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.
- Commissioner of Income Tax Central 'B' Karachi vs M_s. Evens Medical Ltd., KarachiPTCL 1992 CL. 481 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of 'Income-Tax vs Multimetals Ltd. D.B.1992 PTD 862 · Rajasthan High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- Comdr. Faiz Elahi and 3 others' vs Multan Improvement Trust, Multan1992 CLC 267 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves Regular First Appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Multan Improvement Trust. The core legal questions concerned the locus standi of the Trust to challenge a reference court’s award, the validity of excluding 15% compulsory acquisition charges under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and the correct determination of market value for compensation. The Court held that the Trust lacked locus standi to file an appeal against the reference court’s award, rendering its appeal incompetent. Regarding compensation, the Court affirmed that provisions in the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, which denied compulsory acquisition charges, were ultra vires, thereby entitling owners to such charges and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Furthermore, the Court established that market value must be assessed based on evidence, including binding admissions made by parties under oath, rather than solely relying on historical sale mutations. The judgment reinforces the principle that expropriatory statutes must be strictly construed and that parties cannot claim rights beyond those expressly conferred by statute.
Questions settled- Does an Improvement Trust have the locus standi to file an appeal against a reference court's award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Are the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, which deny 15% compulsory acquisition charges, ultra vires?
- Is a party's admission made under oath regarding the market value of land binding on the court in compensation proceedings?
- Does the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, require the court to consider inflationary trends and currency depreciation when assessing compensation?
- Colletor of Central Excise, New Delhi vs M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.PTCL 1992 FC. 94 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-09-29Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs (Preventive) and 2 vs Muhammad Mehfooz.others.PTCL 1992 CL.155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment declaring the search and seizure of goods at a re-rolling mill in Karachi by Customs authorities as unlawful. The core legal questions concern whether Customs officers possessed the territorial jurisdiction to conduct searches in the Federal 'B' Area and whether the search complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Customs Act, 1969, regarding the issuance of search warrants and the recording of reasons for dispensing with them. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal. It held that the Customs authorities lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the premises fell outside the notified limits of the Port of Karachi. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the search was procedurally defective because the officer failed to record specific, justifiable grounds for the apprehension of danger required to dispense with a search warrant under Section 163. The Court emphasized that statutory safeguards against arbitrary state interference must be strictly followed, and fiscal statutes must be interpreted based on their express provisions rather than implied powers.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'any place' in Section 163 of the Customs Act 1969 grant Customs officers unlimited territorial jurisdiction to conduct searches?
- Is a Customs officer required to record specific grounds for believing that goods might be removed before a search warrant can be obtained under Section 163 of the Customs Act 1969?
- Can Customs authorities conduct a search and seizure outside the notified limits of a Customs port?
- What is the legal consequence of failing to record specific reasons for dispensing with a search warrant under the Customs Act 1969?
- Chughta vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2516 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-14Read full judgment →
- Choudary Mazhar Ali Advocate vs Deputy Commissioner, IslamabadK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom 66 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Chishtia Sugar Mills Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1992 CLC 1838 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
- Chishtia Sugar Mills Faruka, Sargodha vs Assistant Director(K.L.R 1992 Labour & Service Cases 237) · Islamabad High Court · 1992-08-06Read full judgment →
- Chilya Corrugated Board Mills Limiteds vs M. Ismail anothers1992 CLC 2524 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit filed by the plaintiff company seeking a refund of an advance payment, damages for breach of contract, and interest arising from a failed agreement for the supply of wheat straw by the defendants. The core legal questions involved whether the defendants committed a unilateral breach of the contract, whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their obligations, and how damages for breach of contract are to be proven and assessed under Section 73 of the Contract Act 1872, alongside principles governing the proof of documents under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a unilateral breach by the defendants or prove the market price or actual loss necessary to claim substantial damages, as both parties contributed to the delays. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim for damages but ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to the refund of their unearned advance payments, minus the value of actual supplies received, as the defendants failed to substantiate any counter-claim or loss. The court laid down key principles regarding the assessment of damages in contracts for the sale of goods, the requirement of proving market prices, and the standards for documentary proof.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff suing for breach of contract must independently establish its case and readiness to perform rather than relying solely on the absence of defence evidence?
- Can a plaintiff claim substantial damages for breach of a contract for the sale of goods without proving the prevailing market price or actual loss suffered?
