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.
- Farman Ali and 2 others vs The State1992 SCMR 2055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants recorded by the Special Court for Speedy Trials for murder, arson, and related offenses. The core legal questions involved the validity of the trial court's jurisdiction, the legality of case transfers under the applicable Speedy Courts Ordinances, the admissibility of investigating officers' opinions on culpability, and the reliability of ocular and corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence, holding that objections regarding the legislative validity of a special statute or tribunal appointment fall outside the competency of the tribunal itself and must be raised before courts of general jurisdiction, that transfer orders satisfying statutory requirements are valid, and that an investigating officer's opinion on an accused's innocence is inadmissible. The key principles laid down include the jurisdictional classification of objections to special tribunals and the strict inadmissibility of police opinions regarding individual guilt.
Questions settled- Whether an objection to the legislative validity of a special tribunal or its appointment can be examined by the tribunal itself?
- Is the opinion of an investigating officer regarding the innocence or culpability of an accused admissible in evidence?
- Whether a transfer of a case from one Special Court to another under the Speedy Courts Ordinance vitiates the trial if statutory requirements are satisfied?
- Does the testimony of injured eyewitnesses provide sufficient corroboration to sustain convictions in a murder trial?
- Farida Mirza vs Income Tax Officer And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 6 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-14Read full judgment →
- Farid Bakhsh vs Saeed Ahmad and 4 others1992 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a leave to appeal granted to the complainant to examine whether the sentence, particularly the fine, imposed upon the respondents ought to be enhanced. The victim, a school teacher, was attacked by the respondents, during which his nose was completely chopped off due to a motive involving a marriage dispute. The trial court had convicted the respondents under section 326/149 and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, imposing imprisonment and fines. The High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the imprisonment of certain respondents to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine. The Supreme Court examined the amplitude of section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding compensation and the gravity of the offence. The Supreme Court held that the fine imposed upon the respondents should be enhanced, and upon recovery, the entire amount must be paid as compensation to the victim, recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The key principle laid down is that courts must adequately utilize statutory provisions regarding compensation to victims for heinous offences involving severe bodily disfigurement.
Questions settled- Whether the sentence of fine imposed upon a convict can be enhanced by the Supreme Court keeping in view the gravity of the offence and injury caused?
- Can compensation be awarded to the victim under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases of severe bodily disfigurement?
- How is the amount of fine awarded as compensation recoverable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Faramoz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 119 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-01Read full judgment →
- Faqir Shah And Another vs Muhammad Rafiq And 6 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent decrees of the lower courts declaring a sale of specific Khasra numbers from a jointly owned land to be invalid. The core legal question concerned the extent of rights acquired by a vendee purchasing property from a co-sharer in a joint Khata, particularly regarding alienations exceeding the vendor's lawful share in the undivided property. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a vendee of a co-sharer steps into the shoes of the transferor only to the extent of the ownership rights and the area actually purchased, and cannot retain possession or ownership of land in excess of the transferor's lawful share in the joint holding. The key principle laid down is that while a vendee may retain exclusive possession of specific plots transferred by a co-sharer pending partition, this protection does not extend to any area or possession exceeding the actual ownership share of the vendor in the joint Khata.
Questions settled- Can a vendee of a co-sharer in an undivided Khata retain possession of land in excess of the vendor's lawful share?
- Does the exclusive possession of a co-sharer validate the transfer of title beyond their actual ownership share in a joint property?
- What are the extent of rights acquired by a purchaser who buys specific plots from a co-sharer in a joint holding?
- Faqir Muhammad vs The Director of National Savings, Multan Region, Multan1992 PLD Supreme Court 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the termination of a Chowkidar employed by the Central Directorate of National Savings, an attached department of the Federal Government. The appellant challenged his termination before a Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which granted reinstatement. The High Court set aside this order, ruling that a Chowkidar is not a workman. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, a difference of opinion arose regarding whether the appellant was employed in the 'administration of the State' under Section 1(3)(b) of the Ordinance, thereby excluding him from its jurisdiction. The matter was referred to a third judge, who held that while the appellant qualified as a 'workman' under the Ordinance, he was nonetheless excluded from its protection because his employment was governed by statutory rules of service applicable to civil servants. Consequently, the Court held that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction, as the appellant was a civil servant whose remedy lay exclusively before the Federal Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and Article 212 of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Does the term 'administration of the State' in Section 1(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, exclude all employees of an attached government department from the definition of workman?
- Can a government employee governed by statutory rules of service invoke the jurisdiction of a Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over the service disputes of a civil servant employed in an attached department of the Federal Government?
