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.
- Abdul Kadir vs Muhammad Nawaz And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2044 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jalil (deceased) through his L.Rs,s vs Muhammad Hussain and another1992 SCMR 1605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil appeal regarding a pre-emption suit where the appellant, an occupancy tenant of contiguous land, claimed a superior right of pre-emption against the respondent. The core legal question was whether an occupancy tenant qualifies as an "owner of contiguous property" under Section 12 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, to exercise the right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an occupancy tenant does not possess full proprietary rights and therefore does not qualify as an "owner" under the Act. The Court reasoned that "owner" implies a person possessing full proprietary rights, whereas an occupancy tenant holds land under another and is subject to rent obligations. Consequently, the appellant could not claim pre-emption based on contiguity. The judgment establishes that the right of pre-emption based on contiguity is reserved for owners of contiguous property, and occupancy tenancy, being a distinct legal status, does not satisfy this statutory requirement. The lower courts' concurrent findings against the appellant were upheld as legally sound.
Questions settled- Does an occupancy tenant qualify as an 'owner of contiguous property' for the purpose of claiming a right of pre-emption under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
- Is the status of an occupancy tenant equivalent to that of an owner for the purposes of exercising pre-emption rights?
- What is the legal definition of 'owner' in the context of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
- Abdul Jabbar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 101 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 498 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs Second Sindh Labour Court and another1992 PLC 515 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-01-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Lakho vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. v, Karachi and 3 others1992 PLC 371 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haq vs Ghazanfar Ali and others1992 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 33 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Muhammad Sharif and 3 others1992 SCMR 1331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over land allotment and a subsequent pre-emption decree. The appellant obtained a pre-emption decree in 1969 regarding land originally allotted to a refugee, Muhammad Ali. During the pendency of the litigation, the original allotment was cancelled, and a portion of the land (22 Kanals 6 Marlas) was allotted to the respondents. Although the original allotment was later restored, the respondents maintained their possession and title to the 22 Kanals 6 Marlas. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption decree obtained when the underlying allotment was cancelled could be enforced against a subsequent, unchallenged allotment of the same land to third parties. The Supreme Court held that the pre-emption decree could not be enforced against the respondents' allotment. The Court reasoned that at the time the pre-emption decree was passed, the original allotment did not exist, and the subsequent restoration of that allotment could not retroactively validate the pre-emption claim against the respondents' independent, unchallenged allotment. The principle established is that a pre-emption decree cannot be based on a non-existent right at the time of the decree's passing.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption decree be enforced if the underlying allotment was cancelled at the time the decree was passed?
- Does the subsequent restoration of an allotment retroactively validate a pre-emption decree obtained during the period of cancellation?
- Can a party claim rights under a pre-emption decree against a subsequent, unchallenged allotment of the same land to third parties?
- Abdul Hamid Dar vs N.I.R.C.(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 137) · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Dar vs N.I.R.C.1992 PLC 911 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Alias Karo And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 767 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1669 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs The StateKLR1992 Criminal Cases 295 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs Mohammad Shah KhanK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 250 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed Forester vs Divisional Forest Officer Sialkot ForestK.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 67 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2566 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed and 4 others vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd., Karachi1992 PLC 710 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haleem vs Umer Haji Abdullah through Legal Heir and others1992 SCMR 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition by the landlord arises from the concurrent rejection of his claim seeking the eviction of the tenant and his assignees on the grounds of default, subletting, and damage to the property. The core legal question concerns whether the tenant's admission in a document regarding the surrender and transfer of tenancy rights was ignored by the lower courts in favour of contradictory oral evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, holding that the categorical and unequivocal admission by the tenant regarding the surrender of tenancy rights warranted proper judicial consideration rather than being bypassed for oral testimony. The key principle laid down is that clear documentary admissions by a tenant concerning the relinquishment of tenancy must be duly evaluated and cannot be overridden solely by contradictory oral evidence.
Questions settled- Whether an unequivocal admission by a tenant regarding the surrender of tenancy rights can be ignored in favour of oral evidence?
- Does the surrender of tenancy rights to a third party constitute subletting or ground for eviction?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when lower courts fail to consider material documentary admissions?