- Whether a party in breach is entitled to retain advance payments when it fails to substantiate any counter-claim or actual loss suffered?
- What is the effect of exhibiting documents without objection regarding the proof of their contents and authorship?
- Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue,1992 SCMR 2384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an urban settlement matter concerning proceedings before the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, it was brought to the Court's attention that subsequent administrative orders had been passed, which were currently under challenge in an independent writ petition before the High Court. Recognizing that detailed factual analysis by the Supreme Court could prejudice the ongoing High Court proceedings, the parties agreed to resolve the matter by affirming a specific observation made during the leave grant stage. The Supreme Court held that every Authority, Court, or Tribunal possesses the inherent power to protect its proceedings against fraud or misrepresentation. Consequently, the Court affirmed that seeking verification or reference from the custodian of original records is a lawful exercise of authority and cannot be deemed without lawful authority. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the Court explicitly clarifying that its observations were limited to this legal principle and would not prejudice the merits of the separate litigation pending in the High Court.
Questions settled- Does every Authority, Court, or Tribunal have the inherent power to guard its proceedings against fraud or misrepresentation?
- Can a reference to or verification from the custodian of original records be considered an act without lawful authority?
- Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab Samara and anothers vs Abdul Kareem1992 CLC 2081 · Chief Land Commissioner · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
- Chief Executive, Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd., Karachi and another vs Muhammad Anwar1992 PLC 775 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-10-10Read full judgment →
- Chief Election Commissioner Nazir Ahmed vs Returning Officer1992 CLC 2142 · Chief Election Commissioner · 1992-06-06Read full judgment →
- Chief Administrator Auqaf, Hyderabad vs Ghulam Shabbir Shah alias1992 CLC 1263 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Dadu, which had decided in favour of the respondent, challenging a notification issued by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, assuming control of certain properties allegedly attached to the Dargah of Sakhi Sikandar Bodla. The core legal question was whether the disputed properties constituted a public waqf by user or were the private personal property of the respondent and his ancestors. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant Auqaf Department failed to establish express dedication or that the properties had been used from time immemorial for religious, pious, or charitable purposes under the explanations to the relevant statute, whereas the respondent successfully proved through reliable documentary and oral evidence that the properties were private and residential. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the burden to prove waqf status shifts to the authority upon sufficient rebuttal by the claimant and must be supported by cogent evidence.
Questions settled- Whether properties claimed as private residential havelis can be taken over by the Auqaf Department as waqf property without proof of express dedication or immemorial user?
- Does the burden of proof lie on the Auqaf Department to establish waqf status once the petitioner adduces sufficient evidence rebutting the official notification?
- What constitutes waqf property by user under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961?
- Chandrakant Manual Shah and another vs Commissioner of Income-1992 PTD 679 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-10-24Read full judgment →
- Chandipore Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 1533 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-01-11Read full judgment →
- Chaman Cinema, Karachi vs Abdul Jabbar and 2 others1992 PLC 569 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
- Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Hyderabad and 3 others vs Muhammad Hasan and another1992 PLC 334 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Chief Administrator, Auqaf vs Syed Imam Ali Shah1992 CLC 1938 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-12Read full judgment →
- Chairman, Area Electricity Board WAPDA, Hyderabad and 2 others vs Abdul Razzak1992 PLC 525 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-01-30Read full judgment →
- Chairman WAPDA, Lahore and 3 others vs Illahi Bux Chacher and another1992 PLC 444 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Chairmain, N.W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation and others vs Khurshid Anwar Khan and others1992 SCMR 1202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-appeals between a forest contractor and the N.W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation regarding a dispute over timber harvesting contract payments. The trial court initially decreed the contractor's suit for over Rs. 700,000 with interest, which the High Court subsequently reduced to approximately Rs. 500,000 based on a revised calculation of log volume percentages. Before the Supreme Court, the primary issues involved the accuracy of the High Court's financial calculations and the question of limitation for filing appeals. The Supreme Court held that the calculation of the contractor's entitlement should be based on 40% of the log volume, as previously agreed upon by the parties. Regarding procedural law, the Court affirmed that it is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) or Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in matters of its own practice and procedure, emphasizing the independence of the judiciary. Ultimately, the Court allowed the Corporation's appeal in terms of a mutually agreed-upon figure of Rs. 160,569 and dismissed the contractor's appeal.
Questions settled- Is the Supreme Court of Pakistan bound by the provisions of the C.P.C. or Cr.P.C. regarding the regulation of its own practice and procedure?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a time-barred direct appeal into a petition for leave to appeal to overcome limitation issues?