- Is a Chowkidar employed by the Central Directorate of National Savings a 'workman' within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Faqir Muhammad vs Ch. Muhammad Hussain And Mian Bashir1992 P Cr. L J 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This habeas corpus petition was filed for the recovery of three alleged detenus from the illegal custody of police officials. A court-deputed bailiff raided the police station and successfully recovered the detenus from the police lock-up, where they were detained without any formal entry of arrest in the daily diary or production before a magistrate. The core legal question concerned the legality of the detention and whether the responsible police officer committed an offence by keeping persons in confinement without recording their arrest. The Lahore High Court held that the offence under section 343 of the Pakistan Penal Code was clearly made out against the delinquent Assistant Sub-Inspector based on the bailiff's report and evidence. The Court accepted the petition with costs, directed the registration of a case against the police official, ordered his suspension pending investigation, and mandated that the detenus be released on bail.
Questions settled- Whether the detention of persons in a police lock-up without recording their arrest in the daily diary constitutes illegal confinement?
- Can a criminal case be ordered to be registered against a police officer for wrongful confinement upon a habeas corpus petition?
- Whether costs can be imposed upon a police officer found responsible for illegal detention during habeas corpus proceedings?
- Faqir Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Akram Khan, through Legal1992 SCMR 2188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that restored an original order for the redemption of mortgaged land with physical possession. The core legal question was whether a mortgagee, who allegedly held the land as a tenant-at-will prior to the mortgage, could retain possession as a tenant after the redemption of the mortgage. The Supreme Court held that the mortgagee was inducted into possession solely in the capacity of a mortgagee, not as a tenant. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the status of a tenant and a mortgagee are mutually exclusive and inconsistent. When a tenant takes land on mortgage from a landlord, the tenancy relationship ceases to exist, and the status is converted into that of a mortgagor and mortgagee. Upon redemption, the mortgagee is legally obligated to deliver physical possession to the mortgagor, and there is no reversion to the prior status of a tenant-at-will. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a mortgagee who was previously a tenant-at-will retain possession as a tenant after the redemption of the mortgage?
- Are the statuses of a tenant and a mortgagee mutually exclusive under the law?
- Does the relationship of landlord and tenant cease to exist when a tenant obtains the property under a mortgage from the landlord?
- Faqir Muhammad And Others vs Ch. Ali Muhammad And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 56, dated 14-3-1988, registered at Police Station City Bhakkar. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should continue when a bona fide civil dispute regarding the ownership of the property in question is simultaneously pending adjudication before a competent Civil Court. The petitioners and respondent No. 3 were engaged in active civil litigation regarding the title of House No. A/73, with cross-suits filed by both parties. The Court held that where the gravamen of a criminal case is essentially a civil dispute over property ownership, it is inappropriate for criminal proceedings to proceed concurrently. Consequently, the Court ordered that the criminal proceedings be stayed pending the final adjudication of the civil suits by the Civil Judge at Bhakkar. The Court further directed that upon the conclusion of the civil litigation, the Civil Judge shall forward the judgment to the Criminal Court to determine the future course of the criminal proceedings, mandating the civil suits be decided within four months.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be stayed when a civil suit regarding the same property dispute is pending?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding property ownership necessitate the suspension of criminal proceedings initiated over the same subject matter?
- What is the appropriate procedure for a Criminal Court when a civil dispute regarding the property in question is pending before a Civil Court?
- Falak Sher vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1358 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 243 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
- Fakhar vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 393 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
- Fajja through his Legal Heirs vs Muhammad and others1992 CLC 1711 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-15Read full judgment →
- Fajar Khan vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 513 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Faiz Rasul vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 942 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-15Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ilahi vs Shamir And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 206 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 715 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
- Faiyyaz Hussain vs Mrs, Noor Bano1992 CLC 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
- Fahmida Begum And 7 Other vs Khalid Roheel Alam And 3 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against an eviction order from an urban property, which had been upheld by the High Court. Before arguing the merits of the case, counsel for the petitioners—a widow with orphan children—sought a compromise based on humanitarian grounds, offering to vacate the premises within a reasonable timeframe in exchange for not pressing the petition. The respondents accepted this offer. The Supreme Court, noting that this case differed from those where tenants prolong litigation unnecessarily, accepted the parties' mutual agreement. The Court disposed of the petition based on the petitioners' undertaking to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the landlords within one year, thereby avoiding execution proceedings. The judgment established that where parties reach a voluntary settlement regarding the timeline for vacating premises, the court may dispose of the petition based on such an undertaking, with the condition that failure to comply would result in immediate eviction via a writ of possession without further notice.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be disposed of based on a mutual undertaking between landlord and tenant regarding the time for vacating premises?
- Does a court have the authority to issue a writ of possession directly if a tenant fails to honor an undertaking to vacate premises within an agreed timeframe?
- F.W. Woolworth Company vs The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks1992 CLC 1902 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
- F.S. Ghandhi vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Allahabad1992 PTD 125 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
- Executive Engineer, Khairpur Tubewell Division and 2 others vs Irrigation and Power Employees Union, Khairpur1992 PLC 514 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-01-30Read full judgment →
- Ferro Alloys Pakistan Ltd. Co. through Chairman vs Toyo Menka Kaisha1992 CLC 712 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
- Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Mst. Zakia Begum and others1992 SCMR 1313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave arises from a dispute over a plot transferred to a private party under Settlement Scheme No. IV and subsequently covered by a Permanent Transfer Deed in 1967. When the Evacuee Trust Property Board claimed the land was evacuee trust property, the transferee filed civil suits for permanent injunction and declaration. The trial court decreed the suits, and the appellate and high courts dismissed the Board's appeals and revisions, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether civil courts had jurisdiction to entertain suits regarding properties claimed as evacuee trust property in light of the statutory bar. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that under Sections 8, 10, and 14 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, civil courts lack jurisdiction to determine matters exclusively entrusted to the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board, rendering the civil proceedings coram non judice, and leaving the parties to seek their remedies before the Chairman.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding the status of a property claimed as evacuee trust property?
- What is the effect of Section 14 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 on the jurisdiction of civil courts?
- Who is empowered to decide whether an evacuee property is attached to a charitable, religious or educational trust?
- How are bona fide urban transfers covered by Permanent Transfer Deeds issued prior to June 1968 treated under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975?
- Employees Old Age Benefits Institution, Government of Pakistan, Karachi vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1992 PLC 742 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
- Emirates Bank International Ltd. vs Messrs Fibers Inc. and 3 others1992 CLC 1272 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
- Emirates Bank International LIMITEDplaintiff vs Messrs Larkana Woollen1992 CLC 2161 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a summary suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a court should postpone passing a decree against non-contesting defendants in a summary suit until the final disposal of the suit against other defendants who were granted leave to defend. The defendants argued that failing to postpone the decree could result in conflicting judgments. The Court held that Order XXXVII provides a self-contained, special summary procedure distinct from the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Where a defendant fails to obtain leave to defend or comply with conditional leave, the allegations in the plaint are deemed admitted, entitling the plaintiff to an immediate decree. The Court clarified that conflicting decrees against different defendants—arising from admissions versus adjudication—are legally permissible and do not offend principles of justice. Consequently, the Court rejected the request to postpone the decree and ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to an immediate decree against the non-contesting defendants.
Questions settled- Does the failure of some defendants to obtain leave to defend in a summary suit require the court to postpone the decree against them until the suit is decided against other defendants?
- Are conflicting decrees against different defendants in the same suit legally permissible when some are based on deemed admissions and others on adjudication?
- Is Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a self-contained provision for summary suits?
- Emirates Bank International Limited vs M/s Oosman Brother And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 93 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-30Read full judgment →
- Election Tribunal Sindhl Sardar Akhtar Ali vs Wasim Ahmed1992 CLC 1437 · Election Tribunal · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- Election Commission of Pakistan vs Asif Iqbal And Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves appeals arising from the rejection of applications by Registration Officers for the inclusion or transfer of names in electoral rolls during the period when annual revision of the rolls had commenced. The core legal question was whether powers under sections 11 and 18 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, can be exercised while the annual revision of electoral rolls under section 17 of the Act is in progress. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court, holding that the powers of Registration Officers under sections 11 and 18 become inoperative during the pendency of the annual revision process under section 17, and that applications for enrolment or correction during this period must be handled exclusively by the Revising Authority to avoid conflicting orders and administrative confusion. The key principle laid down is that the continuous process of enrolment and correction under section 18 stands interrupted upon the commencement of the annual revision under section 17 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, ensuring the integrity and authenticity of the electoral rolls for fair elections.
Questions settled- Can powers under sections 11 and 18 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, be exercised while the annual revision of electoral rolls under section 17 is in progress?
- Does the commencement of the annual revision of electoral rolls render the provisions of section 18 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, inoperative?
- At what point in time does an electoral roll become final and remain as such under the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974?
- Whether Registration Officers and Revising Authorities can concurrently exercise jurisdiction over the enrolment and correction of electoral rolls during the annual revision process?
- Elahi Bakhsh and 5 others vs The State and others1992 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions for rape and related offenses, alongside a State appeal challenging the acquittal of twenty co-accused. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the victim's testimony, was credible despite the absence of physical injury marks and a delay in FIR registration, and whether the acquitted co-accused shared a common object under Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court upheld the convictions, finding the victim's testimony reliable and the delay in FIR registration sufficiently explained by attempted compromises. The Court dismissed the State's appeal, ruling that mere presence at the scene without overt acts does not establish a common object. The key principles laid down are that rape victims are unlikely to falsely implicate others at the cost of their own honor; the absence of physical resistance marks does not disprove rape when the victim is surrounded by multiple assailants; and mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient to establish common object liability under Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without evidence of shared intent or overt acts.
Questions settled- Does the absence of physical injury marks on a victim necessarily disprove the occurrence of rape?
- Can mere presence at the scene of a crime be sufficient to establish common object liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a delay in the registration of an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case if the delay is explained by attempted compromises?
- Does the testimony of a rape victim require corroboration if it inspires confidence?
- Elahi Bakhsh and 2 others vs Mst. Balqees Begum and 4 others1992 SCMR 2443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a pre-emption dispute over agricultural land situated in Tehsil Lodhran, District Multan. The core legal questions involved the computation of the limitation period for filing a pre-emption suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, the validity of presenting a plaint to a Tehsildar during the Civil Judge's absence based on a District Judge's notification, the condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether a vendee-tenant who becomes an owner before Kharif 1972 can claim a superior right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period runs from the date of mutation attestation when physical possession does not change at the time of sale, that presenting a plaint to a Tehsildar in the absence of the Civil Judge pursuant to a valid administrative arrangement is lawful, and that a tenant whose tenancy merges into ownership prior to Kharif 1972 cannot invoke tenant status for pre-emption. The appeal was dismissed accordingly, affirming the pre-emptor's superior right and the timeliness of the suit.
Questions settled- What is the starting point for calculating the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 when there is no physical change of possession at the time of sale?
- Is the presentation of a plaint to a Tehsildar in the absence of the Civil Judge, pursuant to a notification issued by the District Judge under the High Court Rules and Orders, a valid presentation in law?
- Can a vendee who was previously a tenant of the pre-empted land, but whose tenancy extinguished upon becoming an owner prior to Kharif 1972, claim a superior right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Ejaz Nabi Salimi vs Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region, Lahore and another1992 SCMR 1860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Service Tribunal. The appellant, serving as a Food-grains Inspector, was penalized departmentally by being ordered to reimburse a portion of a wheat stock shortage. Upon appeal, the Service Tribunal exonerated the co-accused Assistant Food Controller and transferred his share of the loss liability onto the appellant, thereby effectively enhancing the appellant's penalty. The core legal question examined was whether the Service Tribunal possesses the authority to enhance a departmental punishment upon an appeal filed by an aggrieved civil servant. Relying on established precedent, the Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal has no power, directly or indirectly, to enhance a penalty imposed by the departmental authority. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Service Tribunal's order regarding the enhancement, and restored the original departmental recovery order. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal cannot enhance the punishment of a civil servant in an appeal filed by the civil servant against departmental penalties.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal can enhance the punishment of a civil servant in an appeal filed by the civil servant against a departmental punishment?
- Does the Service Tribunal have the power to transfer the liability of a co-accused onto an appellant civil servant?
- Ejaz Mehmood alias Nanna vs The State1992 SCMR 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life sentence imposed by the Special Court for Speedy Trials-II under section 7(b) of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991, for the possession of an unlicensed Kalashnikov. The core legal questions concerned whether the conviction was vitiated by a defective charge regarding the surrender notification period, the validity of recovery memos absent the complainant's testimony, and the omission of specific questions in the accused's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the testimony of other recovery witnesses sufficiently proved the recovery and that any defect in the charge was curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the accused was aware of the offence. The Court affirmed that a charge under the Ordinance presupposes the possession of illicit arms. However, the Court found the life sentence excessive due to a lack of evidence supporting the trial court's characterization of the appellant as a desperate criminal, and consequently reduced the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the complainant to appear at trial invalidate recovery memos if other witnesses to the recovery testify?
- Can a conviction be sustained if the charge fails to explicitly mention the government notification period for surrendering illicit arms?
- Is a sentence of life imprisonment justified for possession of illicit arms without evidence of the accused's prior criminal history?
- Does the omission of a specific question regarding the failure to surrender arms in a statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the proceedings?
- Eid Badshah Alias Eidak vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 368 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
- Ehsanul Haq Piracha And Another vs Tajammal HussainK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
- Ehsan Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1511 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Ehsan Ali, facing charges under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner sought bail on the statutory ground of delay in the commencement and conclusion of the trial, invoking the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State opposed the application, arguing that the delay was attributable to the petitioner's own conduct and administrative factors, including the requisitioning of the case file by the High Court and the trial judge's election duties. The Court held that the delay caused by the requisitioning of the file and administrative lapses by court officials could not be attributed to the accused. Furthermore, as there was no evidence that the petitioner was a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, or a previously convicted offender, he was entitled to the benefit of the third proviso. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that administrative delays in the judicial process should not prejudice an accused's right to liberty.
Questions settled- Can delay caused by the requisitioning of a case file by a High Court be attributed to an accused for the purposes of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail under the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they are not a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal?
- Does administrative delay in the judicial process justify the denial of bail to an accused?
- Ebrahim Brothers Limited vs Commissioner of Incometax, Karachi1992 SCMR 1935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the computation of capital gains on the sale of bonus shares under the Income Tax Act, 1922. The core legal question was whether the cost of bonus shares should be taken at their face value or calculated on an average cost basis by spreading the cost of original shares over both original and bonus shares. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the average cost method, which spreads the cost of the old shares over the old and new bonus shares taken together, is the correct and rational method for determining the cost of bonus shares for capital gain tax purposes. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, reasoning that bonus shares do not cost anything at allotment and their valuation must account for the dilution of the original shares, thus dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether for the computation of capital gain the cost of bonus shares should be taken at its face value or at the average cost of all shares including bonus shares?
- How is the cost of bonus shares determined for the assessment of capital gains tax upon their transfer?
- Does a shareholder pay any consideration for bonus shares at the time of their allotment by a company?
- Ebrahim Brothers Limited vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi1992 PTD 1693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which answered in the negative whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that for the computation of capital gains, the cost of bonus shares should be taken at their face value rather than the average cost of all shares including bonus shares. The core legal question concerned the correct method for determining the cost of bonus shares for capital gains tax assessment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the correct method for calculating the cost of bonus shares is to spread the cost of the original shares over the original and bonus shares taken together (average cost method) rather than taking their face value or nil. The key principle laid down is that bonus shares do not cost nothing, nor are they acquired at face value; instead, their cost is determined by averaging the original investment across all resulting shares ranking pari passu, aligning with sound business accountancy and preventing distortion of capital gain.
Questions settled- Whether the cost of bonus shares for the computation of capital gain should be taken at its face value or at the average cost of all shares including bonus shares?
- How is the cost of bonus shares determined when assessing capital gains tax upon the transfer of capital assets under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Eastern Federal: Union Insurance Company Limited vs American1992 PLD Supreme Court 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the liability of a carrier for short-landing of goods shipped in containers under a bill of lading containing notations such as CY/CFS, STC, and shipper's load and count. The core legal question was whether a carrier issuing a bill of lading specifying both the containers and the detailed cargo inside (e.g., bales of second-hand clothing) is bound to deliver only the container or the actual contents described, and what evidentiary weight such bills of lading carry under the United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1936 (COGSA). The Supreme Court held that where a bill of lading enumerates the contents and number of packages inside a container, the bill serves as prima facie evidence of receipt of those goods, and each package inside rather than the container alone is treated as the package for liability purposes. However, notations like STC and CY/CFS ease the carrier's burden of rebuttal; once the carrier proves it delivered the sealed container intact and exercised due care, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove the actual contents were stuffed. As the appellant failed to produce rebuttal evidence, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a carrier is bound to deliver the contents described in a bill of lading or only the container when goods are shipped in containers with notations like CY/CFS and STC?
- Does the issuance of a bill of lading with 'said to contain' or shipper's load and count notations displace its statutory character as prima facie evidence under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act?
- How does the burden of proof shift between the carrier and the shipper when a sealed container is shipped and delivered with seals intact?
- Whether a container itself constitutes a package or the individual units packed inside are to be treated as packages under maritime carriage law?
- E.K. Mathew vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1992 PTD 1548 · Kerala High Court · 1991-07-23Read full judgment →
- Dr. V. Mahadev. vs Commissioner of Income-tax.PTCL 1992 FC.121 · Madras High Court · 1990-03-20Read full judgment →
- Dr. S. Husain vs MRs, Masiha Begum1992 CLC 1292 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-11Read full judgment →
- Dr. Quraishul Mujtaba Qarni vs S. Usman Ali Kazmi1992 CLC 2114 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against the appellant, Dr. Quraishul Mujtaba Qarni, regarding residential quarters. The respondent, S. Usman Ali Kazmi, sought eviction on grounds of rent default, unauthorized subletting, structural alterations, and change of use. The appellant contested the application, denying the landlord-tenant relationship and asserting ownership through an alleged oral sale agreement and adverse possession. The core legal question was whether a tenant, having admitted the tenancy, could challenge the landlord's title or the validity of a gift made by the original owner. The Court held that the appellant, having admitted the tenancy, was estopped under Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 from denying the landlord's title. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a tenant lacks locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift made by the landlord. Finding the relationship of landlord and tenant established and default in rent payment proven, the Court upheld the eviction order, emphasizing that a tenant cannot set up a title adverse to the landlord during the tenancy.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the title of their landlord during the continuance of the tenancy?
- Does a tenant have the locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift of the property made by the landlord to a third party?
- Is a tenant permitted to raise a plea of adverse possession against their landlord?
- Can a party introduce evidence on a factual plea that was not raised in their written statement?
- Dr. Nizamuddin Memon vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 765 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Munirulhaq and others vs Dr. Muhammad Latif1992 SCMR 2135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals arise from a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment allowing a civil servant’s appeal to treat his 1975 resignation as void. The respondent, a Professor, had resigned from government service to accept a permanent position at Fatima Jinnah Medical College, believing it to be a private institution. Following subsequent litigation establishing that the college had vested in the government under Martial Law Regulation (MLR) 118, the respondent sought to withdraw his resignation, claiming it was based on a mistake of law and fact. The Supreme Court held that the resignation was a voluntary act, not vitiated by mistake, and the respondent could not repudiate his own act after benefiting from the appointment. The Court emphasized that the respondent made a conscious choice to resign to secure a specific posting. Furthermore, the Court ruled the claim was barred by limitation, noting that the respondent failed to challenge the resignation timely. The principle of estoppel prevents a party from challenging a contract's terms after enjoying its benefits. Consequently, the Tribunal’s decision was set aside, and the respondent's appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant withdraw a resignation once it has been accepted and acted upon?
- Does a mistake of law regarding the status of an institution render a resignation void ab initio?
- Is a claim for reinstatement barred by limitation if the resignation was accepted years prior to the challenge?
- Can a party to a contract repudiate its terms after having enjoyed the benefits of that contract?
- Dr. Muhammad Ali Ghazanfar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 849 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
- DR. Mahmood-Ur-Rahman Faisal and Another vs Secretary, MinistryK.L.R. 1992 Shariat Cases 1 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Dr. Mahboob Ali Soomro vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 80 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. M.B. Ankalsaria vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Karachi1992 SCMR 1755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appeal challenged a High Court decision regarding whether "goodwill" constitutes an "asset" under Section 2(e) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. The core legal question was whether goodwill, being intangible, falls within the statutory definition of assets subject to wealth tax. The Supreme Court held that goodwill is an incorporeal, movable property and is included within the definition of "assets" under Section 2(e) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. However, the Court emphasized that whether a specific business has actually acquired goodwill is a question of fact, not law. The mere operation of a business does not automatically generate taxable goodwill; rather, it requires evidence of an "attractive force" capable of drawing customers. Consequently, while the legal status of goodwill as an asset was affirmed, the Court remanded the case to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to determine, as a matter of fact, whether the appellant's nursing home had actually acquired goodwill, as the lower forums had failed to adjudicate this factual aspect.
Questions settled- Is goodwill considered an "asset" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963?
- Does the definition of "assets" in the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, include intangible property?
- Is the determination of whether a business has acquired goodwill a question of law or a question of fact?
- Can a tax authority assess the value of goodwill without first establishing the factual existence of such goodwill in the specific business?
- Dr. Khalid Kamal Khan vs Dr. Arshad Kamal Khan and another1992 CLC 1887 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a suit for the dissolution of a partnership firm. The core legal question was whether a subsequent "bifurcation proposal" regarding the business operations constituted a novation of the original partnership agreement, thereby extinguishing the original firm. The Court held that the bifurcation agreement, which introduced new parties and created independent administrative and financial structures, was fundamentally inconsistent with the original partnership deed. Consequently, the original partnership ceased to exist, and the suit for its dissolution was unsustainable. The Court affirmed the principle of novation under Section 62 of the Contract Act 1872, holding that where parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for an existing one, the original contract is discharged. If the terms of a subsequent agreement are so inconsistent with the former that they cannot stand together, the former is deemed rescinded. The Court found no error in the trial court's assessment of the evidence or its procedural modification of issues.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent agreement that is fundamentally inconsistent with an original partnership deed constitute a novation of contract?
- Can a suit for the dissolution of a partnership be maintained if the partnership has been extinguished by a subsequent arrangement?
- Is a court permitted to modify issues framed in a suit after hearing the evidence if it serves to clarify the real contest between the parties?
- Dr. Arshad Ali And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1666 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ahmed Ali vs Agha Mir Alavi And. Another1992 P Cr. L J 2038 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-04Read full judgment →
- DR. Aftab Ahmed Qureshi vs The Chief Secretary And 2 Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 52) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-07-18Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 574 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-28Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs Divisional Canal OfficerK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 203 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs Ashiq Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 44 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi vs Abdul1992 PLC 1302 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
- District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation vs Muhammad1992 PLC 887 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation vs Muhammad1992 PLC 967 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
- District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation vs Ghulam Younus1992 PLC 761 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a grievance petition filed by a respondent employee against his premature retirement by the Karachi Transport Corporation (K.T.C.). The respondent, originally employed by the Sindh Road Transport Corporation (S.R.T.C.), had his services merged into the K.T.C. The core legal question was whether the respondent was subject to the retirement age of 60 years under K.T.C. rules or a reduced age of 58 years established by a subsequent settlement between the K.T.C. and the Collective Bargaining Agent (C.B.A.). The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to the more favourable retirement age of 60 years. The Tribunal ruled that a C.B.A. lacks the authority to negotiate agreements that diminish existing rights or privileges of workmen. Furthermore, it established that when an employee is merged into a new administrative setup, they are governed by the new rules only to the extent they are not less favourable than previous terms. Additionally, the Tribunal affirmed that terms and conditions of service, including retirement age, are protected under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and cannot be adversely altered by subsequent settlements.
Questions settled- Can a Collective Bargaining Agent enter into an agreement that reduces the existing rights or privileges of workmen?
- Does an employee merged into a new administrative setup retain the more favourable terms of service from their previous employment?
- Are terms and conditions of service, such as retirement age, protected from adverse modification by subsequent settlements under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation vs Ali Akhtar Shah1992 PLC 782 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
- Din Muhammad and 2 others vs Abdul Rehman Khan1992 SCMR 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose out of a suit for declaration seeking to declare certain orders of the Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property forged. The trial court initially rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was affirmed in appeal, but the High Court remanded the suit on revision. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the remand order and stayed further proceedings. During the pendency of the appeal, the trial court, unaware of the stay order, continued the proceedings and decreed the suit. The core legal question was whether a stay order issued by a superior court takes effect immediately when passed or only upon communication to the lower court. The Supreme Court held that a stay order operates from the moment it is made, rendering any subsequent proceedings or decree passed by the subordinate court an absolute nullity without jurisdiction, regardless of lack of communication. The appeal was disposed of with directions to the trial court to decide the suit afresh on the question of forgery.
Questions settled- Does a stay order passed by a superior court operate from the time it is made or from the time it is communicated to the subordinate court?
- Is a decree passed by a lower court during the subsistence of an uncommunicated stay order from a superior court a nullity?
- Whether subordinate proceedings conducted after a stay order has been granted by a higher court are rendered without jurisdiction?
- Dilshad Muhammad vs Messrs Pakistan International Airlines1992 PLC 606 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Dil Nawaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2581 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
- Devi Cine Projector Manufacturing Co. vs Commissioner of Income-1992 PTD 113 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-02-05Read full judgment →
- Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs. Lahore And 21992 PLD Supreme Court 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the liability of respondents engaged in the business of retreading tyres to pay sales tax under the Sales Tax Act. The appellants contended that the retreading process constitutes 'manufacturing' of taxable goods. The core legal question was whether the activity of retreading tyres amounts to 'manufacture' or 'sale' of goods under the Sales Tax Act, thereby attracting tax liability. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the respondents do not manufacture new goods but merely repair existing ones. The Court reasoned that 'manufacture' requires the transformation of materials into a new, distinct product, which does not occur during the retreading process. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Sales Tax Act requires a transfer of property (sale) for tax to be levied, whereas the respondents merely returned the repaired goods to the original owners. The key principle laid down is that 'manufacture' connotes the conversion of raw materials into a new substance with a different character, and repair work performed on a customer's existing property does not constitute 'manufacture' or 'sale' for the purposes of sales tax imposition.
Questions settled- Does the process of retreading tyres constitute 'manufacture' for the purpose of the Sales Tax Act?
- Is the definition of 'manufacture' under the Central Excises and Salt Act applicable to the Sales Tax Act?
- Does the repair of a customer's goods, where no new product is created, constitute a 'sale' under the Sales Tax Act?
- What is the legal requirement for an activity to qualify as 'manufacture' under tax law?
- Department. vs Assessee.PTCL 1992 CL. 383 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →
- Delhi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 250 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-08-14Read full judgment →
- Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Shah Zarin1992 PLC 1274 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
- David Hardy Glynn vs Commissioner of Inland Revenue1992 PTD 1429 · The Privy Council of England · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
- Daulat vs Mohabbat And 6 Other1992 PLD Lahore 167 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed by the complainant under the Criminal Procedure Code to challenge the acquittal of the respondents on the benefit of the doubt by an Additional Sessions Judge in a murder trial, while their co-accused Nasir was sentenced to death. When confronted with the implication that succeeding in the revision would entail a retrial of the convicted co-accused along with the respondents, the petitioner's counsel chose to withdraw the revision petition. However, the counsel requested permission to participate and present arguments on behalf of the complainant in the pending criminal appeal of the condemned co-accused before the Division Bench. The Lahore High Court held that the request was in consonance with the dictates of Shariah, which enjoys supremacy under section 3 of the Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991, as Shariah recognizes and gives preference to individual rights over state authority. The court consequently dismissed the criminal revision as withdrawn while allowing the complainant's counsel the right to oppose the convict's appeal before the Division Bench.
Questions settled- Can a criminal revision against acquittal be withdrawn by the complainant?
- Does the Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991 allow a complainant to participate and argue in a criminal appeal against conviction?
- Does Shariah give preference to individual rights over the authority of the State according to the Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991?
- Daraz Khan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 208 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- Dara vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1420 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
- Daniel Boyd (Muslim Name Saifullah) vs The State1992 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, Daniel Boyd (Saifullah), by the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Peshawar, for the possession of an unlicensed firearm. The core legal question was whether the Special Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case without a formal order from the Federal Government, as mandated by the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991. The Supreme Appellate Court held that under Section 5(1) of the Ordinance, the jurisdiction of a Special Court is contingent upon a formal order from the Federal Government directing the trial of a case, particularly after the Government has formed an opinion that the offence is gruesome, brutal, or sensational. Because the Federal Government failed to issue the requisite order for the trial of this specific case, the Special Court lacked the jurisdiction to proceed. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentences, ruling that the trial was vitiated due to the absence of the necessary jurisdictional order.
Questions settled- Does a Special Court for Speedy Trials have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case without a formal order from the Federal Government under Section 5(1) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991?
- Is the jurisdiction of a Special Court for Speedy Trials dependent on a formal order from the Federal Government regarding the nature of the offence?
- Dada Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary Finance, Islamabad And 2 Other1992 PLD Karachi 335 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
- Dada Steel Mills (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs M.V.I. Van And 2 Other1992 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
- D.B. Madan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 452 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Crescent Sugar Mills and Distillary Ltd. vs Assistant Collector of Central Excises and Land Customs and others1992 SCMR 986 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of additional excise duty from a sugar manufacturer. The appellant failed to pay monthly excise duty installments for several financial years, prompting the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to issue a demand for additional duty under rule 5(3) of the Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972. The core legal question was whether this additional duty constituted a penalty requiring adjudication by a competent authority under section 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, before it could be demanded. The Supreme Court held that the additional duty prescribed under rule 5(3) is a self-executing provision triggered by the failure to pay installments on time, rather than a penalty requiring prior adjudication. Consequently, the Court determined that section 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was inapplicable to the recovery of this additional duty. The Court affirmed that the liability arises automatically upon default, distinct from any penal actions that might be taken under section 37 of the Act.
Questions settled- Is the additional duty imposed under rule 5(3) of the Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972, a penalty requiring adjudication under section 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Does the failure to pay excise duty installments on time trigger an automatic liability for additional duty?
- Is the recovery of additional duty under rule 5(3) of the Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972, independent of penal actions under section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Crescent Garments Industries (Pvt.) Limited vs Shakila1992 PLC 680 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-14Read full judgment →
- Cornpak Employees' Union, Karachi vs Messrs Cornpak Limited1992 PLC 326 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-12-15Read full judgment →
- Consolidation)Bashir and 5 others vs Ghulam Qadir and 34 others1992 MLD 711 · Board of Revenue · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Consolidation) Muhammad Qasim and others vs Allah Ditta and others1992 CLC 892 · Board of Revenue · 1990-06-25Read full judgment →
- Consolidation) Muhammad Afzaal vs Director of Land Records and others1992 CLC 887 · Board of Revenue · 1990-10-02Read full judgment →
- Consolidation) Mst. Sardar Bibi and others vs State and others1992 CLC 656 · Board of Revenue · 1990-08-22Read full judgment →
- Consolidation) Mst. Rajah and others vs Siraj Din1992 CLC 646 · Board of Revenue · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
- Consolidation) Abdur Rehman and others vs Malik Ahmed Bakhsh and others1992 CLC 649 · Board of Revenue · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth-Tax vs Smt. Anjamli Khan1992 PTD 408 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-11-06Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Umraomal Dhaddha1992 PTD 1568 · Rajasthan High Court · 1990-02-02Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Swadesh Kumar1992P T D 1504 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1991-08-06Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Subimal Sen and others1992 PTD 1540 · Gauhati High Court · 1991-08-09Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Sri Aditya Kishore Bhartiya1992 PTD 878 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-07-25Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs SMT. Shanti Devi Kaushik1992 PTD 920 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Savitri Dawar1992 PTD 895 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1990-08-29Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Shri Raw Kumar Cement House1992 PTD 1512 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1991-08-07Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs R.S. Tandon and others1992 PTD 1494 · Delhi High Court · 1991-12-06Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Premnarain Praveen Kumar1992 PTD 922 · Calcutta High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs P.N. Banerjee1992 PTD 444 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-09-12Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs O.P. Tandon and others1992 PTD 1552 · Delhi High Court · 1991-12-06Read full judgment →