- Abdul Haleem vs The State.1992 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hakim vs Messrs Abdul Rahman, Contractor, Abdullah1992 PLC 538 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hakeem vs National Bank of Pakistan, Hyderabad1992 PLC 1118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hafeez and others vs The State and others1992 SCMR 1401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which upheld the conviction and sentences of several accused persons under sections 302, 120-B, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, confirming two death sentences and maintaining sentences of life imprisonment, while acquitting one co-accused. A cross-petition was also filed by the deceased's father seeking enhancement of sentences and challenging the acquittal. The core legal question involves examining whether the circumstantial evidence and judicial confessions form a complete and credible link to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given unexplained features regarding an injured co-accused. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the convicts to enable a comprehensive re-examination of the entire evidence, while partially dealing with the complainant's petition regarding acquittal and sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that where a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence and judicial confessions presenting inconsistencies and unexplained features, leave to appeal will be granted for a thorough re-evaluation of the evidentiary chain.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence with inconsistent confessional statements?
- Can a petition for enhancement of sentence be entertained when the convicts have benefited from an amnesty order?
- Abdul Ghani vs State and others1992 CLC 1413 · Board of Revenue · 1991-10-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Secretary Health, Government of Punjab & 2 Other(K.L.R.1992 Labour & Service Casess 164) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1992-03-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Notified Officer/Addl. CommissionerK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani and 2 others vs Abdul Aziz Khan and 2 others1992 CLC 212 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a second appeal arising from a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly applied the provisions of Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close the appellants' evidence and whether such discretion was exercised judiciously. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's decision to close the evidence and the subsequent judgments based upon it were unsustainable, as the adjournment was not occasioned at the request of the appellants and the trial court misread the record regarding the service of witnesses. The court laid down the principle that penal provisions such as Order 17, Rule 3 must be strictly construed and applied, and courts must not exercise discretion arbitrarily or whimsically to the detriment of a party's right to a fair opportunity to present evidence. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the lower courts' judgments were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked to close evidence when an adjournment was not occasioned at the request of the party?
- Does a court act arbitrarily in closing evidence under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a misreading of the record regarding the service of witnesses?
- What is the effect on the final judgment when an order closing a party's evidence is found to be illegal and unsustainable?
- Abdul Ghani And 2 Other vs Abdul Aziz Khan And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 483 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2484 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, Karachi , .1992 PLC 393 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-09-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Judge Family Court And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 590 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Ali Muhammad and 3 others1992 CLC 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and anothers vs Akbar Ali1992 CLC 617 · Board of Revenue · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns revision petitions challenging the appointment of a Lambardar in a revenue estate. The core legal question was whether the appointment should be based on the majority community status and the recommendations of lower revenue functionaries, or on the political influence of a candidate serving as a local councillor. The Board of Revenue held that the appointment of a Lambardar must prioritize the majority community, as this remains a time-honored practice in the socio-economic setup. The Board further ruled that the recommendations of lower revenue functionaries, such as the Patwari and Tehsildar, carry significant weight and should not be disregarded by the Collector without providing specific, valid reasons. Additionally, the Board clarified that holding the office of a local councillor should not be the primary criterion for appointment to avoid administrative conflicts, and that obtaining agricultural loans does not constitute a disqualification unless there is persistent default. Consequently, the Board set aside the lower orders and appointed the petitioner from the majority community as the Lambardar.
Questions settled- Should the appointment of a Lambardar be based on the strength of the majority community in the revenue estate?
- Can the Collector disregard the unanimous recommendations of lower revenue functionaries without providing reasons?
- Does holding the office of a local councillor constitute a valid ground for appointment as a Lambardar?
- Is obtaining an agricultural loan from the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan a disqualification for the post of Lambardar?
- Abdul Ghafoor and 3 others vs The State1992 SCMR 1218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent convictions for murder and causing hurt during an election rivalry. The core legal questions involved the existence of intent to kill when using lethal weapons like .12 bore guns, the applicability of common intention among multiple accused, and the strict procedural and substantive requirements for accepting a compromise in criminal cases involving qisas and diyat. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that firing with lethal weapons sufficiently establishes the intention to kill, regardless of whether the primary target survived due to providential intervention or body resistance, and that joint conduct proves common intention. Furthermore, the Court laid down strict guidelines for processing compromises, emphasizing that any doubt regarding the free will of the parties or compliance with statutory procedures must be resolved against the acceptance of the compromise, which must be entirely free from coercion, undue influence, or defects in filling out the prescribed pro forma regarding minors and heirs.
Questions settled- Does the use of a lethal weapon like a .12 bore gun sufficiently indicate an intention to kill even if the primary target survives?
- Can the common intention of multiple accused be inferred from their joint conduct in firing at adversaries?
- What are the mandatory stages and scrutiny procedures required for accepting a compromise in a criminal case?
- How must doubts regarding the free will of parties entering into a criminal compromise be resolved by the Court?
- What are the legal consequences when a compromise pro forma fails to properly account for the rights of minors and non-waiving heirs under the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Abdul Ghaffar vs Deputy Director, F.I.A. And Others1992 P Cr. L J 546 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar and anothers vs The State and another1992 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for murder and robbery, initially sentenced by a Special Court for Speedy Trials. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony regarding identification in darkness, the evidentiary value of identification parades conducted after significant delays, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, specifically recovery of currency and medical reports, to sustain convictions. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the ocular evidence unreliable due to poor lighting conditions at 4:30 a.m., material contradictions in the descriptions of the accused, and the fact that witnesses had prior access to the accused at the police station, rendering the identification parades legally invalid. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the recovery of unmarked currency notes and inconclusive medical evidence failed to establish a nexus with the crime. The key principle laid down is that where eyewitnesses have only a fleeting glimpse of perpetrators in darkness, and identification parades are tainted by prior exposure, such evidence is insufficient for conviction, necessitating acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Can identification of an accused be considered reliable if the witnesses had prior access to the suspect at the police station before the formal identification parade?
- Is the recovery of unmarked, common currency notes sufficient to establish a nexus between the accused and a robbery?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to examine material witnesses, such as victims of a robbery, create a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the incident occurred in darkness and the witnesses had only a fleeting glimpse of the assailants?
- Abdul Ghaffar And Another vs The State1992 P Cr.L J 545 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar and 7 others vs Messrs Associated Industries1992 PLC 351 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-09-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Bari vs S.M.Saghiruddin Hassan & 3 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 184 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Bari vs S.M. Saghiruddin Hasan and 3 others1992 CLC 698 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 724 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Member, Board of Revenue And 5 Others1992 P Cr. L J 1722 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi and others vs Mrs. Salma Rehman and another1992 CLC 777 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed by the Board of Trustees of the Abandoned Properties to set aside a decree for specific performance of a contract. The applicants alleged the decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, as the property in question was 'abandoned property' under the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act, 1975. The core legal questions concerned whether the applicants, as non-parties, had the locus standi to challenge the decree and whether the underlying agreement effectively transferred title. The Court held that the decree was obtained by suppressing material facts. It determined that the unregistered agreement of sale was ineffective to transfer title under the Registration Act, 1908, meaning the property remained vested in the Federal Government. Consequently, the Court set aside the decree. The judgment establishes that Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permits 'any person,' regardless of whether they were a party to the original suit, to challenge a judgment or decree obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the term 'person' in Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include individuals who were not parties to the original suit?
- Can an unregistered agreement of sale for immovable property exceeding one hundred rupees in value effectively transfer title?
- Is a suit for specific performance barred if the property in question has been declared as abandoned property under the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act, 1975?
- Abdul Aziz And Other vs The State And.Other1992 PLD Karachi 378 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz And Other vs Abdul RazzaqK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 114 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-08-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Alias Baboo And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 215 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Admani vs Messrs Mapra & Sons1992 PLC 676 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Abbottabad vs Muhammad Salim Khan and another1992 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 53 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-04-08Read full judgment →
- Abbas vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1748 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
- Abbas Raza vs The State1992 P Cr. LJ 2583 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-27Read full judgment →
- Abbas Khan vs The State and others-1992 P Cr. L J 417 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
- Abbas Hussain and anothers vs The State and another1992 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Multan, convicting the appellants under sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the P.P.C. for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions involved whether the Special Court had proper jurisdiction without a notification under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1991, whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the death sentence was warranted given the immediate circumstances of the altercation. The Supreme Court held that objections to court jurisdiction must first be raised before the trial court itself, upheld the conviction based on reliable ocular and medical evidence establishing the appellants as the aggressors, but altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life due to the sudden nature of the altercation. The Court laid down that an objection to territorial or special jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time before the appellate court, and that minor or sudden altercations without deep-rooted enmity may warrant mitigation of the death penalty to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can an objection regarding the jurisdiction of a trial court be raised for the first time in the appellate court?
- Whether the death sentence can be commuted to imprisonment for life when the immediate cause of an occurrence is a sudden altercation without deep-rooted enmity?
- Does a mistaken injury inflicted on a co-accused during a scuffle invalidate the prosecution's explanation of injuries?
- Whether an acquittal based on a plausible view of the evidence and medical report warrants interference by the appellate court?
- Abba Umar Shekha vs Habib Bank Limited and 2 others1992 CLC 1880 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-28Read full judgment →
- Abad Ali vs The State1992 SCMR 977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioner was sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, for the murder of Muhammad Aslam. The conviction and sentence were subsequently confirmed by the High Court. The occurrence involved the petitioner attacking the deceased with a knife at a bus stop, motivated by strained relations stemming from a water theft dispute and the deceased's role as a prosecution witness in a pending criminal case. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not challenge the conviction itself but sought a reduction of the death sentence. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the petitioner initiated the attack and was the sole individual with a clear motive. Finding that the courts below correctly appreciated the evidence and that the capital punishment was appropriate given the circumstances, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the death sentence.
Questions settled- Is the death sentence appropriate where the accused initiated the attack and possessed the sole motive for the murder?
- Does the presence of a single fatal wound among multiple incised wounds preclude the imposition of the death penalty?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be upheld based on ocular testimony alone?
- A.La. Firm vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 357 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-02-21Read full judgment →
- A.F.Ferguson & Co. vs District Court Karachi And Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service 1) · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-30Read full judgment →
- A.D. Nisar Chaudhry vs Province of the Punjab and another1992 CLC 1476 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
- A. Hameed vs Ghulam Muiiammad and others1992 CLC 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
- A. Habib Ahmed vs M. K. G. Scott Christian And 5 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals challenged a High Court judgment that quashed criminal proceedings before a Special Court (Banks) regarding the alleged fraudulent sale of pledged shares. The core legal questions were whether the High Court should exercise constitutional jurisdiction to interrupt a criminal trial at a preliminary stage, and whether the alleged offences constituted 'scheduled offences' under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by interfering in the normal course of criminal justice. The Court ruled that the Special Court possesses the statutory authority to determine its own jurisdiction and whether an offence is 'scheduled.' Furthermore, the definition of 'scheduled offence' must be interpreted broadly to include any offence committed 'in respect of or in connection with the business of a bank,' regardless of whether the bank itself suffered direct financial loss. The Court established that extraordinary jurisdiction should not be used to short-circuit trial procedures when alternative statutory remedies exist, and ordered that criminal proceedings remain stayed pending the resolution of related civil litigation.
Questions settled- Should a High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings at a preliminary stage when alternative statutory remedies are available?
- Does the definition of a 'scheduled offence' under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, require that the bank itself must have suffered financial loss?
- Can a Special Court (Banks) determine during the course of a trial whether an alleged offence falls within the definition of a scheduled offence?
- Should criminal proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of a related civil suit involving the same subject matter?
- A. Gasper vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 447 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-08-21Read full judgment →
- A&B Food Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, CentralK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 104 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- A&B Food Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Incometax_Sales, Karachi1992 SCMR 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three appeals directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated April 26, 1984, which answered in the negative whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the sales tax officer to allow a refund of sales tax on vegetable ghee consumed in biscuit manufacturing when vegetable ghee had suffered no sales tax at all. The core legal question concerns whether biscuit manufacturers were entitled to a refund of sales tax on the consumption of vegetable ghee after sales tax on it was merged with excise duty and exempted through a notification. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's approach was in consonance with law and dismissed the appeals, ruling that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts cannot look to legislative speeches, lift veils to imply sales tax within an excise capacity duty, or grant refunds under section 27 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 where no sales tax was actually paid or payable on the raw material due to an exemption notification under section 7.
Questions settled- Whether a court can rely on legislative debates and ministerial speeches to interpret a fiscal statute when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous?
- Whether manufacturers are entitled to a refund of sales tax under section 27 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 on partly manufactured goods when no sales tax was paid or payable on such goods due to a government exemption notification?
- Does the merger of sales tax into central excise duty preserve the identity of sales tax so as to permit a taxpayer to claim tax refunds based on an incorporated element?
- How are tax exemption provisions in a fiscal statute required to be construed by courts?
- A & B Oil Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (B'1992 PTD 736 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
- A & B Oil Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax ('B'Range), Karachi.PTCL 1992 CL. 460 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
- A & B Food Industries Limited. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax_Sales, Karachi1992 PTD 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the entitlement of biscuit manufacturers to a refund of sales tax on vegetable ghee used as a raw material, following the merger of sales tax into excise duty under the Finance Act, 1967. The appellants argued that the excise duty on vegetable ghee effectively included sales tax, and thus, they were entitled to a refund to avoid double taxation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected this contention, holding that excise duty and sales tax are distinct levies. The Court ruled that where statutory language is clear and unambiguous, courts cannot resort to extrinsic aids, such as ministerial speeches, to interpret the law. Furthermore, the doctrine of lifting the veil cannot be applied to read sales tax into an excise duty provision. The Court emphasized that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly according to their letter, and since no sales tax was actually paid on the exempted vegetable ghee, no refund was admissible under Section 27(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951. The appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can extrinsic materials, such as ministerial speeches, be used to interpret an unambiguous taxing statute?
- Does the merger of sales tax into excise duty preserve the identity of the sales tax for the purpose of claiming a refund?
- Is a refund of sales tax admissible under Section 27(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, where no sales tax was actually paid on the raw material?
- Can a court lift the veil of a taxing statute to read a tax into an excise duty provision where the statute is clear?
- A & B Food Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax_Sales, KarachiK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 42 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a claim by a biscuit manufacturer for a refund of sales tax on vegetable ghee used as an ingredient. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to a refund after sales tax on vegetable ghee was merged into excise duty and subsequently exempted via notification. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were not entitled to a refund. The Court reasoned that excise duty and sales tax are distinct levies, and the merger did not preserve the identity of sales tax for refund purposes. Crucially, as no sales tax was actually paid on the ghee due to the exemption, the statutory requirement for a refund under Section 27(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, was not met. The Court established that legislative debates cannot be used to contradict clear statutory language, and fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly according to their letter. Furthermore, the burden of proving entitlement to a tax exemption lies with the claimant, and such provisions are construed strictly against them.
Questions settled- Can legislative debates or speeches be used to interpret a statute when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous?
- Is a manufacturer entitled to a refund of sales tax under Section 27(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, if no sales tax was actually paid on the raw materials?
- Does the merger of sales tax into excise duty preserve the identity of the sales tax for the purpose of claiming a refund?
- What is the standard of construction for provisions relating to tax exemptions in fiscal statutes?
- 1Qbal Khan and 7 others vs Mst. Haseen Zamani Begum and 2 others1992 CLC 1898 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-26Read full judgment →
- (M/s) Almehboob Industrial Multiple Purpose Co-Operative SocietyK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 88 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Zunaira Shamim vs Farrukh Wasim BokhariK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 532 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Shamim Bibi vs Allah Ditta And Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 530 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-28Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Rajan Etc vs Siraj DinK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 228 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Nasira Khan vs Divisional Benevolent Fund Board(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 219) · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-21Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Nasim Akhtar vs Qazi Muhammad Zubair1992 MLD 70 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-10-03Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Naseem Siddique vs D.E.O(K.L.R 1992 Labour & Service Cases 201) · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-02Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Munawwar Sultana Etc. vs Javed Ahmed MalikK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 61 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-27Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Janat Bibi vs (Mst.) Bhagan Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Farhat Sadiq vs The Secretary, Health Deptt_ Government of Sindh, Karachi(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 209) · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- (Mst).Muhammadjan vs Muhammad Yasin EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- (Mst). Saleema Bibi vs (Mst). Fatima BibiK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
- (Mst). Kulsoom (Fatima) vs Wazir Ali Aad 13 OtherK.L.R 1992 Civil Cases 150 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Nadira Yusuf vs Shaikh Mohammad ArshadK.L.R.1992 Civil Cases 134 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Azra Parveen vs Rana Saeed AhmadK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 570 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
- (DR.) Muhammad Nawaz Anjum vs Govt. of the Punjab through the Secretary Health, Lahore(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 242) · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-26Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1145 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1734 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar And Others vs The State And 10 Other1991 SCMR 326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal petitions: one filed by a convict, Zulfiqar, challenging his conviction for murder, and another by the complainant challenging the acquittal of nine co-accused. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court correctly acquitted the co-accused due to a lack of corroborative evidence for interested witnesses and whether the conviction of the petitioner could be sustained based on his absconsion after other evidence was discarded. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s acquittal of the co-accused was sound, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the corroborative evidence was unreliable. Regarding the petitioner, the Court affirmed his conviction, ruling that his prolonged absconsion constituted valid corroborative evidence. The Court established that while evidence from interested witnesses requires caution, absconsion can serve as a significant corroborative factor, and minor procedural irregularities in investigation are curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can absconsion serve as valid corroborative evidence for conviction when other prosecution evidence is discarded?
- Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
- Are minor procedural irregularities during an investigation curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to comply with Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding proclamation invalidate the use of absconsion as evidence?
- Zulfiqar And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1897 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Government of Punjab and others1991 CLC 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 137 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs D.I.G. Police EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 236 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali and 2 others vs Director-General Ae & W M Sindh1991 PLC (C.S.) 1181 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali Alias Dittu vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali Alias Dittu And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1125 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for robbery under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the police's initial refusal to register an FIR based on a preliminary assessment of the complaint's veracity invalidated the subsequent prosecution, and whether the complainant's identification of the accused was reliable in the absence of independent corroboration. The Court held that the police officer's initial refusal to register the case was procedurally improper, as the law requires the registration of an FIR before forming an opinion on the truthfulness of the allegations. Regarding identification, the Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the proximity of the accused to the victim during the commission of the crime provided sufficient opportunity for identification. The Court emphasized that the quality, rather than the quantity, of evidence is paramount, and that the complainant's straightforward testimony, corroborated by the recovery of incriminating weapons, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Questions settled- Does a police officer have the authority to refuse the registration of an FIR based on a preliminary assessment of the complaint's veracity?
- What are the factors that determine the reliability of a witness's identification of an accused during a crime?
- Is the testimony of a single eye-witness sufficient to sustain a conviction in a robbery case if it is confidence-inspiring and corroborated by the recovery of incriminating evidence?
- Zulfioar. vs The D.I.-G. Prisons, Lahore and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 151 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
- Zubair vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2193 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
- Ziaul Haq And Others vs Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad1991 SCMR 1632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three appeals, arising from a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, examine whether the Tribunal correctly ignored the provisions of the General Principles of Seniority and relevant Office Memoranda regarding the fixation of seniority for Instructors selected by the Public Service Commission. The core legal question was whether selectees could lose their merit-based seniority assigned by the Public Service Commission due to a delay in joining their posts beyond the initially specified department schedule. The Supreme Court held that the joining dates fixed by the Department were merely directory and did not entail the automatic cancellation of selection or merit-based seniority. The Department had no authority to deviate from the Public Service Commission's recommendations without making a reference back to it, and civil servants possess no vested right in seniority under Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeals filed by the Government, dismissed the civil servant's appeal, and set aside the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether the joining dates specified in an appointment letter are mandatory or directory for determining service seniority?
- Can the Department alter the order of merit and seniority assigned by the Public Service Commission without making a reference back to the Commission?
- Does a civil servant have a vested right in seniority under the Civil Servants Act?
- Whether delay in joining a post due to late relief from a previous department affects the merit-based seniority assigned by the Public Service Commission?
- Ziaul Haq And Others vs Mst. Ahmadi Begum And Other1991 SCMR 1364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court regarding a suit for declaration challenging a gift deed and subsequent mutations. The petitioners challenged the inheritance distribution of the deceased, Attaul Haq, as determined by the Additional District Judge. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the lower courts correctly calculated the inheritance shares of the deceased's legal heirs under Islamic law. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the petitioners' counsel, identified a potential error in the distribution of shares, specifically noting the discrepancy between the lower courts' calculation and the principles of inheritance under Muhammadan Law as outlined by D.F. Mullah. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to finally determine the correct distribution of the inheritance shares, while directing the parties to prepare the appeal on the existing record and allowing for the filing of additional documents.
Questions settled- What is the correct distribution of inheritance shares for a deceased person survived by a widow, mother, and father under Muhammadan Law?
- Does a miscalculation of inheritance shares by lower courts constitute a valid ground for granting leave to appeal?
- Ziarat Khan vs Khadim Hussain and anotherAccused1991 MLD 1949 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
- Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant. vs S. Roomi Shah, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 637 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-03Read full judgment →