- Does the independence of the judiciary, as supported by the Objectives Resolution, grant the Supreme Court authority to prioritize its own rules over conflicting statutory provisions regarding procedure?
- Ch. Tajuddin and others vs Government of Punjab and others1992 CLC 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
- Ch. Sarwar Hayat vs Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Cooperative Government Of PunjabAnd 2 Other1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 537 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob and others vs The State and others1992 SCMR 1983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding the conviction of several police personnel for the murder of six persons allegedly killed in a police encounter. The core legal question centered on whether the incident was a genuine police encounter or a staged extrajudicial killing following the unlawful abduction of the victims from a magistrate's office, and whether the right of private defence applied. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the encounter was fabricated and the victims were murdered in custody after severe torture. The Court affirmed the convictions but altered the death sentences of the surviving appellants to imprisonment for life, taking into account the mitigating circumstances regarding the lack of a pre-planned conspiracy to kill. The key legal principles laid down reiterate that the burden of proof in criminal trials remains strictly on the prosecution, that police functionaries do not possess a license to kill under the guise of an encounter, and that retracted judicial confessions and approver testimony require careful corroboration in material particulars.
Questions settled- Does a police encounter automatically entitle a police party to kill suspects without regard to the statutory limits on the right of private defence?
- Can a retracted judicial confession serve as the basis for a capital conviction without corroboration by reliable independent evidence?
- What is the extent of power and duty of a court under Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code when a public prosecutor applies to withdraw from prosecution?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the exact motive initially alleged vitiate the entire criminal case when the factum of the crime is otherwise established?
- CH. Muhammad Siddique vs Zulfiqar Ahmad And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 457 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Siddique vs Zulfiqar A14mad And 2 Other1992 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-15Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Nawaz vs Ch. Rehmat Ali and others1992 CLC 1051 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-18Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Malik Saikhu vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1977 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-27Read full judgment →
- CH. Muhammad Javad vs ChairmanK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 205 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-16Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Malik Siier and 2 others1992 CLC 196 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged a District Judge's order allowing an amendment to a plaint to include an alternative plea of adverse possession. The core legal question was whether such an amendment was permissible or if it fundamentally altered the suit's complexion. The Lahore High Court held that the amendment was permissible, as it neither changed the suit's complexion nor displaced the cause of action, but merely added an alternative plea to support the claim of ownership. The Court affirmed that the power to allow amendments under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is wide and discretionary, intended to facilitate the determination of the real controversy. Furthermore, the Court declined to apply the Shariat Appellate Bench's ruling regarding the repugnancy of adverse possession to Islamic Injunctions retrospectively to an order passed before that ruling's effective date. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the revisional order was found to be lawful and not subject to interference.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff amend a plaint to include an alternative plea of adverse possession alongside a claim of ownership?
- Does the rejection of an application for amendment of a plaint constitute a 'case decided' amenable to revision?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order passed by a District Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
- Does the plea of adverse possession constitute a change in the complexion of a civil suit?
- Ch. Lal Khan vs Sh. Mazhar Imam1992 CLC 857 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
- CH. Iftikhar Ahmad Etc. vs Basharat Ali Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 125 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-07Read full judgment →
- Ch. Ghulam Rasul vs The State and 8 others-1992 P Cr. L J 2360 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
- Ch. Ghulam Oadir vs President, Summary Military Court And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
- Ch. Barkat Ali vs Major Karam Elahi Zia and another1992 SCMR 1047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the acquittal of the respondent, an Army Major, who was initially convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, alleging that the respondent shot his wife inside their car on the Lahore-Kasur Road after sending his brother away to fetch brake-oil. The High Court acquitted the respondent, highlighting critical gaps in the circumstantial chain, including the survival of the deceased for several hours post-shooting, the highly public nature of the chosen crime scene, and the respondent's prior life-saving conduct during a drowning incident. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeals, reaffirmed that for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, the proved circumstances must be incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Applying the established principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Court held that the High Court's findings were reasonably possible and not artificial or shocking, thereby precluding interference.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required for a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case?
- Can medical evidence by itself be used to establish the identity of an assailant?
- CH. Allah Rakha vs Province of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 369 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-05Read full judgment →
- Ch. Abdul Rashid vs Ch. Muhammad Tufail And Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning land in the revenue estate of Ichhra, which had been incorporated into the urban limits of Lahore. The core legal question was whether a government notification issued under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, which exempted certain areas from the application of the Act, could serve as sufficient proof of the existence of the custom of pre-emption at the commencement of the Act, as required by section 7. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in relying on the notification as proof of the existence of the custom. The Court clarified that an exemption notification under section 8(2) merely demonstrates the exercise of the power to exclude an area from the Act's operation, not the existence of the right itself. Furthermore, even if it were evidence of existence at the time of the notification, it would be irrelevant to the statutory requirement of proving the custom at the commencement of the Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower judgments, remanded the case, and directed the trial court to allow the amendment of the written statement to properly frame and adjudicate the issue of the custom's existence.
Questions settled- Can a government notification issued under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, be used as proof of the existence of the custom of pre-emption at the commencement of the Act?
- Does the exercise of power under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, to exempt an area from the Act, constitute evidence of the existence of the right of pre-emption in that area?
- Is a delay in filing an application for amendment of a written statement sufficient ground to reject the amendment if the issue is essential for the adjudication of the case?
- Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, Nagpur1992 PTD 260 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-08-20Read full judgment →
- Central Government of Pakistan And Other vs Suleman Khan And Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arose out of land acquisition proceedings where the High Court dismissed the appeals filed solely by the Central Government as incompetent and refused the application to transpose the Land Acquisition Collector (a respondent) as an appellant. The core legal question was whether an appeal incompetent due to being filed by the Central Government alone could be saved by transposing the Land Acquisition Collector from respondent to appellant under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. The Supreme Court held that the High Court took an unduly strict view of its procedural powers. The Court laid down that the power to transpose parties under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. is wide, should be liberally exercised to achieve complete adjudication and prevent multiplicity of proceedings, and can be exercised suo motu or on application without technical hurdles or limitation constraints. Reading Order I, Rules 9 and 10 with Order XLI, Rule 33, C.P.C., the Supreme Court transposed the Collector as co-appellant, declared the appeals competent, and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh decision on merits.
Questions settled- Can a respondent Land Acquisition Collector be transposed as an appellant under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. to remedy an incompetent appeal filed by the Central Government?
- Does the transposition of a respondent as an appellant under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. attract the bar of limitation?
- Can an appellate court exercise powers under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. to transpose a party suo motu without a formal application?
- Does Order I, Rule 9 C.P.C. prevent a suit or appeal from being defeated due to misjoinder or non-joinder of necessary parties?
- Central Board of Revenue and others vs Chanda Motors1992 PTD 1681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Central Board of Revenue challenges a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondent firm, quashing orders rejecting the respondent's claim for tax benefits under clause 172 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, read with Circular 9 of 1985. The core legal question was whether an assessment wherein a reassessment order had been passed prior to the cut-off date but was pending in appeal could be regarded as an 'assessment already finalised' under paragraph III(d) of Circular 9 of 1985, thereby disentitling the assessee from claiming a set-off for investments made in Special National Fund Bonds. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that original assessments, reassessments, and appellate proceedings constitute a continuous series of judicial proceedings connected by an intrinsic unity. The Court concluded that since the case was pending in appeal and subsequently remanded and finalized after the relevant date, it fell under the category of reopened assessments governed by paragraph III(b) rather than paragraph III(d). The principle laid down is that an assessment order does not attain finality until all hierarchy of appeals and legal forums have been exhausted.
Questions settled- Whether an assessment order against which an appeal is pending can be treated as an assessment already finalised under Circular 9 of 1985?
- Do appellate proceedings constitute a continuation of assessment proceedings forming an intrinsic unity with original and reassessment orders?
- Are taxpayers entitled to claim a set-off against income for investments in Special National Fund Bonds in cases where assessments were reopened prior to the cut-off date?
- Capt. Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh And 5 Other vs Pakistan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, Islamabad And 3 Other1992 PLD Karachi 190 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed before the Sindh High Court, seeking to declare the restoration of the seniority of certain cockpit crew members by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation as invalid and without lawful authority. The core legal question revolved around whether the service regulations and administrative orders governing the employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation have statutory force, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for employment disputes involving statutory corporations in the absence of statutory rules. The court held that the regulations and administrative orders in question, lacking mandatory publication in the official gazette and presentation before the National Assembly, did not acquire statutory status. Consequently, the relationship between the corporation and its employees is governed by the simple theory of master and servant, rendering constitutional remedies unavailable. The court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that employees of statutory corporations lacking statutory service rules cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199.
Questions settled- Whether the service regulations of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation have the status of statutory rules?
- Can an employee of a statutory corporation invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the absence of statutory rules governing terms and conditions of service?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to the employment relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and its employees?
- Whether administrative orders and circulars not published in the official gazette operate as statutory rules?
- Capt. (Recd.) Abdul Qayyum, Executive Engineer vs Muhammad Iqbal1992 PLD Supreme Court 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a challenge to a judgment concerning the seniority of civil servants. The core legal questions were whether seniority remains a vested right under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and whether the Governor's residual power under Section 23 of the Act can be exercised to relax service rules to the detriment of other civil servants' vested rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that unlike other provinces and the Federation where the legislature explicitly declared seniority not to be a vested right, the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 contains no such exclusion, meaning seniority continues to be a vested right in Punjab. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while the Governor's residual power under Section 23 is a power of redressal meant to alleviate hardship and provide benefits, it cannot be exercised to impair, curtail, or adversely affect the statutory rights of other civil servants. The key principle laid down is that executive or residual powers of redressal must not override the statutory rights of third parties.
Questions settled- Whether seniority of a civil servant constitutes a vested right under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Can the Governor exercise residual powers under Section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 to relax service rules in a manner that adversely affects the statutory rights of other civil servants?
- What are the limitations on the Governor's power of redressal under Section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Capt. (R) Mukhtar Ahmad Shaikh vs Government of Pakistan1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 524 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-19Read full judgment →
- Cafe Capital Firm, Karachi. vs The Collector, Central Excise and LandPTCL 1992 CL. 121 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- C.S.C. and others vs Major (Retd.) Ch. Saeedurrehman and others1992 CLC 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-21Read full judgment →
- C.N. Nagakumar vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1992 PTD 1576 · karnataka High Court · 1991-06-03Read full judgment →
- C.I.T., Central Zone-B, Karachi vs Messrs Pakistan Automobile1992 PTD 763 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-16Read full judgment →
- C.I.T., Central Zone-a, Karachi vs Messrs Transclear Pakistan Ltd., Karachi1992 PTD 766 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-16Read full judgment →
- C.I.T., Central Zone-a, Karachi vs Messrs Commodities Trading Ltd., Karachi1992 PTD 765 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- C.I.T., Central Zone Karachi vs Messrs J.L. Morison, Sons & Jones1992 PTD 757 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- Budho vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 979 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
- Budha and others vs Border Area Allotment Committee and others1992 CLC 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
- British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. And Another vs Messrs M.Y. Khan1992 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
- Border Area Committee vs Sharif Ahmad Bhatti and others1992 CLC 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
- Bonifacio A. Burayag. vs The State.PTCL 1992 CL.53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner, who was convicted under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, for attempting to smuggle 8 Kgs of heroin powder. The petitioner had admitted the offense in his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C., but later attempted to resile. He was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000. The core legal question was whether the sentence was unduly harsh, considering the petitioner's plea of guilty and his role as a mere carrier. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the sentence was not harsh and that a carrier of narcotics is liable to severe punishment, potentially life imprisonment. The Court emphasized that discretion in sentencing, when properly exercised, is rarely interfered with, and that societal welfare and the disastrous effects of narcotics smuggling on society must be considered, especially in the absence of extenuating circumstances.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a legal sentence where discretion has been properly exercised by lower courts?
- Is a person who acts as a carrier in narcotics smuggling cases entitled to lenient treatment in sentencing?
- Does a plea of guilty automatically entitle an accused to a reduced sentence, particularly if they later attempt to resile from it?
- What factors should be considered by courts when determining the quantum of sentence in narcotics smuggling cases?
- Are extenuating circumstances necessary for a court to apply the rule of leniency in sentencing?
- Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 1463 · Bombay High Court · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
- Board of Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs National Industrial(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 186) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Board of Inland Revenue vs Winston Herbert Edward Suite1992 PTD 1662 · The Privy Council of EnglandRead full judgment →
- Bismillah Jan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 406 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
- Bishweshwarilal Chirawala vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1992 PTD 877 · Bombay High Court · 1990-07-23Read full judgment →
- Bi-Iagwandas Mangharam vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad Zone, Hyderabad ,1992 PTD 520 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-06Read full judgment →
- Bhai Khan And Other vs The State1992 PLD Supreme Court 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three criminal appeals arising from a conviction and death sentence for multiple murders and arson committed on 14 March 1972. During the pendency of the appeal, the death sentences of the appellants were commuted to imprisonment for life by the President of Pakistan under a general amnesty order issued on 7 December 1988 pursuant to Article 45 of the Constitution. The primary legal question addressed by the court concerns the quantum of sentence to be served following executive commutation—specifically, whether 'imprisonment for life' should be reckoned as 25 years under the post-1972 amendment or 20 years as previously designated for transportation for life, and how sentences on multiple counts should run. By majority view, the court held that because the commutation took effect on 7 December 1988, the commuted life imprisonment must be reckoned as equivalent to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment in accordance with Section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code as amended by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Furthermore, the court held that the sentences awarded under Section 436 of the Penal Code shall run concurrently with the substantive sentence, such that the total aggregate period of imprisonment shall not exceed 25 years, excluding sentences in default of fine.
Questions settled- Whether the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment by executive amnesty requires the commuted sentence to be calculated according to the law prevailing at the time of the offence or the date of the commutation order?
- Does Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan prohibit the application of an enhanced equivalent period for life imprisonment introduced after the commission of the offence when a death sentence is subsequently commuted?
- Can sentences of imprisonment for life or transportation for life on multiple counts be ordered to run concurrently inter se following presidential commutation?
- Whether sentences awarded under Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code can run concurrently with life imprisonment sentences without exceeding the aggregate limit?
- Behram Khan And 4 Other vs Mehr Mumtaz Hussain Lali, Additional1992 PLD Lahore 524 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-29Read full judgment →
- Begum Mumtaz Rlaz vs Masood Siddiqui And Another1992 PLD Karachi 26 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-12Read full judgment →
- Begum Akntar Mirza vs Zahida Parveen and 9 others-1992 P Cr. L J 2305 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-24Read full judgment →
- Before Raja Afrasiab Khan, Rana M. Yamin vs Election Authority and others1992 CLC 954 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
- Before Mukhiar Ahmed Junejo,Saleh Muhammad vs Haroon and another1992 MLD 727 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
- Before Irshad Hassan Khan, I Haji Khan Bhatti vs Dr. Munir Ahmad1992 PLC 632 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged an order passed by the Registrar/Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission, which provisionally approved a change of office-bearers for a trade union and directed fresh elections. The petitioner, the ousted President, contended that the order was passed ex parte, violating natural justice, and that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to review his own orders. The Court examined whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appeal to the Full Bench of the Commission under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Court held that while the impugned order was technically passed in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and was thus a nullity, the exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is not automatic. Since the petitioner's term had expired and the impugned order facilitated the holding of necessary elections, the Court declined to interfere, reasoning that granting the writ would perpetuate the petitioner's unauthorized hold on office and frustrate the election process. The petition was dismissed, subject to undertakings that the new office-bearers would not act until elections were held.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission when an alternative remedy of appeal to the Full Bench exists?
- Does a quasi-judicial authority, such as the Registrar of the National Industrial Relations Commission, have inherent power to set aside an ex parte order?
- Can a High Court refuse to issue a writ of certiorari even if the impugned order is found to be without lawful authority?
- Does the expiry of the statutory term of office-bearers of a trade union affect their standing to challenge an order regarding the change of office-bearers?
- Before Gul Zarin Kiani.J Ilyas and 4 others vs Jan Muhammad1992 CLC 351 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners, challenging a registered sale-deed of agricultural land. The trial court decreed the pre-emption suit in favour of the plaintiff, and the lower appellate court dismissed the petitioners' appeal, affirming the judgment. In the civil revision before the Lahore High Court, the petitioners contended for the first time that the plaint contained a misdescription of one of the Khasra numbers, rendering the suit fatal. The core legal question was whether a clerical error regarding the Khasra number in the plaint could be allowed to be corrected by amendment at the revisional stage, and what its effect was on the suit. The High Court held that the misdescription was a pardonable, clerical, and accidental error committed inadvertently by the counsel, which did not mislead the defendants. The Court ruled that it possesses ample powers under the Code of Civil Procedure and inherent jurisdiction to permit amendments of pleadings to correct clerical mistakes and prevent injustice, thereby allowing the substitution of the correct Khasra number.
Questions settled- Whether a misdescription of a Khasra number in the plaint of a pre-emption suit is fatal to the success of the suit?
- Can a court permit the amendment of a plaint to correct a clerical error regarding property description at the revisional stage?
- Whether a plaintiff should suffer for an inadvertent mistake committed by their counsel in describing property in the pleadings?
- Before Abdul Rabin, Kazi, Zakaria Dada vs Maneck Byramji Javat1992 CLC 345 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by a plaintiff tenant seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant landlord from selling, transferring, creating third-party interests in, or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property pending the disposal of a specific performance suit. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss necessary for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, alongside the effect of pending rent proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to show a concluded contract for sale or that the offer had been duly accepted and acted upon, as subsequent lease agreements omitted sale covenants and the plaintiff continued as a tenant. The Court reaffirmed that all three ingredients of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss must co-exist, and noted that under Section 56(a) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, no injunction can be granted to restrain pending judicial proceedings in a competent court. The application was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance?
- Can an injunction be granted to restrain judicial proceedings pending before a competent court of law under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- What are the essential ingredients that must co-exist in favor of a plaintiff to entitle them to an interim injunction during the pendency of a suit?
- Does a mere unaccepted offer or an omitted covenant in subsequent lease agreements constitute a valid and binding contract for the sale of immovable property?
- Before Abdul Majid Tiwana, Muhammad Rafique Khan vs Mumtaz Ahmad1992 CLC 822 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
- Beauchamp (Inspector of Taxes) vs F.W. Woolworth PLC1992 PTD 1259 · OtherRead full judgment →
- Batulbai vs Dr. Amir through his L.Rs,1992 SCMR 1713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which set aside the Rent Controller's order allowing eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement and dismissed the landlady's eviction application. The petitioner landlady had sought eviction under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, alleging subletting, default in rent payment, and personal need of the premises for her son. The Rent Controller found against the landlady on subletting and default but granted eviction for personal need, a finding reversed by the appellate court. The core legal question revolves around whether the appellate court misread the evidence in setting aside the Rent Controller's finding of bona fide personal need. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether there was misreading of evidence by the appellate court, holding that the petitioner had adequately explained the factual position and previous litigation regarding her children's requirements.
Questions settled- Whether the appellate court committed misreading of evidence while setting aside the Rent Controller's finding on personal requirement?
- Is it necessary for a landlord to provide exhaustive details of personal need in the initial ejectment application?
- Bashir And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 83 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Zulfioar And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court order suspending the sentence and granting bail under Section 426, Cr.P.C. to a convict sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal question concerned the proper exercise of judicial discretion in suspending sentences pending appeal, specifically regarding the weight of police investigation reports versus trial court verdicts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its exercise of discretion. The Court established that while appellate courts possess the power to suspend sentences, this discretion must be exercised judicially without reappraising evidence or entering into the merits of the case. A conviction by a competent court carries significant weight, and the opinion of the investigating agency declaring an accused innocent is generally irrelevant for bail purposes post-conviction. Bail under Section 426 should only be granted where there is a glaring illegality or error in the judgment, or where strong grounds exist to suggest the conviction is unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and cancelled the respondent's bail.
Questions settled- Does the opinion of the investigating agency declaring an accused innocent constitute a valid ground for suspending a sentence after a conviction?
- Can an appellate court reappraise evidence when considering an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426, Cr.P.C.?
- Is the power of an appellate court to grant bail under Section 426, Cr.P.C. fettered by the provisions of Sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C.?
- Under what circumstances should an appellate court suspend a sentence of life imprisonment pending appeal?
- Bashir Ahmad vs The State1992 P, Cr. L J 795 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 236 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 571 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner1992 CLC 2468 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Abdul Majid and 7 others1992 CLC 1069 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil matter before the Sindh High Court arises from an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking the rejection of a plaint in a suit concerning an agreement of sale. The core legal questions involved the bars of limitation, proper valuation of court-fees for injunctions, and the maintainability of a suit for specific performance when an alternative remedy of damages is provided. The Court held that pleas involving mixed questions of fact and law, such as limitation and the availability of alternative remedies for specific performance, cannot be resolved without recording evidence and therefore do not warrant the rejection of the plaint. Regarding court-fees, the Court found a deficiency in the valuation of injunction reliefs but ruled that such an objection does not result in the rejection of the plaint, directing the plaintiff to submit an amended plaint with proper valuation and additional court-fees. The key principle laid down is that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on ambiguous pleas or complex factual contentions requiring evidentiary backing, and defects in court-fee valuation require an opportunity for amendment rather than immediate dismissal.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation when the determination of limitation depends on disputed agreements and requires recording of evidence?
- Does an objection regarding the under-valuation of court-fees for injunction reliefs warrant the outright rejection of a plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a suit for specific performance automatically barred under the Specific Relief Act merely because the agreement between the parties provides for an alternative remedy of damages?
- Whether time is of the essence of the contract in respect of agreements of sale touching immovable property without a written notice fixing reasonable time?
- Bashir Ahmad Khan vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Muzaffarabad1992 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 49 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad CH. vs Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Ga.I.D.1992 SCMR 1141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by Bashir Ahmad Chaudhry against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal as incompetent on the ground that he was not a civil servant. The appellant initially joined government service in 1951, and his services were subsequently transferred to various successive transport boards and corporations, culminating in the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation where he was compulsorily retired. His claims for retirement benefits akin to government servants were rejected. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be treated as a government servant or on deputation, maintaining his civil servant status. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal did not deal with the matter in sufficient depth. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to decide afresh whether the appellant is a civil servant after considering fresh documents and arguments.
Questions settled- Whether an employee whose services are transferred from government transport service to successive autonomous transport boards and corporations ceases to be a civil servant?
- Can an employee of an autonomous transport corporation claim retirement benefits and status available to provincial government servants?
- Whether an appeal dismissed by the Punjab Service Tribunal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction should be remanded for fresh decision when the matter was not examined in sufficient depth?
- Bashir Ahmad And Other vs BeggaK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 234 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-02Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State,1992 P Cr. L J 2526 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad alias Bashira and another vs The State1992 SCMR 1873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal and subsequent petitions for leave to appeal filed by the State following a conviction for a gruesome dacoity resulting in murder. The Court examined whether there was sufficient justification for the lesser sentence awarded to the convicts under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the acquittal of the majority of the accused was legally sound, particularly regarding the identification of unknown accused persons. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the State for both the enhancement of the sentence and against the acquittal of the co-accused. The Court rejected the convict's attempt to withdraw his appeal to avoid potential sentence enhancement. The Court affirmed that where eye-witnesses are found credible regarding some accused, the sufficiency of their testimony for identifying other accused without independent corroboration requires judicial examination. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that procedural delays in criminal justice administration can be condoned in the interest of justice, relying on established precedents regarding limitation.
Questions settled- Can a convict withdraw an appeal after the State has filed a petition for leave to appeal against the sentence?
- Does the credibility of eye-witnesses regarding some accused persons automatically validate their identification of other accused persons without independent corroboration?
- Can the Supreme Court condone delay in filing criminal petitions for leave to appeal in the interest of justice?
- Basharat And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2549 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-02Read full judgment →
- Basharat A. Shaikh and 2 others vs The. State1992 MLD 607 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-30Read full judgment →
- Barkat Hussain vs Sardar Misri Khan1992 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 45 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-03-07Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2627 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 431 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-10-01Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 201 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-10-01Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali vs Aftab Ahmad1992 CLC 1490 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 881 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 975 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-02Read full judgment →
- Baqi Jan and 6 anothers vs Haji Mama Khel and others1992 SCMR 1785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose out of a pre-emption matter concerning land in District Bannu. The core legal questions involved whether the transaction in dispute was a genuine sale or an exchange, and whether adopting a genuine exchange as a device to avoid a future suit for pre-emption is permissible under the law. The Supreme Court held that the transaction was a genuine exchange intentionally entered into as a legitimate device to prevent pre-emption, and the absence of physical possession of joint land not yet partitioned by metes and bounds did not render the exchange a sale. The Court affirmed the High Court's judgment dismissing the pre-emption suit. The key principle laid down is that adopting a genuine, non-fraudulent device such as an exchange to avoid pre-emption is legally permissible under the law and Islamic jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of physical delivery of possession in an exchange of joint land unpartitioned by metes and bounds converts the exchange into a sale?
- Is it permissible under the law to adopt a genuine device, such as an exchange, to avoid a suit for pre-emption?
- Whether a transaction that is genuinely an exchange rather than a disguise or fabrication defeats a claim of pre-emption?
- Baqar vs The State.1992 PLD Lahore 503 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-06Read full judgment →
- Baqar Ali vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Sukkur And Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 69) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
- Bano vs The State Respondcnt1992 PLD Karachi 158 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →