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.
- Wali Muhammad vs Mukhtar Hussain1991 SCMR 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from ejectment proceedings initiated under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act by the respondent-purchaser against the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal requirement. The core legal questions involved whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed given the pendency of a separate appeal concerning property ownership based on an agreement to sell, and whether an eviction order could follow a default finding without a separate lengthy inquiry where the tenant denied the relationship and failed to prove rent payment. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, having purchased the property via a registered deed, lawfully stepped into the shoes of the former owner and established default, and that the denial of tenancy by the appellant negated the need for further equitable discretion in his favor. The Court laid down the principle that a registered sale deed serves as public notice of transfer, and a tenant who denies the landlord-tenant relationship cannot resist ejectment on the plea of lack of personal notice or pending ownership litigation.
Questions settled- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists during the pendency of appeal proceedings relating to the ownership of the property based on a contract for sale?
- Does a registered sale deed operate as public notice of transfer to the tenant dispensing with the requirement of a separate formal notice under general property principles?
- Whether an eviction order for default in rent can be sustained when the tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant and fails to establish payment to the previous owner?
- Walayat Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and 51991 PLC (C.S.) 278 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
- Walayat Hussain Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Rab Nawaz Through Legal Heirs And Other1991 SCMR 1547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment where the High Court allegedly failed to correctly construe a document, specifically Exhibit P.1, in light of the Registration Act. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the High Court committed an error of law by failing to properly interpret the document despite concurrent findings by the two lower courts on the relevant issue. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the contention, found that the argument regarding the misconstruction of the document and the potential error of law was not devoid of force. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the matter required further judicial consideration. The key principle affirmed is that while concurrent findings of fact are generally not disturbed, a High Court's failure to properly construe a document in accordance with statutory requirements constitutes a valid ground for granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, as it involves a potential error of law rather than a mere reassessment of facts.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the High Court allegedly fails to properly construe a document in light of statutory requirements?
- Does an alleged misconstruction of a document by the High Court constitute a valid ground for challenging concurrent findings of lower courts?
- Zafar Shah Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
- Wajid Ali Sheikh vs Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 480 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-08-09Read full judgment →
- Wajid Ali Shaikh vs The Chief Secretary to Govt. of Sindh, New Sindh(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Case 13) · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Wajahat Hussain, Assistant Director, Social Welfare, Lahore and 71991 PLD Supreme Court 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil service appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution arose from disputes regarding the inter se seniority of Social Welfare Officers and Medical Social Officers under the West Pakistan Social Welfare Department (Gazetted Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1964. The core questions involved whether an earlier Tribunal decision operated as res judicata, whether executive bodies could regularize ad hoc appointments retrospectively to affect seniority, and the proper application of continuous service and general regularization orders. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal, holding that the earlier decision did not operate as res judicata as distinct legal issues and subsequent executive orders were involved. The Court held that executive bodies, including Departmental Selection Committees, lack inherent authority to give retrospective effect to regularizations or defeat service rules. Furthermore, 'continuous appointment' under Rule 8 of the 1964 Rules means continuous appointment in accordance with law, excluding ad hoc service. Seniority must be determined batchwise from the date of regular appointment, respecting special Governor's dispensations and statutory notifications.
Questions settled- Does a judgment regarding an earlier seniority list operate as res judicata to bar a challenge against a subsequent seniority list involving different statutory orders and unaddressed legal issues?
- Can an executive authority or Departmental Selection Committee regularize ad hoc appointments with retrospective effect in the absence of explicit statutory authorization?
- Does the expression 'continuous appointment' in service rules governing seniority include service rendered on an ad hoc basis?
- Can civil servants claim the benefit of a general regularization order without demonstrating compliance with the specific conditions prescribed in that notification?
- Volkart (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Interavia Pakistan Ltd.1991 MLD 2147 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-11Read full judgment →
- Vicechancellor vs Ziladar Khan and others1991 CLC 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Vice Chancellor vs Ziladar Khan EtcK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 68 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Veer Muhammad and 5 others vs Messrs Prince Glass Works Ltd.1991 PLC 372 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
- Usman vs (Mst) Gulai Etc.K.L.R. 1991 CivU Cases 153 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
- Usman Ghani vs The Occupier/Manager, Metropolitan Steel1991 PLC 566 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-10-18Read full judgment →
- Usman Ali Isani vs Karachi Development Authority through DirectorGeneral and 3 others1991 CLC 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- University of Karachi and anothers vs Muhammad Rafique and 4 others1991 CLC 752 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
- Universal Brushwares (Private) Limited and anothers vs Messrs Syed1991 CLC 382 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order resolves applications for a temporary injunction and attachment before judgment in a suit concerning alleged design infringement. The plaintiffs, proprietors of a registered toothbrush design featuring a specific arrangement of inner upstanding and outer slanting bristles, sought to restrain the defendants from manufacturing and selling similar toothbrushes. The defendants contended that the design was neither new nor original, pointing out that foreign companies had manufactured toothbrushes with identical bristle settings prior to the plaintiffs' registration. The High Court considered whether a design copied from abroad could be deemed 'new or original' in Pakistan. Rejecting the plaintiffs' contention that local novelty suffices, the court held that a person imitating an existing foreign design cannot claim copyright protection or status as a proprietor under the Patents and Designs Act 1911, even if registered locally. Furthermore, the court noted that the feature copied related to functional bristle arrangements rather than shape or configuration. Finding no prima facie case, the court dismissed both applications.
Questions settled- Whether a design imitated from an existing foreign product can be considered 'new or original' for protection under Pakistani law?
- Does a person who registers a design in Pakistan after copying it from abroad qualify as a 'proprietor' under the Patents and Designs Act 1911?
- Can functional features of an article, such as bristle settings, be protected as a registrable design against alleged infringement?
- United Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner for Workmen's1991 PLC 479 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
- United Labour Union (C.B.A.) P.R.T.C. (Intercity), Multan vs Farasat1991 PLC 338 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1990-05-17Read full judgment →
- United Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Zafarullah Khan1991 CLC 1817 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-03Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd., Multan vs Abdul Aziz Memon and 59 others1991 PLC 552 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Rub Ali Dayo1991 PLC 111 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Muhammad Majeed alias Abdul Majeed1991 CLC 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Mst. Jindan Bibi through Legal Heirs1991 CLC 1491 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-24Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Ghulam Mujtaba Palh1991 PLC 153 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. through President and another vs Punjab Labour1991 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-10Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd vs Anwar Hussain1991 PLC 922 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd vs (Mst). Jinda Bibi Widow and OtherK.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 616 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
- United Bank Limited vs Qamar Hussain and 2 others1991 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
- United Bank Limited vs Noor Silk Mills Limited and 4 otherss1991 CLC 888 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-31Read full judgment →
- United Bank Limited vs Muhammad Slaeem Raza and others1991 PLC 413 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
- United Bank Limited vs Mst. Shahida Begum1991 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal filed by United Bank Limited, a tenant, challenging the dismissal of its appeal against an eviction order. The eviction order was based on grounds of default and the personal requirement of the respondent's son, under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. While the High Court had set aside the default ground, it upheld the personal requirement ground. The petitioner contended that, based on the lease agreement, it could not be evicted on the ground of personal requirement. However, during proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioner and respondent reached a compromise. The petitioner submitted an undertaking to voluntarily vacate the rented premises and hand over physical possession to the respondent on or before April 30, 1991, without requiring notice or execution proceedings, in terms of clause 5 of the original lease. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and disposed of in accordance with this undertaking and compromise. A connected petition filed by the respondent was also not pressed and stood disposed of.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal and disposed of based on a voluntary undertaking and compromise between the parties?
- Is an undertaking to vacate rented premises, made before the Supreme Court, sufficient ground for the disposal of an appeal challenging an eviction order?
- Can a tenant voluntarily agree to vacate premises by a specific date, thereby settling an eviction dispute before the Supreme Court?
- United Bank Limited vs Messrs Shahid Corporation1991 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment by the Banking Tribunal, which decreed a suit for the recovery of finance but refused to award liquidated damages stipulated in the finance agreement. The appellant, a banking company, challenged this refusal, arguing that the agreement explicitly provided for liquidated damages upon default. The core legal question was whether a Banking Tribunal, constituted under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984, possesses the jurisdiction to award liquidated damages as agreed upon in a finance contract. The High Court held that the Banking Tribunal erred in its observation that the Ordinance prohibited the award of such damages. Finding no such restriction within the statutory framework of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984, the Court concluded that the Tribunal was entitled to enforce the contractual terms regarding liquidated damages. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned observation and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh determination in accordance with the law. The judgment affirms that Banking Tribunals must enforce valid contractual provisions for liquidated damages unless specifically barred by statute.
Questions settled- Does the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 prohibit a Banking Tribunal from awarding liquidated damages stipulated in a finance agreement?
- Is a Banking Tribunal empowered to enforce contractual clauses regarding liquidated damages agreed upon between a bank and a customer?
- Can a Banking Tribunal refuse to grant liquidated damages on the sole ground that there is no specific provision for them in the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984?
- United Bank Limited vs Messrs Altaf Limited and another1991 CLC 1754 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
- United Bank Limited vs Kurnool Muhammad Muneer1991 CLC 1758 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit was instituted by United Bank Limited for the recovery of Rs. 6,089,344.11 arising from an overdraft facility secured by promissory notes and pledged shares. The defendant contested the claim, alleging the suit was time-barred, the security documents were signed in blank, and the statement of account unlawfully included penal, compound, and exorbitant interest. The High Court of Sindh examined whether time-barred amounts could be revived and whether penal interest was recoverable. The Court held that while ordinary acknowledgments cannot revive an already time-barred debt, a written promise to pay a time-barred debt constitutes a fresh agreement and cause of action under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act 1872. The limitation period was subsequently extended by part payments under Section 20 of the Limitation Act 1908. Furthermore, penal interest was disallowed as it was not backed by an agreement, and unstamped or uncancelled promissory notes were deemed void. Consequently, the Court decreed the suit for Rs. 6,020,797 after deducting the unauthorized penal interest.
Questions settled- Can a written promise to pay a time-barred debt furnish a fresh cause of action under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, 1872?
- Does a balance confirmation note executed after the expiry of the limitation period revive a time-barred debt?
- Can a bank charge penal interest on an overdraft facility in the absence of an explicit agreement between the parties?
- Is a claim for the recovery of a loan with compound interest contrary to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872?
- Umlever Ltd vs Sultan Soap Factory and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the registration of the trade mark "LIGHT" in Urdu for laundry soap, opposed by the appellant, Unilever Ltd, on the grounds that it conflicts with its registered trade marks "SUNLIGHT" and "LUX". The core legal question was whether the respondent's mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers, and whether the respondent established honest concurrent use. The Supreme Court held that the registration of "LIGHT" was permissible, subject to specific limitations. The Court reasoned that the appellant’s marks, primarily associated with toilet soaps, were distinct from the respondent's laundry soap. Crucially, the Court determined that the prefix "SUN" was the dominant phonetic feature of the appellant's marks, rendering "LIGHT" distinct. It was established that likelihood of confusion is a question of fact dependent on mark examination, reputation, and the nature of goods. The Court affirmed that while identical marks for similar goods are prohibited, honest concurrent use may justify registration. Consequently, the Court granted registration with conditions restricting the respondent's use to laundry soap and specific geographical areas.
Questions settled- Does the registration of a trade mark require the goods to be identical to those of an existing registered mark to be refused on grounds of confusion?
- In determining phonetic similarity between multi-syllable trade marks, does the prefix or the suffix carry more weight?
- Can a trade mark be registered despite potential similarity if the applicant establishes honest concurrent use?
- Is the likelihood of deception or confusion in trade mark registration a question of fact or law?
- Umer Mian vs Phool Shah And Another1991 SCMR 1639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent of charges under sections 467 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, a complainant in a private criminal complaint, alleged that the respondent had forged a power of attorney and subsequently sold the complainant's land using fake impersonators. The trial court had convicted the respondent, but the High Court overturned this conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented at trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecution failed to examine marginal witnesses to the power of attorney, did not obtain a handwriting expert's opinion regarding the alleged forged signatures, and failed to produce any vendees to corroborate the transaction. The Court established the key principle that a criminal conviction cannot be sustained solely on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused, particularly when essential evidence regarding the alleged forgery remains unexamined by the prosecution.
Questions settled- Can a criminal conviction be based solely on the statement of a co-accused?
- Is the failure to examine marginal witnesses or obtain expert handwriting analysis fatal to a prosecution case involving forgery?
- Does the appellate court have grounds to interfere with an acquittal when the prosecution fails to produce essential evidence?
- Umer Farooq Syed vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Lahore, and 21991 PTD 872 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition was filed challenging an order of the Wealth Tax Officer while an appeal against the same order was already pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals. The petitioner argued that the petition was maintainable because the appellate forum lacked the specific statutory jurisdiction to grant a stay against tax recovery, rendering the appellate remedy inadequate under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the petition was premature. The Court affirmed the principle that even in the absence of an express statutory provision, an appellate authority possesses the inherent power to grant interim relief, such as a stay of the impugned order. Consequently, the existence of an appellate remedy, which includes the inherent power to grant interim relief, precludes the invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction at this stage. The petition was accordingly disposed of as premature.
Questions settled- Is a Constitutional petition maintainable when an appeal against the impugned order is already pending before an appellate authority?
- Does an appellate authority possess the inherent power to grant a stay of recovery in the absence of an express statutory provision?
- Is the lack of an explicit statutory power to grant a stay sufficient to render an appellate remedy inadequate under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Umer Bibi And Others vs Salimuddin And Other1991 SCMR 774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld orders denying occupancy rights to the petitioners in evacuee land and holding them liable to pay Batai share as mesne profits. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could be granted relief regarding the order of mesne profits when no such contention or grievance had been raised in the main writ petition filed before the High Court. The Supreme Court held that there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order since the grievance regarding mesne profits was not raised in the writ petition. The key principle laid down is that the appellate or higher court will not entertain contentions or grant relief concerning matters that were not specifically pleaded or raised in the constitutional petition before the lower forum.
Questions settled- Whether relief regarding mesne profits can be granted when no such contention was raised in the writ petition?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order concerning mesne profits if the grievance was not made in the High Court?
- Umar vs The State1991 P Cr., L J 1466 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1905 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat vs Ghulam Muhammad1991 CLC 1682 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner I, Lahore1991 CLC 2051 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-19Read full judgment →
- Umar Din vs Ghazanfar Ali And Other1991 SCMR 1816 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding possession of a portion of an Ahata situated in Chak No.120/S.P., Tehsil Sargodha. The petitioner, claiming to be a transferee since 20-11-1947, obtained a decree from the trial court, which was subsequently reversed and dismissed on appeal by the District Judge, a decision upheld by the High Court in regular second appeal. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether an appellate judgment is improper if it omits separate findings on each individual issue, and whether the concurrent findings regarding the evacuee status and transfer of the property were legally flawed. The Supreme Court held that the appellate judgment was proper because, despite not discussing each issue separately, the appellate court had rendered findings on all points raised before it. On the merits, the court maintained the finding that the disputed land was evacuee property validly transferred to the respondent. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court judgment improper merely because it does not record separate findings on each individual issue?
- Whether an appellate judgment is valid if it addresses and decides all the points raised before the court without discussing each issue separately?
- Can concurrent findings of fact establishing that property is evacuee property transferred by settlement authorities be disturbed without demonstrating legal infirmity?
- Ubaidullah vs The State1991 SCMR 1734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the offence of desecrating the Holy Quran under Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was alleged to have trampled a booklet titled 'Namaz Mutarajjam' in public, leading to his arrest and subsequent conviction by the trial court, which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal primarily to consider whether the sentence of imprisonment for life was mandatory under the relevant provision. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found the appellant's defence—that he was intoxicated by an unknown person who had placed the booklet in his pocket—to be plausible and reasonable, particularly given the appellant's illiteracy. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the requisite intent or commission of the offence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, effectively resolving the matter in his favour.
Questions settled- Is the defence of intoxication a valid ground for acquittal in a charge of desecrating the Holy Quran under Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the prosecution's failure to prove the accused's intent in a case of alleged desecration warrant an acquittal?
- Can an appellate court set aside a conviction based on a plausible defence plea raised by an illiterate accused?
- Ubaidullah vs Iqbal Hussain and another1991 PLC 726 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-07-17Read full judgment →
- Turner Smith & Co. Ltd: vs Additional District Judge And Other1991 SCMR 1333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of concurrent findings of lower forums and the High Court ordering the ejectment of a tenant from a property on the ground of the landlord's bona fide personal requirement under the relevant rent restriction law. The core legal questions involve whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement and whether the leased premises constituted an industrial concern outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the tenant cannot dictate the suitability of the site for the landlord's needs when the property is found suitable, and that the record established the premises were not rented out as an industrial concern. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge a landlord's choice of property for personal requirement on the ground that another vacant site is available?
- Whether premises rented out without the character of an industrial concern fall within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller?
- Does a tenant have the right to influence a landlord's judgment regarding the suitability of a site for personal use?
- Tufail Muhammad vs Abdul Aleem Khan And Other1991 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a displaced person, challenged the High Court's order remanding the case regarding the status of land allotted to him. The petitioner had been allotted agricultural land in 1965, which became final as no appeals were filed within the prescribed period. Subsequently, respondents claimed the land was residential and part of a house transfer, leading to protracted litigation. The Settlement Commissioner, in 1971, held that the land was agricultural and its allotment to the petitioner had become final, precluding its transfer or auction by settlement authorities. The High Court, however, remanded the matter for fresh decision. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the Settlement Commissioner's 1971 order regarding the agricultural nature of the land had attained finality against the auction-purchasers who failed to challenge it. The Court held that under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, land classification in the Special Jamabandi is determinative, and subsequent variations cannot alter its status as agricultural land. Consequently, the Court stayed the effect of the remand order pending the final appeal.
Questions settled- Does an allotment of agricultural land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, become final if not challenged within the prescribed limitation period?
- Can land classified as agricultural in the Special Jamabandi be reclassified as a building site for the purposes of transfer by settlement authorities?
- Does the failure of auction-purchasers to challenge a Settlement Commissioner's finding regarding the nature of land render that finding final against them?
- Trust Ceramic Industries Landhi vs Deputy Collector II, Central Excise1991 CLC 1923 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges the imposition of Central Excise Duty on 'glaze', a chemical preparation used by the petitioner in manufacturing ceramic wares. The petitioner contended that the glaze is not a distinct, marketable product but an intermediate material consumed in-house during the manufacturing process, and thus not subject to excise duty. The core legal question was whether excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, can be levied on a product that is not 'vendable' or marketable. The Court held that for goods to be 'excisable' under the Act, they must possess the quality of being marketable. Relying on the principle that excise duty is attracted only when a marketable good is produced, the Court declared the impugned orders without lawful authority. The matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector to conduct a factual inquiry into whether the glaze is indeed a vendable good. Additionally, the Court directed the authority to determine if a prior practice existed of not charging duty on glaze, which would impact the prospective or retrospective application of the Central Board of Revenue's General Order No. 3/86.
Questions settled- Can Central Excise Duty be levied on a product that is not marketable or vendable?
- Does the definition of 'excisable goods' under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 require that the goods be capable of being sold in the market?
- Is a General Order issued by the Central Board of Revenue regarding excise classification applicable retrospectively if a contrary practice previously existed?
- Tribal Textile Mills Limited vs Malik Nowsherwan And Other1991 SCMR 772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding labour disputes. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its dismissal by failing to consider material evidence, specifically audited balance sheets (Exhibits P.1 and P.4), which the petitioner contended proved the financial losses leading to the closure of the Mills. The petitioner further argued that the High Court misconstrued the precedent established in South British Insurance Employees' Union v. The Sindh Labour Court No.4 and others (1975 SCMR 49). The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the contentions, found merit in the petitioner's claim that the High Court's judgment was potentially based on the non-reading and overlooking of material evidence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed the provision of security, and ordered the appeal to be prepared on the existing record with liberty for parties to submit further documentation for an early hearing.
Questions settled- Does a High Court judgment based on the non-reading of material evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can a failure to consider audited balance sheets in a labour dispute constitute a valid ground for challenging a High Court decision?
- Transpak Corporation Ltd vs Registrar of Trade MarksK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 518 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
- Transpak Corporation Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks1991 MLD 658 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the refusal by the Registrar of Trade Marks to register the appellant's trademark "Shield" for toothpaste, citing its confusing similarity to the existing registered mark "Bronze Shield." The appellant contended that the Registrar should have advertised the application before rejection, pursuant to the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that the Registrar is not legally obligated to advertise an application before rejecting it, as the proviso grants the Registrar discretion, indicated by the word "may," to advertise before acceptance, not before rejection. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Registrar's decision on merits, finding that the mark "Shield" was deceptively similar to "Bronze Shield" for the same class of goods, creating a tangible risk of confusion for consumers. The principle laid down is that the Registrar has the discretion, not a mandatory duty, to advertise a trademark application before acceptance, and that registration may be refused without prior advertisement if the mark is deceptively similar to an existing registered trademark.
Questions settled- Is the Registrar of Trade Marks legally required to advertise a trademark application before rejecting it?
- Does the use of the word 'may' in the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Trade Marks Act grant the Registrar discretion regarding the advertisement of trademark applications?
- Can the Registrar of Trade Marks refuse registration of a trademark without prior advertisement if it is deceptively similar to an existing registered mark?
- Trans-Ocean Asia- vs Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd.1991 MLD 1660 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-13Read full judgment →
- Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs International Trading and Sales Inc1991 CLC 32 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Trading Corporation of Pakistan Limited vs Messrs Riko International1991 MLD 2572 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
- Toyo Monka Kaisha Ltd. vs Ferro Alloys Pakistan Limited And Another1991 SCMR 1801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from a judgment that is also the subject of a pending appeal (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1988) involving another party. Upon hearing counsel, the Court granted leave to appeal, primarily to facilitate the possibility of reaching an agreed order that would resolve both the current matter and the related pending appeal. The Court directed that security of Rs. 5,000 be deposited in each case. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the appeals be prepared based on the existing record, with instructions for the parties to submit all necessary documentation for the final disposal of the matters. It was explicitly ordered that the instant appeal be heard concurrently with Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1988 to ensure consistency and judicial efficiency in the adjudication of the related disputes.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to explore the possibility of an agreed order between related appeals?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to direct that separate appeals be heard together when they arise from the same impugned judgment?
- Torey and another vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-08-11Read full judgment →
- TM Din and others vs Allah Ditta1991 CLC 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Tippo Enterprises vs Hoechst Aktiengesell Schafi and another1991 CLC 1717 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-23Read full judgment →
- Tilak Raj vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 129 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- The. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central `B', Karachi vs Messrs Evens1991 PTD 680 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- The Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Syed Sharif Hussain Shah1991 MLD 1589 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- The Superintending Engineer (E) WAPDA, Faisalabad and another vs Raja1991 PLC 838 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
- The Superintendent Telegraph Workshop, Kotri vs Nihal Ahmed(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 54) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- The State vs Zafar Ahmad EtcK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 418 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
- The State vs The Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore and others1991 PLD Lahore 224 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- The State vs The Principal, Bahawalpur Law College, Bahawalpur1991 MLD 914 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
- The State vs Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gilani1991 PLD Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-16Read full judgment →
- The State vs Sardar Muhammad and others-1991 P Cr. L J 803 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
- The State vs Rana Dilber HussainK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-18Read full judgment →
- The State vs Navid Asif and others1991 PLD Lahore 268 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition arose from the suo motu notice taken by the Lahore High Court concerning the acquittal of Navid Asif and others under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, who were tried for offenses including criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and corruption under sections 409, 420, 406, 218, 468, and 471 read with section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The trial court had recorded the acquittal solely based on parawise comments filed by the Director Anti-Corruption Establishment suggesting the matter was of a civil nature following an agreement to return the funds, bypassing the notified Special Public Prosecutor. The core legal question was whether an acquittal order passed mechanically without independent application of judicial mind to the evidence and based on executive compromise can be sustained in revisional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the acquittal order was a nullity in the eye of the law, as the parties' stance or executive instructions cannot bind the court to bypass an evaluation of the evidence. The High Court set aside the acquittal order and remanded the matter for decision afresh in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 to examine an order of acquittal?
- Can an acquittal under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be legally sustained if it is based solely on executive comments without independent application of mind to the evidence by the trial court?
- Does an agreement between the parties to annul a transaction and reimburse funds convert a criminal offense into a purely civil matter binding upon the criminal court?
- Can the prosecution be withdrawn or compromised through executive directives without complying with the statutory requirements and judicial oversight governing the withdrawal of prosecution?
- The State vs Muhammad Ramzan And 2 Others1991 P Cr. L J 1284 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Nazir and others1991 PLD Lahore 433 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous matter arose from a suo motu notice issued by the Lahore High Court regarding the recall of pre-arrest and post-arrest bails granted by a Sessions Court to four respondents accused of possessing, selling, and transporting 4,096 kilograms of charas under F.I.R. No. 258 dated 25-5-1990. The core legal questions involved whether a High Court judge can exercise suo motu jurisdiction and hear matters without formal administrative entrustment by the Chief Justice, and whether bail should be cancelled given the massive quantity of narcotics involved, notwithstanding that the offence fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that individual judges possess inherent constitutional and statutory powers to exercise High Court jurisdiction suo motu without prior administrative distribution, and that accused persons dealing in massive quantities of narcotics are not entitled to bail merely because the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The court consequently recalled the bails granted to the respondents, holding that judicial discretion in narcotics cases must reflect societal gravity and the principles of equity.
Questions settled- Whether a judge of the High Court can validly exercise suo motu jurisdiction without formal administrative entrustment of the case by the Chief Justice?
- Does the mere fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail as of right?
- Can statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered for the purpose of deciding bail matters?
- Whether subordinate courts possess the inherent power to grant interim bail on grounds not covered under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- The State vs Muhammad Hafiz Chughtai1991 MLD 2082 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-07-08Read full judgment →
- The State vs Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan1991 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed by the State against an order of the Lahore High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent, a Federal Minister implicated as an accessory before the fact under Sections 302, 307, 149, 120-B, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions pertained to whether an accused who evades arrest or becomes a fugitive is disentitled from obtaining pre-arrest bail, whether a High Court can directly entertain a pre-arrest bail application given its concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Session, and whether the High Court erred in finding no reasonable grounds to connect the respondent to the alleged criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's petition, upholding the High Court's order. The Court laid down that abscondence is a relevant factor but not an absolute bar preventing a fugitive from being granted bail. Furthermore, approaching the lower court first in cases of concurrent jurisdiction is a matter of propriety rather than an absolute rule of law.
Questions settled- Is it an absolute rule of law that a fugitive from justice cannot under any circumstances be granted pre-arrest bail?
- Is approaching the Court of Session before invoking the concurrent pre-arrest bail jurisdiction of the High Court an inflexible legal requirement or a matter of propriety?
- Can the High Court directly entertain a pre-arrest bail application despite concurrent jurisdiction lying with the Court of Session?
- The State vs Khizer Hayat and others1991 PLD Azad J & K 76 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-05-09Read full judgment →
- The State vs Javed Arshad1991 MLD 1162 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
- The State vs Irfanullah and 3 others1991 MLD 451 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-23Read full judgment →
- The State vs Inamur Rehman Alvi1991 P Cr. L J 815 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-19Read full judgment →
- The State vs Inamur Rehman Alvi1991 MLD 1818 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- The State vs Inamur Rehman AlviK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 573 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- The State vs Haq NawazK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 408 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
- The State vs Ghulam Rasool and others1991 MLD 1923 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
- The State vs Bilawal And Another1991 SCMR 2276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Sindh High Court’s judgment acquitting two respondents of murder charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal was based on sound legal principles regarding the evaluation of ocular evidence and the reliability of the First Information Report (FIR). The prosecution contended that the respondents were caught red-handed and named in an FIR lodged within fifteen minutes of the incident. However, the Supreme Court observed that the complainant did not know the accused and relied entirely on two other witnesses to identify them. Both the trial court and the High Court had already rejected the testimony of these two identifying witnesses as unreliable. The Supreme Court held that since the identification basis was discredited, the entire prosecution narrative, including the timing of the FIR and the circumstances of the arrest, became doubtful. Consequently, the Court upheld the acquittal, affirming that where the foundational evidence of identity is unreliable, the prosecution’s case cannot be sustained, and the benefit of the doubt must accrue to the accused.
Questions settled- Does the rejection of testimony from witnesses who provided the initial identification of the accused cast doubt on the entire prosecution case?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant relies on discredited witnesses to name the accused in the FIR?
- Is the appellate court justified in maintaining an acquittal when the prosecution's foundational evidence regarding the identity of the culprits is found to be unreliable?
- The State vs Bashir And Others1991 PCr.LJ 1871 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- The State vs Additional Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore1991PCr.LJ 110 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-18Read full judgment →
- The State vs Abdul Rashid1991 P Cr. L J 633 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
- The State vs Abdul Bari and 4 others1991 MLD 240 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
- The State through A.G., N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Miftahuddin1991 PLD Peshawar 124 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
- The State And Another vs Sakhwat And Other1991 SCMR 1858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal appeals, one filed by the State against the acquittal of two respondents and another by a convict against his conviction and sentence, both arising from a trial before the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials. The primary legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was the determination of the appropriate appellate forum for judgments rendered by the Special Court for Speedy Trials. Upon review, the Court examined the relevant statutory framework governing appeals from such special tribunals. The Court held that, pursuant to the specific provisions of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987, the jurisdiction to hear appeals against the judgments of the Special Court lies with the High Court, not the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appeals had been filed in the wrong forum due to a misunderstanding of the law. The key principle laid down is that appellate jurisdiction must strictly follow the statutory path prescribed by the governing legislation, and where an appeal is filed in the Supreme Court erroneously, it must be returned for presentation before the competent High Court.
Questions settled- Which court possesses the appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals against judgments rendered by a Special Court for Speedy Trials under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act 1987?
- Is the Supreme Court the appropriate forum for an appeal against a conviction or acquittal from a Special Court for Speedy Trials?
- The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And Another vs Khalid1991 SC M R2527 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the High Court's dismissal of a Civil Revision, which had arisen from a trial court's judgment pronounced under Order VIII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to the appellants' failure to submit a written statement. The core legal question was whether the lower courts strictly followed the procedural requirements established in precedent (Sakhawatuddin v. Muhammad Iqbal) regarding the imposition of penal consequences for failing to file a written statement. The Supreme Court held that penal consequences under Rule 10 only apply when a court has explicitly 'required' a written statement through a speaking order, demonstrating an application of mind to the necessity of such a filing. Mere routine adjournments do not satisfy this requirement. While the Court found that the trial court failed to issue such a speaking order, it ultimately declined to set aside the decree. The Court reasoned that the amount in dispute was minimal and the government had already incurred excessive litigation costs, thus deciding that the interests of justice were better served by maintaining the decree rather than remanding the case.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can a court pronounce judgment against a defendant for failing to file a written statement under Order VIII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a routine adjournment for the filing of a written statement satisfy the requirement of the court 'requiring' a written statement for the purpose of invoking penal consequences?
- Is it necessary for a court to pass a speaking order when requiring a written statement to trigger the penal provisions of Order VIII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- The Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Irrigation Department1991 SCMR 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a Letters Patent Appeal judgment setting aside the termination of the respondent’s services as a Zilledar. The respondent, initially appointed as a Munshi (Assistant Vernacular Clerk) and later as a Zilledar on probation, had his services terminated for failing to pass a departmental examination. The respondent had previously withdrawn a civil suit challenging this termination based on assurances of reinstatement, similar to a colleague, but his subsequent representation was summarily rejected without a hearing. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent, as a confirmed Assistant Vernacular Clerk, was entitled to a show-cause notice prior to termination and whether his appeal or representation required a fair hearing. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that because the respondent held a substantive post as an Assistant Vernacular Clerk, his services could not be terminated without a show-cause notice. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the principles of natural justice mandated that the respondent be heard before the disposal of his appeal, particularly given the discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated employees.
Questions settled- Is a show-cause notice required before terminating the services of a government employee who holds a substantive post, even if they are on probation in a higher position?
- Does the principle of natural justice require that an employee be given a hearing before the summary rejection of an appeal or representation against termination?
- Can an employer arbitrarily treat similarly situated employees differently regarding reinstatement after termination?
- The Resident Manager, F.F.C. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1991 PLC 908 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution petition challenged the validity of orders passed by the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had accepted a grievance petition filed by a worker under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The core legal question was whether the worker was a permanent employee of the petitioner company or an employee of an independent labour contractor. The Lahore High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two lower forums—establishing that the worker had been in the continuous employment of the company since before the execution of the labour supply contract and that his leave applications were sanctioned by company officials—were based on proper appreciation of evidence and not open to interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that an employer cannot bypass statutory protections by fictitiously shifting an existing permanent employee onto the rolls of a labour contractor without consent, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Whether a finding of fact recorded by a labour court regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can an existing permanent employee's services be transferred to a labour contractor without the employee's consent?
- Whether a worker employed prior to the execution of a labour supply contract remains the direct employee of the principal company?
- Do concurrent findings of fact by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal warrant interference when based on proper appraisal of evidence?
- The Province of the Punjab, Through Secretary, Education Departments1991 SCMR 1885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of the Punjab against the dismissal of its Civil Revision by the High Court, which upheld a decree for damages in favor of the respondent for damage caused to a property used for running a school. The core legal question concerned whether there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the damage and justify the award of compensation. The Supreme Court held that the case was not one of no evidence, noting that the impugned judgment adequately demonstrated sufficient evidence to support the decree, and further found no substance in the plea of misreading of evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently refused, and the amounts deposited in court along with profits were ordered to be released to the decree-holder. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact supported by evidence on record will not be interfered with in civil revision or leave to appeal proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a decree for damages can be sustained when challenged on the ground of no evidence?
- Can a plea of no evidence coexist with a plea of misreading of evidence?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property damage supported by evidence?
- The Pakistan Motor Transport and others vs Secretary to Government of Punjab1991 MLD 1212 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged a memorandum issued by the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Transport Department, directing Regional Transport Authorities to levy penalties for the renewal of permits under rule 85(2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, even upon applications for fresh stage carriage permits if a permit had previously been granted for the vehicle. The core legal question was whether the grant of a fresh permit to a different applicant in respect of a different route could legally be considered a renewal of a previous permit so as to attract rule 85(2). The Lahore High Court held that the grant of a fresh permit and the renewal of an existing permit are distinct concepts under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, and cannot be equated. The Court ruled that penal provisions must be construed strictly and that applying renewal penalties to fresh applications by different applicants for different routes is without lawful authority. The petition was accordingly accepted and the impugned memorandum declared void to that extent.
Questions settled- Whether the grant of a fresh transport permit can be treated as a renewal of a previous permit under the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969?
- Can a penalty prescribed for the renewal of permits under rule 85(2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 be levied on an application for a fresh permit made by a different applicant for a different route?
- Do the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and the rules framed thereunder maintain a distinction between the initial grant of a permit and the renewal of an existing permit?
- The Pakistan Institue of International Affairs and anothers vs Mrs.1991 MLD 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
- The Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority And 2 Others vs Khadijabai And Another1991 SCMR 1399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a review application as time-barred, reasoning that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 was inapplicable to review petitions filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 could not be invoked to condone delay in filing a review application. Relying on established Supreme Court precedent and the express language of the statute, the Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is indeed applicable to review applications. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the High Court with directions to examine the sufficiency of the grounds for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 are available to seek condonation of delay in presenting a review application.
Questions settled- Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a review application filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court condone the delay in filing a review application under the provisions of the Limitation Act 1908?
- The Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle III, Karachi vs Eruck Maneckji1991 PTD 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment setting aside an Income-tax Officer's order that imposed a penalty on the respondents for failing to pay advance income tax under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal question was whether advance tax paid by a vendor (Dalmia) during a transitional business period could be credited to the vendees (respondents) to avoid penalty, and whether a Constitutional petition was maintainable. The Supreme Court held that since the Department had already accepted the respondents' position that the business was operated on their behalf for tax assessment purposes, it was arbitrary and perverse for the Income-tax Officer to refuse to credit the advance tax paid by the vendor to the respondents. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the maintainability of the Constitutional petition, noting that the Income-tax Officer acted in an oppressive manner and no statutory appeal lay against the impugned order. The judgment establishes that tax authorities cannot inconsistently treat income as belonging to an assessee while rejecting the corresponding tax payments made on their behalf.
Questions settled- Can tax authorities treat income as belonging to an assessee for tax liability while rejecting the corresponding tax payments made on that assessee's behalf?
- Is a Constitutional petition maintainable against an order of an Income-tax Officer where no statutory appeal lies and the order is alleged to be arbitrary?
- Does the payment of advance tax by a vendor on behalf of a vendee during a transitional business period satisfy the vendee's statutory tax obligations?
- The Income Tax Officer, Centralcircle III, Karachi vs Eruck Maneckji1991 SCMR 1447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment allowing a Constitutional Petition against an Income-tax Officer's order imposing a penalty for failure to pay advance income-tax. The respondents had purchased business assets from Dalmia, with an agreement that Dalmia would operate the business on behalf of the respondents from a specified date. Dalmia paid advance income-tax during the assessment year, but the Income-tax Officer penalized the respondents, arguing the tax was paid by Dalmia in its own name and not on the respondents' behalf. The Supreme Court held that since the Department had already accepted the respondents' income as their own and treated Dalmia's business operations as being on behalf of the respondents, it was arbitrary and perverse to penalize the respondents for the tax paid by Dalmia. The Court affirmed that the Income-tax Officer could not simultaneously accept the income as belonging to the respondents while rejecting the tax payments made on that income. Furthermore, the Court upheld the maintainability of the Constitutional Petition, noting the absence of an appellate remedy against the impugned order.
Questions settled- Can an Income-tax Officer penalize an assessee for non-payment of advance tax when the tax was paid by an agent operating the business on the assessee's behalf?
- Is a Constitutional Petition maintainable against an order of an Income-tax Officer when no right of appeal exists against that order?
- Does the payment of advance tax by an existing assessee in its own name preclude that payment from being credited to the account of the beneficial owner of the business?
- The Federation of Pakistan And Another vs Atiqur Rehman Oazi1991 SCMR 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit for damages filed by the respondent against the Federation of Pakistan and the Senior Postmaster, Peshawar, following the wrongful dishonour of a cheque issued by the GPO. The respondent claimed that the dishonour caused him to lose a lucrative timber contract, resulting in significant financial loss and liquidated damages. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 2,65,000, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the appropriate measure of damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act for a banker's wrongful dishonour of a customer's cheque. The Supreme Court held that while a banker is liable for damages for wrongful dishonour, such damages are not restricted merely to interest. However, the Court found the original award excessive, as the specific loss from the failed timber contract was not within the reasonable contemplation of the parties. Consequently, the Court reduced the damages to Rs. 25,000, plus reimbursement of court fees, establishing that damages for wrongful dishonour must flow naturally from the breach and be reasonably foreseeable.
Questions settled- Is a banker liable for damages for the wrongful dishonour of a customer's cheque?
- Are damages for the wrongful dishonour of a cheque restricted only to the loss of interest?
- What is the appropriate measure of damages for a banker's wrongful dishonour of a cheque under the Contract Act?
- The Factory Manager, Central Cotton Mills No. 2, Kotri vs Mahmood1991 PLC 567 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →