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.
- Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi Tameerat Limited vs Karachi1992 PLD Supreme Court 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These cross-appeals arise from a judgment of the High Court Division Bench modifying an award made a rule of the court regarding a construction contract dispute between Karachi Transport Corporation and Karachi Tameerat Limited. The core legal question concerned the correct method and percentage for calculating overhead expenses awarded to a contractor as damages for abnormal project delays caused by the employer. The Supreme Court held that where an employer causes a delay, the contractor is entitled to overhead expenses calculated as a percentage of the total contract value for the specific period of default, but flat rates like ten percent or specific formulas such as Hudson's formula cannot be applied blindly without evidence as they often include profit. The ratio laid down is that in the absence of cogent evidence proving actual loss, it is safe to restrict the overhead claim to five percent of the total contract value for the period of delay attributable strictly to the employer.
Questions settled- Whether a contractor is entitled to overhead expenses as damages for project delays caused by the employer?
- Can Hudson's formula for calculating offsite overheads and profit be universally applied without proper evidence?
- What is the correct basis for calculating overhead expenses on a percentage basis when an employer causes a delay in a construction contract?
- Karachi Transport Corporation vs Abdul Aziz and another1992 PLC 1142 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
- Karachi Sheraton Hotel vs Presiding Officer, Iiird Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and another1992 PLC 1207 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
- Karachi Port Trust vs Abdul Karim1992 PLC 1175 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-08-28Read full judgment →
- Karachi Port Trust Progressive Workers Union vs Registrar, Trade(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 176) · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Karachi Pipe Mills Limited vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1992 CLC 1668 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
- Karachi Pipe Mills Employees Union, Karachi vs Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd., Karachi1992 SCMR 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh concerning the maintainability of an application filed by a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the enforcement of overtime payment rights guaranteed to workmen under section 47 of the Factories Act. The core legal question was whether a CBA is empowered to initiate proceedings under section 34 of the Ordinance on behalf of workers for the enforcement of rights guaranteed to individual workmen rather than to the CBA itself. The Supreme Court held that section 34 permits a CBA to apply to the Labour Court only for the enforcement of rights guaranteed or secured to the CBA itself under law, awards, or settlements, whereas individual worker grievances or common grievances regarding predetermined rights must be pursued through the mechanism provided under section 25-A of the Ordinance, such as through joint applications. The Court concluded that the CBA lacked the legal mandate to maintain an application under section 34 on behalf of workers for rights under the Factories Act, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Whether a Collective Bargaining Agent is empowered to make an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the enforcement of rights guaranteed to individual workers under the Factories Act?
- Does the expression 'any law' in section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, cover all laws granting rights to individual workers or is it restricted to laws conferring specific rights on the Collective Bargaining Agent?
- Can workers file a joint application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, when they share a common grievance arising from a common cause of action?
- Karachi Development Authority vs Had! Bux Memon and another1992 CLC 1036 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil revision applications arose from impugned orders passed by the courts below in suits concerning lease-hold lands where plaintiffs sought protection of title and possession against eviction by the Karachi Development Authority. The core legal questions involved the distinct legal criteria for rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 versus granting an interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as well as the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Sindh High Court held that while the court is restricted to the averments in the plaint when deciding a rejection application, it must examine the broader facts and documentary material from both sides when determining a prima facie case for an interim injunction. Finding material irregularities and jurisdictional errors in the lower courts' approach, the High Court modified the interim injunctions to operate for a limited period of six months and directed the trial court to expeditiously frame and decide preliminary issues and issues on merits within four months.
Questions settled- Can a court look beyond the four corners of a plaint when deciding an application for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the scope of a court's inquiry when considering an application for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- To what extent can revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked to correct material irregularities and illegalities?
- Whether an appellate or revisional court can limit the operational duration of an interim injunction and direct expedited trial proceedings to prevent prolonged litigation?
- Karachi Development Authority and another vs Abdul Malik1992 PLC 1243 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
- Karachi Customs Agents Group vs Karachi by Road Workers' Union, Karachi and 3 others1992 PLC 1284 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-05-03Read full judgment →
- Karachi Cooperative Housing Societies Union Ltd. vs Better Homes1992 CLC 2261 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-08Read full judgment →
- Karachi Building Control Authority vs Muhammad Arif Qureshi, Advocate1992 CLC 1904 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South, which granted an injunction against the Karachi Building Control Authority and dismissed the Authority's application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondent, a property owner, had filed a suit seeking a declaration that a demolition notice issued by the Authority was illegal and mala fide, alongside a request for a mandatory injunction. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the revision application in the High Court, arguing it should have been filed in the District Court. The High Court examined Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, noting that while concurrent jurisdiction exists between the High Court and the District Court, the principle under Section 15, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, dictates that proceedings should be initiated in the court of the lowest competent grade. Finding no special exigency to bypass the District Court, the High Court held that the application should have been filed there. Consequently, the revision application was returned for presentation to the proper forum.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court to entertain a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Should a revision application be filed in the court of the lowest grade competent to entertain it, consistent with the principle in Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a revision application be returned for presentation to the proper court if it was filed in the High Court instead of the District Court without showing special exigency?
- Kanthimathy Planations Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax.PTCL 1992 FC. 1 · Kerala High Court · 1989-08-22Read full judgment →
- Kamran Butt vs LT. Col. Syed Iftikhar AhmadK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 140 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
- Kamlapat Moti Lal vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl.)1992 PTD 703 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-11-01Read full judgment →
- Kamil Hussain And Another vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1992 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
- Kamil Hussain And Another vs Member Board of Revenue Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 220 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Kamal-Ud-Din vs Province of Punjab And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 357 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
- Kamal Athar and others vs The State and others1992 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the common judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trial convicting the appellants for offences including Zina-bil-Jabr liable to Tazir under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and kidnapping/abduction under section 11 of the same Ordinance. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Special Court, the validity of trial proceedings conducted in the absence of a prosecutor on a specific date, whether removal of a child for a short distance constitutes kidnapping or abduction, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding identity and medical corroboration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Special Court had valid jurisdiction under transfer provisions and constitutional criteria, that minor procedural absences of a prosecutor did not vitiate the trial without failure of justice, that the brief removal of the victim constituted abduction rather than kidnapping, and that consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence conclusively proved the charges. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals while granting partial reductions in substantive prison sentences.
Questions settled- Whether the Special Court for Speedy Trial has proper jurisdiction to try heinous offences transferred under statutory provisions?
- Does the temporary absence of a prosecutor on the date of judgment delivery vitiate the entire criminal trial?
- Does the removal of a victim for a short distance constitute kidnapping or abduction under the law?
- Can the uncorroborated testimony of a child victim of rape, supported by medical evidence, form the basis of a safe conviction?
- Kamal And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1152 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
- Kalyankumar Ray vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 243 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-08-06Read full judgment →
- Kala Khan Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 51 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Kaiser Shafiuliah vs Export Promotion Bureau, Karachi And 2 Other1992 PLD Karachi 117 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
- Kabeer Ahmad vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 1382 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
- Ka. Anwar Sahib vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1992 PTD 783 · Madras High Court · 1990-06-14Read full judgment →
- K.M.C. vs Riaz Qadir BrohiK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 291 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and another1992 PTD 393 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
- Jumma Khan vs (Mst) Khadeeja Begum EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
- Juma.Khan vs Mat. Shamim and 3 others1992 CLC 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises from a suit for declaration, possession, and mesne profits filed by the petitioner against the respondents, who were alleged to be trespassers on the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the petitioner failed to prove ownership, and the first appellate court upheld this decision. The core legal question was whether the first appellate court's judgment complied with the mandatory requirements of law regarding the evaluation of evidence and the recording of findings. The High Court held that the first appellate court, as the final court of fact, failed to perform its duty by not discussing the oral and documentary evidence or addressing the points of controversy, thereby violating the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ratio established is that an appellate judgment must explicitly set out the points for determination, record decisions thereon, and provide reasons based on a scrutiny of the evidence. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court's failure to discuss evidence and record findings on points of controversy violate the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the first appellate court required to act as a final court of fact by independently evaluating evidence?
- What are the mandatory requirements for a judgment of the first appellate court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Joseph vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1108 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-21Read full judgment →
- Jiwana Alias Rats vs The -State1992 P Cr. L J 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-16Read full judgment →
- Jindwadh and 4 others vs Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement) and 81992 CLC 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
- Jewan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Home1992 MLD 225 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a dispute over evacuee land, where the petitioners claimed ownership as occupancy tenants, challenging an allotment previously confirmed in favor of the respondents' predecessor. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, after considering the defense's argument that the petitioners' claim had already been adjudicated and dismissed in previous proceedings before the Custodian of Evacuee Property and a subsequent writ petition. The core legal question was whether a court, when considering an application for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, is strictly confined to the averments within the plaint or may consider external material, such as the defense's evidence. The court held that the rejection of the plaint was proper. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court established the principle that Order VII, Rule 11 is not exhaustive of all situations where a plaint may be rejected. Consequently, a court is not restricted to the four corners of the plaint and may consider external material, including defense documents, to determine if a suit is barred by law or prior adjudication.
Questions settled- Is the court restricted to the contents of the plaint when deciding an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the court have the authority to consider external material or defense documents when determining whether to reject a plaint?
- Is Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exhaustive of all situations in which a plaint can be rejected?
- Jehangir Rustom Kakalia vs State Bank of Pakistan1992 SCMR 1296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent landlord (State Bank of Pakistan) against the appellant tenant under Section 13(3)(ii) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, which was reversed by the first appellate court. The High Court of Sindh subsequently restored the eviction order in a second appeal, finding that the first appellate court had misread the evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the High Court erred in reversing the first appellate court's finding of fact within the limited scope of a second appeal. The Supreme Court observed that the landlord's evidence was vague, unsatisfactory, and failed to specify the precise purpose for which the premises were required, whereas the burden of proof lay squarely on the landlord. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the first appellate court's finding of fact was not open to interference in a second appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether a finding of fact by the first appellate court can be interfered with in a second appeal when the evidence on record is capable of two interpretations?
- Does the landlord bear the burden of proving bona fide personal requirement by specifying the exact purpose for which the demised premises are needed?
- Can a landlord's claim for personal use succeed if the evidence produced is vague, unsatisfactory, and fails to show why existing vacant accommodations are insufficient?
- Jehangir Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 390 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
- Jehandad vs Collector of Customs (Preventive) and others1992 CLC 791 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
- Jehana and 2 others vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab Lahore and another1992 CLC 2054 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-27Read full judgment →
- Javid Rashid vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 243 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the trial court sentenced the appellant to death for the murder of two individuals. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility and reliability of joint extra-judicial confessions and the sufficiency of last-seen evidence to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The court emphasized that a joint extra-judicial confession, where multiple accused allegedly confess simultaneously, is inadmissible in evidence. Furthermore, the court reiterated that extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence requiring independent corroboration, which was absent in this case. The court also noted that the failure to produce key witnesses warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution. Consequently, the court concluded that the evidence presented, including the recovery of a weapon not linked to the crime, was insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt, necessitating his acquittal.
Questions settled- Is a joint extra-judicial confession made by multiple accused admissible in evidence?
- Does the failure to produce a material witness warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of weak extra-judicial confession evidence without independent corroboration?
- Javid Rashid vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 413 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
- Javed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 586 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
- Javed Rashid vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 324 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
- Javed Masih and 3 others vs The State1992 SCMR 2325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the convictions of the petitioners by the Federal Shariat Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioners were convicted for the murder of three security guards by electrocution and the subsequent robbery of deposit certificates and other valuables. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including recoveries of stolen items and a confession by one of the petitioners that implicated the others. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the convictions could be sustained in the absence of eye-witness testimony, particularly when the confession relied upon was alleged to be exculpatory and the recoveries were contested. Upon reviewing the arguments, the Court held that given the reliance on circumstantial evidence and the nature of the confession, a re-appraisal of the evidence was necessary for the proper administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the convictions based on the available evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence and a confession without eye-witness testimony?
- Is a confession that is exculpatory in nature sufficient to implicate co-accused persons?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to re-appraise evidence in a criminal case?
- Javed Iqbal vs Province of West Pakistan and others1992 CLC 2369 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a suit for damages filed by the appellant, who suffered the amputation of his leg after being run over by a railway engine at the age of six when he went onto the railway tracks to retrieve a ball. The trial court decreed the suit in part, awarding damages, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the plaintiff was a trespasser to whom the railway administration owed no duty of care beyond refraining from intentional harm or setting traps, relying on the strict English rule in Addie's case. The Lahore High Court reviewed the evolution of common law regarding the duty of occupiers to trespassers, particularly child trespassers, taking note of modern English authorities such as Herrington v. British Railways Board. The Court held that an occupier owes a humanitarian duty of care to child trespassers whose presence can reasonably be foreseen, a principle also strongly reinforced by Islamic injunctions regarding neighbours and humane conduct. The Court concluded that the railway administration failed in its duty of care and restored the trial court's decree for damages, awarding interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- What is the nature and extent of the duty of care owed by an occupier of land to a child trespasser under common law principles?
- Whether an occupier can be held liable in damages for injuries sustained by a child trespasser whose presence on the premises was reasonably foreseeable?
- Does the failure of a railway administration to take precautionary measures or issue warnings regarding foreseeable child trespassers constitute actionable negligence?
- Can interest be awarded under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on a decretal amount of damages in tort cases?
- JaVED IQBaL vs Lt.Col. Muhammad SaDIQ and 2 others1992 CLC 1791 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
- Javed Dastgir Mirza vs Additional Chief Secretary Government of the Punjab, Lahore And Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 62) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Javed And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 564 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
- Javed And 4 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
- Javed Alias Papoo And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2479 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-13Read full judgment →
- Javaid Masih And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1304 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
- Javaid Akhtar vs Neelofar And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 231 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- Javaid Akhtar vs Mst. Neelofar and others1992 CLC 1382 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- Javaid Akhtar vs Director Customer Services P.Ia. Karachi and 21992 SCMR 1465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a traffic officer with Pakistan International Airlines (P.I.A.), from service. The petitioner was dismissed following a departmental inquiry that found him guilty of colluding with cargo loaders to replace customs-cleared cartons with cartons containing 350 kilograms of narcotics (cannabis resin) at the Lahore Airport. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's dismissal was justified despite his claim of innocence and the fact that police investigation had initially found no incriminating evidence against him. The Supreme Court held that the departmental findings were supported by evidence, specifically noting the petitioner's presence at the cargo site and his failure to report the illicit activity to authorities, which established his collusion. The Court affirmed that a police finding of innocence does not automatically absolve an employee of departmental charges based on separate evidence. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, as the Court found no grounds for further consideration.
Questions settled- Does a police finding of innocence in a criminal investigation automatically absolve an employee of departmental charges?
- Can failure to report illicit activity to authorities constitute sufficient evidence of collusion in a departmental inquiry?
- Is a departmental inquiry finding of guilt sustainable when the employee claims innocence based on a lack of criminal evidence?
- Jaswant Rai vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala1992 PTD 1620 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1977-02-15Read full judgment →
- Japan Tobacco Inc. vs The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks1992 CLC 1058 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
- Jan Said and 4 others vs Karim Dad Khan and 13 others1992 MLD 54 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad vs Nabi Bakhsh and others1992 CLC 571 · Board of Revenue · 1991-01-15Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2397 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
- Jam Pari vs Muhammad Abdullah1992 SCMR 786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiff-respondent had waived his pre-emption right due to his presence at the sale bargain and his relationship as the vendor's son. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, reversed these findings, holding that they were based on a misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in upsetting these concurrent findings of fact. The Court held that revisional jurisdiction is properly exercised when subordinate courts' findings of fact suffer from non-reading or misreading of material evidence. It ruled that waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right, requiring clear and cogent evidence of active participation or express abandonment. Mere presence as a silent spectator at the time of the bargain does not constitute waiver or acquiescence. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction if such findings are based on a misreading of evidence?
- Does the mere presence of a pre-emptor as a silent spectator at the time of a sale bargain constitute a waiver of their right of pre-emption?
- What constitutes legal waiver of a pre-emption right, and can it be inferred solely from oral statements showing knowledge of the sale?
- Jalilur Rehman vs Pakistan Telecommunication Corporaton through its Chairman and 3 others1992 CLC 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
- Jairamdas vs Commissioner Hyderabad Division And Another(K.L.R.1992 Labour & Service Cases 24) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-07-02Read full judgment →
- Israrul Haque vs Messrs Midway House (Pvt.) Limited1992 PLC 1160 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-08-06Read full judgment →
- Ismail Muhammad Bhai vs Younus Ali Gazdar1992 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed an appeal against a decree based on an arbitration award. The petitioner contended that the Arbitrator failed to adjudicate upon all disputes referred to him, specifically arguing that the award was confined to only a few matters. The Supreme Court examined the terms of reference and the Arbitrator's findings, noting that the Arbitrator had indeed addressed the points of reference. Crucially, the Court observed that the petitioner had filed written objections to the award in the lower court but failed to raise the grievance that any specific aspect of the dispute remained undetermined. The Court held that a party cannot be permitted to raise such an objection as an afterthought at a subsequent stage of the proceedings if it was not pleaded during the initial objection phase. Finding no question of law requiring further examination, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge an arbitration award on the ground of incomplete adjudication if that objection was not raised in the initial written objections to the award?
- Is an appellate court required to entertain a grievance regarding the scope of an arbitration award if it was not raised before the trial court?
- Ismail And 7 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2182 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two cross-bail applications arising from a free fight between two rival groups, the Sheedi and Bhail tribes, following a petty quarrel. The core legal question was whether the accused persons, involved in a sudden, unpremeditated clash resulting in one death and multiple injuries, were entitled to post-arrest bail. The court held that bail should be granted to all applicants. It reasoned that the incident lacked premeditation, and the identity of the specific assailant responsible for the fatal injury to the deceased was not established, warranting the extension of the benefit of doubt for the limited purpose of bail. Furthermore, regarding the cross-case, the court determined that the medical evidence did not definitively support the classification of the injury as grievous, as the bone was not cut through and through. The court reaffirmed the principle that in cases of free fights lacking clear evidence of specific fatal culpability, and where the State does not oppose the relief, the general rule is 'bail and not jail' to prevent unnecessary incarceration.
Questions settled- Is bail generally appropriate in cases of a free fight where premeditation is lacking and the specific assailant of a fatal blow is unidentified?
- Does an injury involving a fracture of the forearm automatically constitute 'grievous hurt' under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the bone is not cut through and through?
- Should the benefit of doubt be extended to accused persons for the limited purpose of granting bail?
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs S. A. Rizvi1992 SCMR 1309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that declared the respondent's dismissal from government service illegal, mala fide, and coram non judice. The respondent, a civil servant, was dismissed following proceedings under Martial Law Regulation, 1958, which the High Court found to be a pre-determined 'smoke screen' rather than a genuine inquiry. The core legal question was whether the dismissal, purportedly protected by constitutional validation, could be challenged on grounds of mala fide and lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the proceedings were a colourable device and that the bar under Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 did not apply to mala fide actions. While affirming the judgment, the Court clarified a legal principle, noting that while a mala fide act is without jurisdiction, it is incorrect to equate all acts done without jurisdiction as automatically being mala fide. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no laches on the part of the respondent in pursuing his remedies.
Questions settled- Does the constitutional bar under Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 protect acts that are mala fide?
- Is every act performed without jurisdiction necessarily a mala fide act?
- Can a dismissal from service be declared coram non judice if the underlying inquiry proceedings were a pre-determined sham?
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs Muhammad Naseem Baig and others1992 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the competence of an Ex Officio Public Prosecutor, appointed by the Provincial Government, to file acquittal appeals under the direction of the Federal Government. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court is whether such an advocate, acting under Federal Government instructions, satisfies the requirements for filing appeals as stipulated under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. Upon consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the petitions. The Court directed that the resulting appeals be heard together within a period of three months based on the existing records, while granting the parties liberty to submit additional documentation if necessary. The judgment establishes the necessity of determining the procedural validity of an Ex Officio Public Prosecutor's authority when acting under the direction of the Federal Government in the context of acquittal appeals, thereby setting the stage for a definitive interpretation of the statutory authorization required for such filings.
Questions settled- Is an Ex Officio Public Prosecutor appointed by the Provincial Government competent to file acquittal appeals under the direction of the Federal Government pursuant to the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others vs Muhammad Arshad and others1992 CLC 2216 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
- Islam Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 452 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
- Ishtiao Ahmad ASI and 2 others vs Paiustan Railways1992 PLC 539 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
- Ishrat Iqbal Siddique vs Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and another1992 PLC 936 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
- Ishar Singh vs National Fertilizers and another1992 PLC 567 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-04-26Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ahmed vs The State1992 SCMR 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises out of the appellant's conviction under section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, recorded by an Additional Sessions Judge after the appellant pleaded guilty to dragging bail applicants out of the courtroom. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the trial judge could award a sentence exceeding the limits prescribed under section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when taking direct cognizance, or whether the proceedings fell properly under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that although the conviction was validly sustained under section 476 read with summary trial procedures, the appellate and supreme courts possess the inherent authority to exercise the discretionary remission and discharge provisions analogous to section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an offender promptly admits his fault and tenders an unconditional apology before the trial court, the appellate or apex court may accept such an apology, remit the punishment, and discharge the offender without procedural technicalities.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court taking direct cognizance of an insult or interruption under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is strictly limited by the sentencing caps specified in section 480?
- Does a reference to section 195 within section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 incorporate the procedural condition of a written complaint?
- Can the Supreme Court or an appellate court accept an apology and remit a sentence under section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where the trial court failed to do so?
- Iqbal Muhammad Saeed And Others vs The State and 2 others-1992 P Cr. L J 2086 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns applications for pre-arrest bail under Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, filed by individuals accused of conspiracy in the kidnapping of a minor child, in violation of a court-ordered compromise. The core legal question is whether the applicants, who are relatives and friends of the primary accused, are entitled to pre-arrest bail given the absence of evidence linking them to the alleged conspiracy and the potential for unjustified harassment. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, confirming the interim orders previously granted. The ratio is that mere knowledge or approval of an act without active cooperation does not constitute criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that while it is a matter of propriety to approach the Sessions Court first, the High Court may exercise concurrent jurisdiction in appropriate cases to prevent the abuse of process. The key principles laid down are that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly for offences outside the prohibitory clause, and that arrest for ulterior motives of harassment is a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Does mere knowledge or approval of an illegal act without active cooperation constitute criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is it a mandatory requirement of law to approach the Court of Session for pre-arrest bail before filing an application in the High Court?
- Can the High Court grant pre-arrest bail in cases where the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the apprehension of arrest for ulterior motives of humiliation and harassment a valid ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Iqbal Muhammad Khan vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1992 PLC 549 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three constitutional petitions directed against decisions of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals as non-maintainable on the ground that an appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 must be filed by the aggrieved person in person rather than through an advocate, agent, or attorney. The core legal question was whether an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 requires personal presentation by the aggrieved party. The Sindh High Court held that the Tribunal's view was misconceived, ruling that the statute does not mandate personal filing and permits an aggrieved party to file an appeal either personally or through a duly authorized agent, advocate, or attorney, and that procedural defects in presentation are curable irregularities. Consequently, the High Court declared the Tribunal's orders illegal, set them aside, and remanded the cases back to the Tribunal for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can be filed through an advocate or authorized agent or if it must be presented by the aggrieved person in person?
- Can the provisions of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be pressed into service for the presentation and signing of appeals under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does a defect in the presentation, signing, or verification of a memorandum of appeal constitute a fatal flaw or a curable procedural irregularity?
- Iqbal Amin Sheikh vs I.D.B.P.1992 CLC. 1935 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-17Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Ahmed Shaikh vs The Govt. of Sindh through Its Chief Secretary(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 196) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Ahmad and anothers vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and others1992 CLC 1719 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
- Investment Corporation of Pakistan vs Syed Jamaat Ali Shah and another1992 SCMR 1195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a recovery suit filed by the Investment Corporation of Pakistan against the respondents for unpaid dues and share prices. The trial court decreed the suit, but the High Court reversed the decision, holding the suit to be barred by limitation. The High Court rejected the appellant's reliance on Sections 14 and 15 of the Limitation Act 1908, reasoning that recovery proceedings before the Collector did not constitute a court proceeding and that a prior civil court injunction only stayed recovery rather than suit institution.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan agreed that Section 14 was inapplicable to collector proceedings. However, it held that Section 15 was fully attracted. Because the respondents had obtained an interim injunction restraining the appellant from recovering the dues, instituting a recovery suit under Section 31 of the Investment Corporation of Pakistan Ordinance 1966 during that period would have practically violated the injunction and exposed the appellant to contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Excluding the period during which the injunction remained operative rendered the suit within limitation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court to decide the remaining issues.
Questions settled- Does an interim injunction staying the recovery of dues also suspend the limitation period for instituting a civil suit under Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can proceedings conducted before a Collector for recovery of dues be treated as court proceedings for claiming exemption of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Whether instituting a recovery suit during the operation of an injunction staying recovery exposes a party to contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- International Industries People Labour Union vs International1992 PLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns High Court Appeals challenging a single judge's decision regarding the determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether the two-year statutory embargo on re-determining a CBA, prescribed by Section 22(10) of the Ordinance, applies to trade unions certified under Section 22(9-a) (without a secret ballot) or is restricted to those certified under Section 22(9)(e) following a contested secret ballot. The Court held that the two-year embargo applies exclusively to unions certified under Section 22(9)(e) after a contested ballot. The Court established the principle that judicial interpretation cannot supply words to a statute unless an omission is palpable and clearly indicated by context. Because the legislature did not amend Section 22(10) to include certifications under Section 22(9-a), the embargo does not extend to them. Consequently, a union certified without a contest does not enjoy the two-year protection, and the Registrar may initiate referendum proceedings for a new CBA determination despite the absence of a two-year lapse.
Questions settled- Does the two-year embargo on re-determining a Collective Bargaining Agent under Section 22(10) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, apply to unions certified under Section 22(9-a)?
- Can a court supply missing words to a statute to extend a statutory embargo to a class of entities not explicitly mentioned by the legislature?
- Is a trade union certified as a Collective Bargaining Agent without a secret ballot entitled to the same two-year protection as a union certified after a contested ballot?
- International Cargo Handling Company (Pvt. Limited vs Port Bin Oasim1992 PLD Karachi 65 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil matter arose from an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the plaintiff, seeking an ad interim injunction against the Port Bin Qasim Authority to restrain interference with its cargo handling operations. The defendant refused to finalize the contract on the grounds that the Wafaqi Mohtasib had cancelled the plaintiff's pre-qualification and debarred it in proceedings initiated by a third party. The plaintiff challenged the Mohtasib's order as void, without jurisdiction, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without notice. The core legal questions were whether the statutory bar of jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 precludes civil courts from examining orders passed without jurisdiction, and whether an order condemning a party unheard is legally sustainable. The High Court held that the Mohtasib's jurisdiction is limited under Section 9(1) and that Section 29 does not bar court scrutiny where an order is mala fide, coram non judice, without jurisdiction, or violative of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the Court granted an interim injunction.
Questions settled- Does the statutory bar of jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 prevent a civil court from examining an order passed without jurisdiction or in violation of law?
- Does an adverse order passed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib without giving notice or an opportunity of hearing to an affected party violate the principle of audi alteram partem and render the order void?
- Can the Wafaqi Mohtasib exercise jurisdiction beyond the limits prescribed under Section 9(1) of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 to debar a third party who was not made a party to the proceedings?
- Interhom (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation1992 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
- Inter-Ocean Cargo Services vs Federation of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 76 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-28Read full judgment →
- Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs V.I.P. Industries1992 PTD 272 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
- Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Rose Textile Mills Ltd. and 6 others1992 CLC 1706 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-01Read full judgment →
- Indus Steel Pipes Ltd. vs Indus Steel Pipes Ltd.1992 CLC 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
- Indus Steel Pipes Limited vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 21992 PLC 657 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had directed the reinstatement of a respondent with back benefits. The respondent, initially claiming to be a permanent employee, alleged he was stopped from entering his workplace, while the petitioner contended the respondent was a temporary/casual worker who had voluntarily abandoned his employment. While both the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal concurrently found the respondent was not a permanent workman, the Tribunal ordered reinstatement, citing a failure to comply with the written order requirement under Standing Order 12(3). The High Court held that the Tribunal erred by overlooking the critical factual dispute regarding whether the respondent was terminated or had abandoned his employment. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lay on the respondent to establish he was stopped from working, which he failed to discharge. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that in the absence of evidence of termination, there was no cause of action for a grievance petition.
Questions settled- Does a workman have a cause of action for a grievance petition if they voluntarily abandon their employment?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a workman was stopped from entering the workplace by the employer?
- Is an employer required to issue a written termination order under Standing Order 12(3) if the employee has abandoned their service?
- Can a Labour Appellate Tribunal order reinstatement without evidence that the employer terminated the employee's services?
- Indus Battery Employees' Union and 2 others vs Member, National1992 PLC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) concerning alleged unfair labour practices and an illegal strike. The petitioners sought to set aside NIRC orders, including an interim prohibitory order, arguing lack of notice and jurisdiction. The core legal question revolved around the NIRC's jurisdiction to pass interim orders and take preventive measures under Regulation 32(2) of the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, in cases where an unfair labour practice is likely to occur. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the NIRC possesses jurisdiction to deal with cases where unfair labour practice is likely to occur and can pass interim orders to prevent such apprehended commission. The court affirmed that Regulation 32(2) is preventive in nature, allowing the NIRC to advise, direct, or prohibit actions to avoid unfair labour practices, and that the petitioners were heard on their objections.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) have jurisdiction to pass interim orders to prevent an unfair labour practice that is likely to occur?
- Can the NIRC issue directions or prohibitions under Regulation 32(2) of the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, to avoid the occurrence of an unfair labour practice?
- Is the NIRC empowered to take preventive measures for the recurrence of unfair labour practices under Section 22-A(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Will a High Court ordinarily undertake the resolution of disputed questions of fact in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd). vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 1485 · Bombay High Court · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
- Inderlal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1815 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-15Read full judgment →
- Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Rafiq1992 PLC 1296 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-04-28Read full judgment →
- Income-Tax Officer, Cuttacic, and others vs Biju Patnaik1992 PTD 423 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-12-07Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2312 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Inayatullah And Another vs Principal Baloch1stan AgricultureK.L.R.1992 Civil Cases 82 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Inayat-Ur-Rehman vs Assistant Commissioner/S.D.M. Swat And 4 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
- Inayat Khan vs Ali Asghar and another1992 SCMR 1751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave concerns a dispute over the transfer of a property located in Toba Tek Singh. The appellant claimed entitlement to the transfer of the property based on an allotment order dated April 10, 1961. The core legal question was whether the appellant's allotment date satisfied the eligibility criteria for transfer under the relevant settlement schemes. The Supreme Court observed that if the property were classified as urban, the target date for possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was December 20, 1958. Conversely, if classified as rural, the target date under Settlement Scheme No. VII was January 1, 1961. The Court held that because the appellant's allotment occurred after both potential target dates, he was ineligible for the transfer. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme were inapplicable as they pertained to land allotment rather than property transfer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an allotment order dated April 10, 1961, satisfy the eligibility criteria for property transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Are the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 applicable to the transfer of urban or rural property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Inayat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1485 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
- Inayat Ali vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and another1992 CLC 3 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-21Read full judgment →
- Inayat Ali And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2608 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
- Inamur Rehman vs Federation of Pakistan and others1992 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a Sindh High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition that challenged the actions of the State Bank of Pakistan and the Federal Government under the Foreign Exchange (Prevention of Payments) Act, 1972 (as amended). Under the Act, the State Bank directed banks to deposit the repatriated foreign exchange and bonus amounts of the appellant, and a special tribunal was set up to adjudicate third-party monetary claims against him. The core legal question was whether Section 2(2) of the Act, which allowed the government to selectively invite and refer any monetary claim against a repatriating individual to a non-judicial tribunal, violated the fundamental right to equality and equal protection of laws under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding the impugned provisions void and unconstitutional. The Court laid down the principle that a procedural or substantive law that singles out an individual or class for a drastic, non-judicial dispute resolution mechanism without an intelligible differentia or rational nexus to a lawful object is arbitrary and discriminatory.
Questions settled- Whether a law that allows the executive unguided discretion to select which individuals will be subjected to a special non-judicial tribunal for ordinary monetary claims violates Article 25 of the Constitution?
- Can a constitutional challenge based on the violation of fundamental rights be raised in an appeal if those rights were suspended at the time the original petition was filed but have since been restored?
- Does the term 'any claim' in Section 2(2) of the Foreign Exchange (Prevention of Payments) Act, 1972, require a direct nexus to the repatriated foreign exchange to be constitutionally valid under the equality clause?
- Inamur Rehman Gillani vs Jalal Din and another1992 SCMR 1895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a civil revision petition for non-prosecution and subsequently refused its restoration. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the revision for non-prosecution when the petitioner's counsel was engaged before the Supreme Court and the petitioner was personally present to request an adjournment. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was improper. It established that, based on the principle of comity between courts, a request for adjournment due to a counsel's engagement in a superior court should generally be granted unless it lacks bona fides or is intended to obstruct justice. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that judicial forums should prioritize adjudicating matters on their merits rather than dismissing them for non-prosecution, especially when the party is present. The dismissal for non-prosecution should be an exception, not the rule. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Should a court dismiss a petition for non-prosecution when the party is personally present and seeking an adjournment due to counsel's engagement in a superior court?
- Is a request for adjournment based on a counsel's engagement in a superior court entitled to deference under the principle of judicial comity?
- Under what circumstances should a court prioritize deciding a case on its merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution?
- Inam Din vs Province of Punjab and 13 others1992 CLC 529 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →