province through the Chief1992 SCMR 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of a constitutional petition challenging the termination of service of a former Director of the Agricultural Development Authority, N.-W.F.P. The appellant had previously been convicted by a Military Summary Court on embezzlement charges, though later granted a pardon by the Deputy Martial Law Administrator and reinstated. Subsequently, his services were terminated upon directions of the Governor/Martial Law Administrator, which was later approved by the Board of Directors. The core legal issue was whether the High Court erred in refusing to grant discretionary relief under its constitutional jurisdiction despite potential procedural deficiencies in the termination order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, holding that the High Court properly exercised its discretion in withholding constitutional relief due to the background of corruption and embezzlement allegations. The Court held that discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction may be declined based on conduct and factual background, and as no violation of law was established, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can refuse discretionary relief in constitutional jurisdiction based on a petitioner's past record of corruption even if pardoned by competent authorities?
- Whether the subsequent approval of a termination order by a competent Board of Directors can remedy an initial termination directive?
- Majeed Nizami and another vs Dil Muhammad Khan1992 PLC 814 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodul Hassan vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodul Haque alias Mooda and 4 others vs The State and others1992 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against convictions and sentences for triple murder and related offences, alongside a State appeal against an acquittal. The appellants were convicted by a Special Court for Speedy Trial for the murders of three individuals, allegedly motivated by a long-standing land dispute. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution sufficiently established the charges of conspiracy and abetment against the co-accused, and whether the ocular evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the principal accused. The Court held that while the ocular account and motive evidence were overwhelming against the principal accused, Mahmoodul Haque, the evidence regarding the alleged conspiracy and abetment by the other appellants was vague, unreliable, and failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction of the principal accused but acquitted the co-accused, granting them the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that charges of conspiracy and abetment require clear, credible, and independent evidence, and cannot be sustained on vague, interested, or shaky testimony.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for conspiracy and abetment be sustained based solely on the testimony of interested witnesses when the evidence is vague and lacks corroboration?
- Is the absence of independent witnesses from the locality sufficient to discard the ocular account of a murder in a daylight occurrence?
- Does the failure to prove conspiracy against co-accused necessarily invalidate the conviction of the principal accused if the ocular evidence against the principal is overwhelming?
- Mahmooda Begum vs Distt. Magistrate EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 103 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Sabir Fani vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 219 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mahmood alias Moodi vs The State1992 SCMR 1580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction and death sentence for murder. The petitioner, along with his co-accused, was convicted by the trial court for murder and related offences, with the conviction and sentences largely upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive for the crime necessitates the imposition of the lesser sentence of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had successfully established the petitioner's guilt through credible ocular and medical evidence, and that the petitioner's own defence was implausible. While the Court affirmed the conviction, it granted leave to appeal specifically to examine whether the absence of a proven motive warrants a commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment, in light of established precedents regarding sentencing discretion in the absence of motive.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive for a murder necessitate the imposition of the lesser sentence of life imprisonment?
- Is the non-proof of motive fatal to the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of ocular and medical evidence when the motive remains unproven?
- Mahmood Akhtar vs The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil suit for damages for malicious prosecution initiated by the petitioner against the respondents, following the petitioner's earlier acquittal in a criminal case. The petitioner, having failed in his suit for malicious prosecution, sought leave to appeal against the High Court's decision. The core legal question was whether an acquittal based on the extension of the benefit of doubt in a criminal case provides a sufficient legal basis to sustain a subsequent claim for malicious prosecution. The Supreme Court, relying on established precedents including Sher Hassan v. The State, Sadafuzzaman v. The State, and Government of the Punjab v. Slamat Ali Khan, held that an acquittal granted due to the benefit of doubt does not automatically imply that the prosecution witnesses acted with malice or committed perjury. Consequently, the Court found no justification for granting leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the mere extension of the benefit of doubt to an accused in a criminal trial is insufficient to establish the element of malice required to succeed in a subsequent civil action for malicious prosecution.
Questions settled- Does an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt constitute sufficient grounds for a claim of malicious prosecution?
- Can prosecution witnesses be held to have perjured themselves solely because an accused was acquitted due to the benefit of doubt?
- Mahboob Khan and 3 others vs The State and 4 others1992 PLD Shariat Court (AJ&K) 7 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
- Mahboob Hussain vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mirpur and 41992 M L D78 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mahboob Ali Butt vs Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Deputy Settlement1992 PLD Supreme Court 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from leave to appeal granted against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appellant's constitutional petition in limine, upholding the resumption and cancellation of a residual property transfer. The core legal question concerns whether a succeeding administrative officer of limited jurisdiction could reopen and cancel a transfer order on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation without clear proof thereof. The Supreme Court held that the succeeding officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the final transfer order because the alleged fraud or misrepresentation was not established, and prior administrative proceedings against family members did not disentitle the appellant as a legitimate claimant. The Court laid down the principle that the jurisdiction of a succeeding officer of limited jurisdiction to reopen an order passed by a predecessor or officer of coordinate jurisdiction is strictly contingent upon the clear establishment of fraud or misrepresentation.
Questions settled- Whether a succeeding administrative officer of limited jurisdiction can reopen an order passed by a predecessor without established proof of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Does the prior transfer of a property to a family member under settlement schemes legally disentitle another family member from applying for residual property?
- Can a finding of fraud and misrepresentation by a tribunal be sustained without identifying the specific fraudulent acts committed?
- Maharani Rajlakshini Kumari Devi vs Commissioner of Wealth-Tax.PTCL 1992 FC.195 · Calcutta High Court · 1990-02-23Read full judgment →
- Mahadeo Prasad Rais by his Legal Heirs vs Income-Tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Gorakhpur and another1992 PTD 483 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-09-12Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Nawaz And Other vs Pir Bakhsh And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 52 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1992-08-07Read full judgment →
- Madrissa Darul Uloom Al-Baqiat-- Ul-Salehat Registered vs The Additional District Judge (Appellate Court) And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant religious institution's constitution petition. The appellant had leased two shops to the respondent, who subsequently defaulted on rent and was met with an eviction application before the Rent Controller. The respondent contested the eviction, claiming the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist and alleging that the property belonged to the Lahore Development Authority rather than the appellant or Auqaf Department. While the Rent Controller ordered ejectment, the lower appellate court reversed this finding, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition. The core legal question concerned whether a tenant, after taking premises on rent, can challenge the landlord's title. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a tenant who admits being inducted under a written agreement cannot challenge the landlord's title without first surrendering possession. The key principle laid down is that a tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title during the subsistence of the tenancy unless possession is first surrendered, subject to the application of special rent restriction laws.
Questions settled- Can a tenant who admits being inducted under a written agreement challenge the title of the landlord without first surrendering possession?
- Does a tenant's denial of a landlord's title entail forfeiture under the general law?
- How does the rule of estoppel regarding a tenant and landlord apply under special rent restriction laws?
- Madgul Udyog vs Commissioner of Income TaxPTCL 1992 CL. 64 · Calcutta High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
- Madeline Kathleen Ahmed And Another vs Mohammad Khalid QureshiK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 192 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Madah Hussain And 45 Another vs Talib Hussain and others-1992 P Cr. L J 809 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-01Read full judgment →
- Madad Ali. vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1992 CLC 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-25Read full judgment →
- MacKINLAY (Inspector of Taxes) vs Arthur Young Mcclelland Moores1991 PTD 136 · Court of Appeals · 1988-01-29Read full judgment →
- MacKINLAY (Inspector of Taxes) vs Arthur Young McCLELLAND Moores & Co_ (Copy)1992 PTD 1312 · House of LordsRead full judgment →
- Machinno N Mackenzie & Company (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Commissioner of1992 PTD 1359 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
- Ma.H. Siddiqui vs Sh. Fazlur Rehman and others1992 SCMR 2391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, granted leave by the Supreme Court, challenged a Sindh High Court judgment that dismissed a First Rent Appeal, confirming an ejectment order based on personal requirement while setting aside a finding of default. The respondents had sought ejectment for a portion of a tenement, claiming bona fide requirement for their business. The appellant contended that the respondents had sufficient accommodation, including premises recently acquired from another tenant (EBCO), and were demolishing parts of the property for new construction. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents failed to effectively cross-examine the appellant regarding the sufficiency of their existing and newly acquired accommodation (approximately 700 sq. yds. from EBCO) for their personal requirements. Finding conflicting statements and a lack of substantive proof to conclusively establish bona fide personal requirement, the Court set aside the judgments of both the High Court and the Controller. The case was remanded to the Controller for a fresh hearing on the issue of personal requirement, with directions to record further evidence if produced by the parties and then decide the case according to law.
Questions settled- Can a case be remanded to the Controller for further evidence when there is insufficient proof of bona fide personal requirement?
- Does the acquisition of additional premises by a landlord impact the assessment of their bona fide personal requirement for ejectment?
- What is the effect of conflicting statements and lack of substantive proof on a finding of bona fide personal requirement in an ejectment case?
- m.v. Kaptan Yousuf Kalkavan vs Semco Salvage PTD Ltd.1992 CLC 143 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court allowing applications for amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in an admiralty suit filed for the recovery of salvage remuneration. The core legal questions involve whether a plaintiff can amend a plaint to substitute the original basis of the claim with a subsequent arbitration award obtained during the pendency of the suit, and whether such amendments change the cause of action and prejudice the defendants. The Balochistan High Court held that while arbitration awards can be used as a piece of evidence to substantiate a claim during the trial, an amendment cannot be allowed if it introduces a new cause of action, alters the fundamental complexion of the suit, substitutes the basis of the claim entirely with an arbitration award, or enhances the claim based on fluctuating foreign exchange rates. The key principle laid down is that amendments to pleadings which change the cause of action, introduce a new case, or prejudice the opposing party by relying on an intervening arbitration award as the sole basis of the suit cannot be permitted under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can amend a plaint during the pendency of a civil suit to substitute the original claim with a subsequent arbitration award?
- Does an amendment that introduces an arbitration award as the primary basis of the suit change the cause of action and prejudice the defendant?
- Can a plaintiff enhance the claimed monetary amount in a suit by altering the foreign exchange conversion rate based on an intervening arbitration award?
- What are the governing principles and limitations for allowing amendments to pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- M.R.Najmi .Petitioner vs The Registrar, Federal Shariat Court, Islamabad1992 PLD Lahore 302 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former employee of the Federal Shariat Court, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Registrar of the Federal Shariat Court to place his service appeal before a three-member bench as required by the Federal Shariat Court (Terms and Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1982. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the Federal Shariat Court or its Registrar regarding internal service matters. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that, given the constitutional status of the Federal Shariat Court, the specific jurisdiction assigned to it under Chapter 3-A of the Constitution, and the principle of comity between superior courts, it would be inappropriate to issue a writ of mandamus to the Federal Shariat Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere in the internal administrative or judicial functions of the Federal Shariat Court, as the petitioner had other avenues to pursue his grievance.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the Federal Shariat Court regarding its internal administrative matters?
- Is the Federal Shariat Court amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a High Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Registrar of the Federal Shariat Court to place a service appeal before a specific bench?
- M.O. Qureshi (Late) and others vs Abdul Rahman (Late) and others1992 PLC 1277 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
- M.C.Faisalabad vs Punjab Labour Court No.4, Etc(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 15) · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
- M.C.Faisalabad vs Niamat Masih Etc(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 18) · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
- M.C. Faisalabad vs Mst. Allah Rakhi Etc(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 17) · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
- M. Saeed Shad vs S.H.O.1992 P Cr. L J 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-24Read full judgment →
- M. Osman- vs Tajamul Hussain And Another1992 PLD Karachi 173 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal revision applications challenging the acquittal of the respondent, granted by a Special Court (Offences in Banks) following the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether the trial court failed to provide cogent reasons for allowing the withdrawal, whether a direct complaint must be adjudicated before a state-challaned case, and whether the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was properly invoked. The Court held that the trial court acted within its discretion, as it had applied its mind to the facts and ensured that the withdrawal was not an attempt to interfere with the course of justice. The Court affirmed that while it possesses broad supervisory powers, the trial court's decision to grant consent for withdrawal was based on sufficient material and proper judicial exercise. The key principle laid down is that while Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides no specific guidelines, the trial court must independently assess whether the withdrawal serves the public interest and does not obstruct the administration of justice.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a direct complaint create a legal bar to the withdrawal of a case challaned by the state?
- Is a trial court required to provide cogent reasons when granting consent to a public prosecutor to withdraw a prosecution under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the High Court have the power to revise an order of acquittal passed under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a person who is not a witness or party in the police challan maintain a revision application against an order of acquittal?
- M. Iftikhar & Co. Limited vs Uzinexportimport Enterprises and others1992 CLC 788 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
- M. Hameedullah Khan vs Director of Customs Intelligence and 3 others.PTCL 1992 CL. 172 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
- M. Hameedullah Khan vs Director Customs Intelligence and 3 others1992 CLC 57 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the detention of an imported consignment of iron scrap at Karachi port by the Customs Intelligence Department, where the consignment was meant for transhipment to the Dry Port at Lahore. The core legal question was whether the Karachi customs authorities had the jurisdiction to detain imported cargo meant for an inland dry port when instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue under Customs General Order No. 15/1989 prohibited such detention at the port of transhipment if the address of the party to be notified on the Bill of Lading indicated an upcountry destination. The Sindh High Court held that since the Bill of Lading was duly amended under section 45 of the Customs Act to show an upcountry notifying party at Lahore, the Karachi authorities lacked jurisdiction to detain the goods. The court laid down the principle that under Customs General Order No. 15/1989, cargo destined for an inland dry port must be allowed transhipment, and any information regarding suspected contraventions or misdeclarations must instead be forwarded to the customs authorities at the destination dry port for necessary action.
Questions settled- Whether customs authorities at a port of entry have jurisdiction to detain imported cargo meant for transhipment to an inland dry port when the Bill of Lading indicates an upcountry destination?
- What is the procedure to be followed by customs agencies at a port of entry upon receiving information regarding misdeclarations in cargo meant for an inland dry port?
- Does the absence of shipping marks on a consignment deprive it of the protections afforded to transhipment cargo under Customs General Order No. 15 of 1989?
- M Noor vs Karachi Sheraton Hotel1992 PLC 363 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-09-09Read full judgment →
- Lutchmeeparsad Badry vs Director of Public Prosecutions1992 SCMR 1551 · The Privy Council of EnglandRead full judgment →
- Lubrizol India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax ,1992 PTD 771 · Bombay High Court · 1990-07-11Read full judgment →
- Lt.Col. Sarfraz Khan Malik vs Border Area Allotment Committe and others1992 CLC 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →