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.
- The Divisional Superintendent,Pakistan Railways, Sukkur and another1991 PLC 390 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-12-14Read full judgment →
- The Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development Government1991 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Lahore High Court disposes of a first appeal and a civil revision arising from a single commercial suit involving multiple supply contracts between a registered firm and the Province of the Punjab for spare parts of agricultural machinery. The core legal questions pertained to the misjoinder of causes of action, affixation of court-fees, whether time and venue were of the essence of the contract, the effect of subsequent waiver by conduct, entitlement to unpaid prices, late delivery charges, securities, and pre-institution interest. The Court held that multiple causes of action could be joined under Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that Section 17 of the Court Fees Act 1870 is subject to the maximum ad valorem fee limit. On merits, the Court found that although time and venue were originally of the essence, strict compliance was waived by the defendant's subsequent conduct, making the deduction of late delivery charges and retention of securities illegal. The seller was entitled to the unpaid price of goods actually received and used, along with pendente lite and future interest at fourteen percent, though pre-institution interest was disallowed in the absence of a contractual or statutory provision.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff unite several causes of action against the same defendant in a single suit arising from multiple commercial contracts?
- Whether Section 17 of the Court Fees Act 1870 is subject to the maximum ad valorem fee limit prescribed in Schedule I Article 1 of the said Act?
- Does the subsequent conduct of parties negotiating a change of delivery date and venue constitute a waiver of the stipulation that time is the essence of the contract?
- Is a seller entitled to pre-institution interest on the unpaid price of goods in the absence of a specific contractual term, statutory provision, or mercantile usage?
- To what extent can an appellate court exercise powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of a cross-objection?
- The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Peshawar Division And Another vs Farman Ali1991 SCMR 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by government functionaries against a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent in service with back benefits. The respondent was initially appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the Cooperative Societies Department but was subsequently terminated on grounds of illegal absence from field training. The core legal question was whether the termination of the respondent, who was purportedly on probation, was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court observed that even if the respondent were on probation, the termination order was fundamentally flawed. The Court noted that the termination order erroneously referred to the respondent as a 'candidate,' a status not recognized by the applicable service rules. Furthermore, the Court held that the termination procedure violated established legal principles regarding the removal of probationers, as articulated in previous Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the Court found the termination order unsupportable in law due to a clear unawareness of the applicable service rules. The Supreme Court upheld the Service Tribunal's decision and refused to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a government employee be terminated on the basis of being a 'candidate' when the service rules do not provide for such a status?
- Is the termination of a probationer valid if it fails to comply with established legal principles regarding the removal of service personnel?
- Does a service tribunal have the authority to reinstate an employee if the initial termination order is found to be legally unsupportable?
- The Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi1991 SCMR 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which declared that the respondent's manufactured "wet tissues" (impregnated with perfume) did not constitute "perfumery, cosmetics and toilet preparations" under Item No. 04.04 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, and were thus not liable to the assessed excise duty. The revenue authorities contended that the wet tissues, being perfumed and used for refreshing, fell under the tariff classifications for perfumery. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in agreement with the High Court, held that the goods in dispute did not fall under Excise Tariff Item No. 04.04, 04.04-A, or 04.04-F, as they were not covered by any of the specified items. Applying the well-recognized principle of strict construction of fiscal statutes, the Court affirmed that tax liabilities cannot be extended by implication. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether "wet tissues" impregnated with perfume can be classified as "perfumery, cosmetics and toilet preparations" under Item No. 04.04 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944?
- How should fiscal laws and tariff classifications be construed when determining the taxability of a manufactured product?
- Is the High Court required to determine the exact alternative tariff heading under which a product falls once it has concluded that the product does not fall under the heading claimed by the revenue authorities?
- The Controller, Stationery and Forms, Government of Pakistan vs The Registrar, Trade Unions, Sindh and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a constitutional petition challenging the applicability of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (I.R.O.) to the employees of the Controller, Stationery and Forms, Government of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether these employees fell under the exclusionary categories of Section 1(3) of the I.R.O., specifically regarding employment in the 'administration of the State' or services 'connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan.' The Supreme Court held that the appellant's employees were indeed excluded from the I.R.O.'s application. The Court reasoned that the appellant's function of supplying essential printing materials to various Armed Forces establishments and government departments made their work integral to the administration of the State and incidental to the Armed Forces. The Court established that for the purpose of Section 1(3) of the I.R.O., the source of funding or the corporate nature of the entity is secondary; the primary test is whether the services provided are functionally connected to the administration of the State or the Armed Forces. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the cancellation of the Collective Bargaining Agent certificate.
Questions settled- Does the source of funding for an establishment determine whether it is 'connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Are employees of the Controller, Stationery and Forms, Government of Pakistan, excluded from the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- What is the test for determining if an establishment is 'in the administration of the State' for the purposes of Section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- The Committee of Receivers of Assets of Mrabdul Wahab Galadari vs Abdul Wahab Ebrahim Galadari and anothers1991 CLC 694 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs, a Committee of Receivers appointed under a Dubai Royal Decree, filed a suit seeking the transfer of shares held by the defendant in a Pakistani company, asserting that these shares constituted "Galadari Assets" subject to the Decree. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit, arguing that Pakistani courts cannot enforce foreign executive decrees and that the court lacked jurisdiction. The Court addressed applications for interim relief and the production of additional evidence. The Court held that while jurisdictional challenges are significant, they need not be decided at the interlocutory stage if the suit presents a serious question for trial and a prima facie case is established. Consequently, the Court declined to appoint an interim receiver, as no waste was alleged, but granted an interim injunction restraining the transfer of the disputed shares to prevent irreparable prejudice. The Court affirmed that interim relief should be the least restrictive measure necessary to preserve the status quo pending final adjudication of the complex legal and jurisdictional issues involved.
Questions settled- Must a court decide the question of jurisdiction before granting any form of interim relief in a suit?
- Can an interim receiver be appointed in a suit where no allegation of waste of property is made?
- Does a party's admission of a legal position in a foreign court constitute a binding estoppel in domestic proceedings?
- Is a court required to allow the cross-examination of an attorney regarding inconsistent legal pleas made in different forums?
- Town Committee, Darya Khan, District Bhakkar vs Chairman, Town1991 PLC (C.S.) 571 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
- The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Zone "a", Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 836 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Zone B', Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 678 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from reference applications filed by the Department under Section 17(4) of the relevant tax laws against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which had granted exemption to the respondents for manufacturing Sodium Silicate Liquified under Item 15 of Sales Tax Notification No. 9 of 1951. The core legal questions involved whether Sodium Silicate is a product of steam, whether the Tribunal could reopen the issue despite earlier contrary decisions, and whether the principle of res judicata applies to income tax proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the determination of whether Sodium Silicate is a product of steam is a pure question of fact settled by evidence, and further held that the principle of res judicata does not apply to proceedings before income tax authorities, allowing authorities to take a different view in subsequent assessment years if fresh evidence is presented. The application was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the determination that Sodium Silicate is a product of steam constitutes a question of fact?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to proceedings before Income Tax Authorities for subsequent assessment years?
- Can Assessing Authorities or the Tribunal take a different view in subsequent assessment years if fresh evidence and additional facts are provided?
- The Commissioner of Sales Tax vs Messrs Rizki Ink Company Limited1991 PTD 783 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central `B', Karachi vs Messrs Philips1991 PTD 672 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
- The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone-B, Karachi, vs Messrs1991 PTD 841 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone `C', Karachi vs B.D.1991 PTD 839 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs S.M. Naseem Allahwala1991 PTD 843 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs M/s. Packages Ltd.1991 PTD 1089 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
- The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Roneo Vickers Ltd. Karachi1991 PTD 171 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
- The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Smith, Kline & French of1991 SCMR 2374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses four civil appeals arising from references made by the High Court of Sindh concerning tax assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1922. The core legal question was whether voluntary payments received by Pakistani subsidiary companies from their foreign parent or participant companies—categorized variously as remittances to absorb accumulated losses or as promotion allowances—constituted taxable 'income' under section 4(1) of the Act, or alternatively, whether they qualified as casual and non-recurring receipts exempt under section 4(3)(vii) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that these voluntary remittances did not constitute 'income' because they lacked the requisite periodicity, regularity, or nexus with a definite source, amounting instead to a mere windfall. The Court further held that even if treated as income, the receipts in question were exempt under section 4(3)(vii) as they were casual, non-recurring, and did not arise from any business or professional activities between the domestic and foreign entities. Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue department were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether voluntary remittances received by a company from its foreign shareholders to absorb accumulated losses constitute taxable income under the Income Tax Act, 1922?
- Do promotion allowances received by a domestic subsidiary from a foreign parent company qualify as casual and non-recurring receipts exempt under section 4(3)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
- Where the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal makes findings of fact in a statement of case, is the High Court or Supreme Court entitled to re-appreciate evidence to alter those findings?
- What constitutes 'income' under the Income Tax Act, 1922, regarding the requirement of a periodical monetary return coming from a definite source?
- The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Smith, Kline & French of1991 PTD 999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four appeals arising from High Court judgments regarding the taxability of various receipts by Pakistani companies from foreign parent or participant companies. The core legal questions were whether these receipts, categorized as either miscellaneous income or promotion allowances, constituted taxable 'income' under the Income Tax Act, 1922, and if so, whether they qualified for exemption under Section 4(3)(vii) as casual and non-recurring receipts. The Supreme Court held that the receipts did not constitute taxable income as they were voluntary payments made without consideration, lacking a nexus to business activities, and were essentially windfalls. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that even if deemed income, the receipts in the first and third appeals were exempt under Section 4(3)(vii) as casual, non-recurring receipts. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving a receipt is income lies with the Revenue, while the burden of proving an exemption lies with the assessee. Crucially, the Court established that in tax references, the High Court and Supreme Court are bound by the factual findings of the Tribunal and cannot re-appreciate evidence.
Questions settled- Does a voluntary payment made without consideration and lacking a nexus to business activities constitute taxable income?
- Is the High Court or Supreme Court permitted to re-appreciate evidence or go behind the findings of fact made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in a reference?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a receipt is exempt under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
- Can a receipt be classified as taxable income if it is a mere windfall and not a periodical monetary return from a definite source?
- The Commissioner of Income Tax and Sales Tax, Lahore Zone a, Lahore vs Messrs Lassani Cotton Mills Ltd. Lyallpur1991 SCMR 766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged a High Court judgment regarding a tax exemption dispute. The respondent, a cotton yarn manufacturer, claimed a sales tax exemption for sales made to a purported entity, M/s. Ghazi Industries, for the assessment year 1964-65. The Income-tax Officer denied the exemption, finding that the purchasing entity did not exist and that the respondent failed to produce the original sales tax licence despite opportunities to do so. While the Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially allowed the exemption, the Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision. The High Court subsequently overturned the Tribunal's order, relying on a photocopy of a certificate. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the High Court's reasoning. The Court held that the burden of proof lay with the assessee to substantiate the claim for exemption. By failing to produce the original licence at any stage of the proceedings, the respondent failed to discharge this burden. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the factual finding that the purchasing entity did not exist, thereby restoring the Appellate Tribunal's order denying the exemption.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie with the assessee to substantiate a claim for tax exemption?
- Can a photocopy of a certificate suffice as proof when the original document is required and not produced?
- Is a finding of fact by an Income-tax Officer regarding the non-existence of an entity open to challenge without contrary material?
- The Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore And Another vs Ch. Atta1991 SCMR 736 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the Chief Land Commissioner examined whether an agreement to sell state agricultural land, accompanied by an irrevocable general power of attorney, amounted to a valid transfer of property under paragraph 10 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, and the Punjab Land Commission's letter dated 5-5-1972, when the full price of the land had not been paid and the grantee lacked the right of alienation under the conditions of the government grant and the Government Grants Act, 1895. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in considering the agreement and power of attorney as a completed transfer, ruling that under Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, and the specific conditions of the grant prohibiting alienation until full payment, the transaction was void and conferred no legal title or interest in the land. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, dismissed the respondents' constitutional petition, and upheld the orders of the Land Commission.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell state agricultural land coupled with an irrevocable power of attorney amount to a valid transfer of property when the full price has not been paid?
- What is the overriding legal effect of restrictions on alienation contained in a government grant under the Government Grants Act, 1895?
- Whether a civil servant who has not acquired full proprietary rights in state land can transfer an interest that exceeds the rights he possesses under the terms of the grant?
- Did the prohibition against alienation under the conditions of a government grant render an agreement to sell void and incapable of creating equitable ownership?
- Thatta Jahad Ameer vs Distt. Ushar Zakat Committee, GujranawalaK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Thanwar vs Haji Muhammad Bux Chandio and 2 others1991 MLD 447 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-25Read full judgment →
- Thaikadar Hassan Din vs Zahid Iqbal and others1991 CLC 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
- Tauseefun Nabi vs Metal Containers Ltd., Karachi1991 PLC 305 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a grievance petition by the Labour Court, which had upheld the termination of the appellant's services by the respondent company. The respondent claimed the termination was due to bona fide retrenchment following the outsourcing of factory operations. The core legal question was whether the employer violated Standing Order 11-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, by terminating the appellant's services without prior permission from the Labour Court, given that the appellant was the sole remaining employee after others resigned. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the termination of the appellant, following the resignation of all other workers, effectively constituted the termination of more than 50% of the workforce. Consequently, the employer was required to obtain prior permission from the Labour Court under Standing Order 11-A. The Tribunal established that Standing Order 11-A acts as a mandatory embargo on terminating more than 50% of employees without such permission, regardless of whether the procedure under Standing Order 12(3) was followed. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered reinstated with 50% back benefits.
Questions settled- Does the termination of the sole remaining employee after others have resigned constitute the termination of more than 50% of the workmen under Standing Order 11-A?
- Is prior permission from the Labour Court required under Standing Order 11-A when an employer terminates the services of more than 50% of the workforce?
- Can an employer rely on Standing Order 12(3) to bypass the requirement of obtaining prior permission from the Labour Court under Standing Order 11-A for mass termination?
- Does the fact that an establishment continues to operate on a contract basis exempt the employer from the requirements of Standing Order 11-A regarding the termination of employees?
- Tauseef Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1898 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Taus Khan and others vs Mst. Zarina1991 CLC 662 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Tassawar Hussain Alias Safdar And Another vs The State1991 SCMR 312(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction and sentence. The core legal question concerns the effect of a Presidential Order of Amnesty on the sentence of death previously imposed upon the petitioners. The court observed that the petitioners' death sentence had been commuted to imprisonment for life pursuant to the Presidential Order of Amnesty. Consequently, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition. The court accordingly disposed of the petition as not pressed in view of the intervening commutation of sentence.
Questions settled- Does a Presidential Order of Amnesty commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life render a pending petition against the conviction and sentence not pressed?
- What is the effect of the commutation of a death sentence by executive amnesty on appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court?
- Taskeen Muzaffar, D.R. for Appellant. vs Muhammad Amin Butt for Respondent1991 PTD 937 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
- Tariq vs The State1991 MLD 2173 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
- Tariq Sarwar vs The State1991 MLD 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
- Tariq Niaz vs Masooda Begum1991 CLC 1733 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-07Read full judgment →
- Tariq Mehmood vs Collector, District Gujranwala and 2 others1991 CLC 793 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition challenges the orders of the Collector and the Arbitration Council regarding the grant of maintenance to the respondent wife. The core legal questions were whether the maintenance amount was determined based on sufficient evidence of the husband's paying capacity and whether the Arbitration Council was properly constituted and its proceedings valid. The Court held that the orders were legally flawed. Firstly, the maintenance was fixed without any evidence regarding the petitioner's financial status or paying capacity, rendering the assessment arbitrary. Secondly, the proceedings were procedurally defective because the order was signed only by the Chairman, failing to demonstrate that it was a unanimous decision of the Arbitration Council as required. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that maintenance awards must be supported by evidence of the husband's paying capacity, and decisions by an Arbitration Council must clearly reflect the participation and consensus of its members, evidenced by their signatures, to be legally valid.
Questions settled- Is a maintenance order valid if it is passed without evidence regarding the husband's paying capacity?
- Does an order signed only by the Chairman of an Arbitration Council satisfy the legal requirements for a valid decision?
- Can a court set aside maintenance orders if the underlying proceedings lack evidence and proper constitution of the adjudicating body?
- Tariq Mahmood And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
- Tariq Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1934 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
- Taqi vs The State1991 PLD Quetta 39 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction under the Customs Act, 1969, before the Balochistan High Court. During the appeal, it was discovered that two containers produced as evidence by a prosecution witness were never opened during the trial, creating a mystery regarding whether they contained cartridges or bullets. The core legal question was whether the appellate court possessed the jurisdiction and power to direct the opening of such containers and summon additional evidence to ascertain the truth and secure the ends of justice. The court held that appellate forums possess wide, plenary, and limitless powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—exercisable through provisions such as sections 428, 540, and 561-A—to rectify trial omissions and call for additional evidence. The ratio laid down is that an appellate court has the duty and suo motu power to bring on record essential evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice, provided the accused is not denied a fair trial, and distinguishing between filling a substantive gap in prosecution evidence and removing ambiguities to discover the truth.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court have the power to summon additional evidence or direct the opening of unopened exhibits from the trial?
- Can an appellate court exercise powers under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to rectify omissions made by the prosecution during trial?
- What is the distinction between filling a lacuna in prosecution evidence and resolving discrepancies for the purpose of securing the ends of justice?
- Are the discretionary powers of a criminal appellate court controlled by rules of estoppel or waiver arising from the conduct of counsel?
- Tanveer Brother Oil Dealers. vs The Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1991 CL. 1 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Tameezuddin, Assistant Director Food vs The Secretary, Food1991 SCMR 1252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a Service Tribunal decision regarding the seniority of an Assistant Director of Food. The appellant was appointed on March 5, 1977, in anticipation of rule amendments, despite existing service rules prohibiting direct recruitment at that time. The rules were subsequently amended on May 21, 1977. The appellant sought seniority from his initial appointment date, arguing that his subsequent retention in service regularized his appointment. The Service Tribunal held the initial appointment void ab initio due to non-compliance with prevailing rules. The Supreme Court examined whether an appointment made in violation of rules could be regularized retrospectively to confer seniority. The Court held that an appointment made in breach of existing rules cannot be considered regular or valid for seniority purposes until the rules actually permit such recruitment. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the appellant's seniority could not be backdated to the date of his initial illegal appointment, as the regularization order did not retroactively validate the initial breach of service rules.
Questions settled- Can an appointment made in violation of existing service rules be regularized retrospectively to grant seniority from the date of the initial appointment?
- Does an order of retention in service, issued after an amendment to service rules, retroactively validate an appointment that was void ab initio?
- Can a civil servant claim seniority from a date prior to the amendment of rules that permitted their specific method of recruitment?
- Tambrands Inc vs Registrar of Trade Marks1991 MLD 1414 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Tamas Masih vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2033 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- Talib vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1991 MLD 2350 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan Through Its Chairman1991 SCMR 1806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revision by the High Court, which upheld the appellate court's decision reversing the trial court's decree in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and injunction regarding his Matriculation Examination result card after the respondent Board refused to issue a formal certificate, claiming the result card was bogus and that he had actually failed. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to discretionary relief and declaration based on a result card found to be forged or bogus, and whether he could be held responsible for it. The Supreme Court held that even if there was no direct evidence linking the petitioner to the preparation of the bogus result card, he sought to use it for his personal benefit, and no one else could have benefited from the fraud. The Court established the principle that a person who attempts to benefit from a fraudulent or forged document is not entitled to discretionary equitable relief, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a person who uses a bogus result card for personal benefit is entitled to discretionary relief?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate and revisional courts be set aside without showing legal infirmity?
- Does lack of direct evidence linking a party to the creation of a forged document absolve them from responsibility when they seek to benefit from it?
- Tajuddin Khan Sherwani and another vs Secretary, Ministry1991 PLC (C.S.) 718 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad vs The State1991 MLD 1873 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad vs Settlement Commissioner and another1991 CLC 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 355 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad and another vs Mohsin Ali and another1991 PLC 731 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-11Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad and 2 others vs Ghulam Qadar and another1991 CLC 316 · Board of Revenue · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad Alias Tajoo vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2167 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
- Taj Mahmood vs Member (R) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. and Another(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 3) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Taj Khan vs The. State-1991 P Cr. L J 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Taj Etc . vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 282 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Taj Din vs Sher Muhammad and 14 others1991 PLD Azad J & K 86 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
- Taj Din Etc. vs Muhammad Sadiq Etc.(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 27) · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-25Read full judgment →
- Taj Begum vs Ghulam Abbas Etc.(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 5) · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-02Read full judgment →
- Taj And Another vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 177 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-08Read full judgment →
- Tahoorul Islam vs Mushtaq Ahmad and 4 others1991 MLD 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-10Read full judgment →
- Tahira Tabassum vs Additional District Judgeii and 2 others1991 MLD 759 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Tahir Umar vs Messrs Bata Shoe (Pakistan) Limited through Managing1991 MLD 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
- Tahir and 2 others vs Ahmad Bakhsh1991 MLD 506 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-15Read full judgment →
- Syed Zaman Shah vs Senior Superintendent of Police and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 147 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
- Syed Zaffar Hussain Naqvi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2304 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Wasaf Ali Shah vs Secretary Interiors, Govt of PakistanK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 492 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Wasaf Ali Shah vs Secretary Interior, Government of Pakistan1991PCr.LJ 32 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed Tofazal Hussain Shah And 2 Others vs The State and others-1991 P Cr. L J 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for quashment challenged proceedings initiated under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, against the petitioners. The complainant alleged that her husband had contracted a second marriage without her permission. The petitioners, who were not parties to the marriage, argued that the Magistrate at Sheikhupura lacked territorial jurisdiction as the marriage occurred in Lahore, and further contended that the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code regarding abetment were inapplicable to the special law under which the complaint was filed. The Court held that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction because the marriage took place in Lahore. Furthermore, the Court determined that the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, specifically regarding abetment, cannot be invoked in proceedings under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, as it is a special law. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and set aside the impugned order, noting the absence of any alleged overt act or evidence of abetment by the petitioners.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, if the marriage occurred outside their jurisdiction?
- Can the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code regarding abetment be applied to offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Are third parties who are not involved in the marriage liable for abetment under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Syed Tanweer Hussain Zahidi vs Federal Government of Pakistan1991 CLC 261 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
- Syed Shahzad Hussain Etc vs (Mst) Hajran BibiK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 201 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
- Syed Shah Muhammad vs The State1991 SCMR 2016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 13(E) of the Arms Ordinance for the possession of an unlicensed revolver and cartridges. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their evaluation of the evidence by misreading the testimonies of both prosecution and defence witnesses and by improperly weighing the prosecution and defence theories. The Supreme Court held that the trial court and the High Court committed a significant misreading of evidence, particularly regarding the credibility of defence witnesses and the nature of their testimonies. The Court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond all shadow of doubt, and conviction cannot rest on a flawed juxtaposition of competing theories. Furthermore, the Court clarified that witness testimony cannot be discarded merely because the witness is a neighbour of the accused. Finding that the evidence was misread and the defence's contentions were ignored, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Does the prosecution have to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubt even if the accused's plea is not accepted?
- Can the testimony of a defence witness be rejected solely on the ground that the witness is a neighbour of the accused?
- Is it legally permissible for a court to weigh the prosecution and defence theories in juxtaposition to determine guilt?
- Syed Shafqat Ahmad vs Mohammad Tariq Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-08Read full judgment →
- Syed Shabir Abbas Zaidi vs Member Board of RevenueK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 387 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
- Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah vs Auditor-General of Pakistan and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 942 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-07-17Read full judgment →
- Syed Saifullah Syed Saifullah vs Board of Revenue, Balochistan1991 SCMR 1255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three appeals arising from two Constitution Petitions and a Civil Revision Petition concerning the cancellation of land allotments and a civil suit decree. The appellant had entered into an agreement with verified claimants to secure land allotments in exchange for a 25% share and subsequently purchased a portion of the allotted land. The allotments were initially made in 1979 under directions of the Board of Revenue but were later cancelled following recommendations under Martial Law Orders. The High Court dismissed the appellant's constitutional petitions and civil suit. The core legal question was whether the post-1975 allotments of evacuee property were validly made and whether the cancellation could be maintained. The Supreme Court held that with the repeal of evacuee laws in 1975, unallotted agricultural land vested in the Provincial Government, and subsequent disposals had to follow a provincial scheme, which made no provision for allotments against pending verified Produce Index Units. Consequently, the allotments made after 1975 were wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the removal of void allotments, even through irregular proceedings, did not warrant judicial interference and rendered the civil court decree unsustainable.
Questions settled- Whether land allotments made after the repeal of evacuee laws in 1975 against pending verified Produce Index Units are valid?
- Can an allotment of land that is void ab initio be allowed to remain on record?
- Does a civil court decree based on an invalid and void land allotment remain intact after the setting aside of the underlying transaction?
- Syed Saghir Tirmizey for Appellant (in -88). Shaukat Mahmood Khawaja_ad65c0811991 PTD (Trib.) 16 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
- Syed Saddat Hussain Kazmi vs Sindh Agricultural Supplies1991 PLC 466 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
- Syed Riaz Ali Shah vs Mst. Kausar Bibi and others1991 CLC 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
- Syed Rashid Ahmed Gardezi and another vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir1991 PLC (C.S.) 339 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Syed Qaiser Sajjad Sherazi vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1991 CLC 726 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Pir Walayat Shah vs The State1991 PLD Karachi 268 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-07Read full judgment →
- Syed Phul Shah vs Muhammad Hussain and 10 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a pre-emption matter wherein the appellant challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing his Regular Second Appeal. The core legal dispute involved rival pre-emption claims: the appellant claimed superior pre-emption rights as a co-sharer and owner in the estate through a civil court suit, while the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents claimed pre-emption based on tenancy resulting in a consent decree in a revenue court, without initially impleading the appellant. The Supreme Court considered whether a consent decree obtained by a rival pre-emptor without impleading the other pre-emptor is valid, and whether technical objections regarding remand orders should override substantive justice. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent possessed a superior right of pre-emption based on tenancy and that technicalities which do not affect the fairness of the cause cannot be allowed to defeat substantive justice, aligning with Islamic jurisprudence principles that unjust gains from litigation should not be retained.
Questions settled- Whether a consent decree obtained by a rival pre-emptor claiming tenancy without impleading a co-sharer pre-emptor is valid?
- Can technical objections regarding a remand order be allowed to defeat substantive justice in rival pre-emption cases?
- Whether a party possessing an inferior right of pre-emption can succeed against a rival pre-emptor with a superior right based on tenancy?
- Syed Nizam Shah vs Babu Abdullah And Other1991 SCMR 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning a dispute over land. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition regarding the same disputed land, which was dismissed by the Peshawar High Court on 16-12-1974. The Supreme Court examined the matter and determined that the earlier dismissal of the writ petition operated as constructive res judicata, barring the current proceedings. Furthermore, the Court observed that the subsequent litigation appeared incompetent under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Given that three lower courts had already adjudicated the matter against the petitioner and finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that prior litigation on the same subject matter, which has reached a final conclusion, precludes re-litigation between the same parties, thereby ensuring the finality of judicial decisions and preventing the abuse of the court process.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a prior writ petition regarding disputed land operate as constructive res judicata in subsequent proceedings?
- Can subsequent legal proceedings be considered incompetent under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Syed Najmul Hassan vs Javed Mahmood, District Collector., Lahore1991 CLC 1535 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Syed Munawar Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
- Syed Mukarram Ali vs Messrs Glaxy Construction (Pvt.) Ltd.1991 CLC 1248 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Zaman vs Abdul Khaliq1991 SCMR 1982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from a landlord-tenant dispute where the petitioner, a tenant, sought review of a Supreme Court judgment that had previously refused leave to appeal against an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether a tenant, having allegedly defaulted on a rent deposit order under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, could avoid the consequences of such default by claiming that a security deposit remained with the landlord, and whether the Rent Controller had discretion to waive the striking off of the defence. The Supreme Court held that the existence of a security deposit is irrelevant to the mandatory requirement of complying with a rent deposit order under Section 13(6). The Court affirmed that once a default is established, the Rent Controller has no discretion and is legally bound to strike off the tenant's defence. The Court further noted that the tenant failed to provide a timely explanation or seek condonation for the delay, thereby justifying the dismissal of the review petition.
Questions settled- Is the existence of a security deposit with a landlord a relevant consideration when determining default under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does a Rent Controller have discretion to waive the striking off of a tenant's defence once a default under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance is established?
- Can a tenant avoid the consequences of default under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance by offering an explanation for the delay three months after the default occurred?
- Syed Muhammad Zaman Shah vs The Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Lahore And Another1991 SCMR 2152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the classification of land as Waqf property. The core legal question was whether land previously dedicated as Waqf for a shrine could be partially excluded from such status based on the appellant's claim that a portion of the income was historically used for the personal maintenance of the Sajjada Nashin and his family, thereby invoking the exception under the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's reversal of the trial court's decision. The Court held that the appellant failed to provide evidence that the original dedication constituted a Waqf-alal-Aulad under the 1913 Act. The Court established that a Sajjada Nashin receiving income from dedicated property in their capacity as a manager or custodian does not equate to the beneficiary status required under the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913, and the mere appropriation of income by a custodian does not transform the nature of the Waqf property into a private family endowment.
Questions settled- Does the appropriation of income by a Sajjada Nashin from a shrine's property constitute a private family benefit under the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913?
- Can a Sajjada Nashin claim the status of a beneficiary under the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913, simply by managing and utilizing a portion of the Waqf income?
- Is the mere usage of income by a custodian sufficient to prove that a dedication was intended as a Waqf-alal-Aulad?
- Syed Muhammad Sadiq Shah vs Naseem Akhtar and others1991 CLC 1329 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Ramzan vs Secretary, Health1991 PLC (C.S.) 765 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-12Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Iqbal Hussain Shah vs Mst.Farhat Jehan and 2 others1991 CLC 1787 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Mst. Farhat Jehan instituted a suit for jactitation of marriage, alleging she was abducted and coerced into affixing her thumb-impression on a Nikahnama. The petitioner, Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah, contested the suit and filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court decreed the jactitation suit and dismissed the restitution suit, finding the marriage was executed under duress. The Additional District Judge dismissed the subsequent appeal. In the constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court, the petitioner contended that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and Section 23 of the same Act to question a Nikahnama registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a suit for jactitation of marriage includes determining whether a disputed marriage exists or was executed under coercion, falling squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court.
Questions settled- Whether a Family Court is competent to decide a suit seeking a declaration that a Nikahnama was executed under duress and coercion?
- Does a suit for jactitation of marriage include the power to examine the validity and existence of a marriage?
- Whether Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 bars a Family Court from adjudicating upon the validity of a marriage registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Syed Muhammad Haider Zaidi And Others vs Abdul Hafeez And Other1991 SCMR 1699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan resolves three consolidated appeals involving the interpretation and scope of section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the extended definition of 'landlord' under section 2(f)—which includes persons authorized to receive rent—applies to section 14, enabling rent collectors, agents, or attorneys to seek ejectment for personal use, or whether section 14 is restricted solely to owners. The Supreme Court held that the term 'landlord' in section 14 refers strictly to its primary meaning of being the owner of the premises, either solely or as a co-owner, and cannot be invoked by a mere rent collector or agent for their own benefit. The Court laid down that while section 14 provides a summary remedy to specific classes of persons (such as retirees, widows, and senior citizens), the applicant must possess proprietary ownership interest in the property, and rent proceedings under section 14 are summary in nature and cannot be bogged down by complex, belated title disputes where ownership was previously acknowledged by the tenant.
Questions settled- Whether the extended definition of 'landlord' under section 2(f) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, includes an agent or rent collector for the purpose of filing an ejectment application under section 14?
- Does section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, restrict the right of seeking eviction for personal use exclusively to the owner of the premises?
- Can a tenant in summary proceedings under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, raise a belated challenge to the landlord's ownership status despite previously acknowledging or treating them as an owner?
- Whether a summary inquiry under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is appropriate for adjudicating complex title disputes regarding property ownership?
- Syed Muhammad Asghar Ali vs Ch. Muhammad Nazir and others1991 CLC 1680 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Anwar Iqbal vs Messrs Bangladesh Shipping1991 CLC 473 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of wages against the defendant shipping company after his services were terminated via a telex sent through a local shipping agent in Pakistan. The defendant raised a preliminary issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, arguing that neither did the defendant carry on business in Karachi nor was the contract executed there. The court examined the scope of Section 20 and Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alongside relevant case law, and held that while Sections 16, 17, and 20 are inapplicable to the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction, the general principles of law and territorial nexus still apply. The court found that because a part of the cause of action, including the receipt of the termination message and the signing of the agreement, occurred within Karachi, and because the defendant carried on business through a local agent within the jurisdiction, the High Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The preliminary issue of jurisdiction was accordingly decided in favor of the plaintiff.
Questions settled- Whether sections 16, 17, and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction?
- Does the non-applicability of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the High Court entirely remove the requirement of a territorial nexus for instituting a suit?
- Whether the receipt of a termination telegram within Karachi constitutes a part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Sindh High Court?
- When does an agent's business activity within the jurisdiction qualify as carrying on business by a foreign principal for the purpose of establishing court jurisdiction?
- Syed Muhammad Ahmad vs Nishat Mughera and 7 others1991 CLC 1065 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
- Syed Mohiuddin vs Member III, Board of Revenue,Balochistan And Other1991 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from a pre-emption suit filed in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Pishin, in 1974. As no statutory enactment governed pre-emption in Balochistan, the suit was subject to Islamic principles. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the suit after the respondent failed to comply with an order to deposit one-fourth of the sale price as security. The respondent challenged this dismissal five years later in an appeal, which the Additional Commissioner accepted, deeming the initial security order void and thus setting aside the dismissal. The appellant challenged this decision through revision and a constitutional petition, both of which were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the Assistant Commissioner's order was merely illegal, not void, and therefore the respondent's appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court observed that the Additional Commissioner had consciously considered and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding no merit in the appellant's contention regarding limitation, the Court upheld the decisions of the Board of Revenue and the High Court, dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an order directing a pre-emptor to deposit security in the absence of a specific statutory provision is void or merely illegal?
- Can an appellate authority condone a delay in filing an appeal if the initial order of the trial court is challenged after a significant lapse of time?
- Syed Masud Hussain Zahidi vs Aziz Ahmad Through Legal Heirs1991 SCMR 1306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking a review of an earlier order. The core legal question involves the reconsideration of matters related to unsatisfied produce-index-units. The Supreme Court held that the review petition lacked merit and accordingly dismissed it, while expressing a hope that the concerned government department would consider the petitioner's grievance regarding the balance of his produce-index-units remaining unsatisfied. The key principle laid down is that review petitions devoid of substantive legal grounds will be dismissed, though observations may be made to administrative authorities to address genuine grievances regarding the satisfaction of produce-index-units.
Questions settled- Does a review petition lie when no substantive legal error or merit is shown in the impugned order?
- Can the Supreme Court direct or hope for administrative consideration of unsatisfied produce-index-units while dismissing a review petition?
- Syed Masroor Ahsan vs Muhammad Tariq Chaudhary And Other1991 SCMR 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an elected Senator, challenged an ad-interim order of the Lahore High Court that restrained him from taking the oath of office pending the disposal of a writ petition challenging his qualifications under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a writ of quo warranto against an elected candidate who had not yet taken the oath, and the propriety of issuing interim injunctions that effectively prevent an elected representative from performing their constitutional duties. The Supreme Court set aside the interim order, holding that such injunctions against members of superior legislative bodies should not be issued without full adjudication. The Court reasoned that such orders deprive the constituency of representation and violate democratic norms, as the balance of convenience heavily favors allowing elected members to function until the final determination of the dispute. The judgment establishes that courts must exercise extreme restraint in issuing interim orders that interfere with the composition of legislative houses, ensuring that respondents are granted a fair opportunity to defend themselves before such drastic measures are imposed.
Questions settled- Can a High Court issue an interim injunction restraining an elected member of a legislative body from taking the oath of office?
- Is a writ of quo warranto maintainable against a candidate who has been notified as elected but has not yet taken the oath of office?
- Does the constitutional bar in Article 225 regarding election petitions preclude a writ of quo warranto challenging the qualifications of an elected member?
- Is an interim order restraining a member of a legislative body from performing their duties sustainable without full adjudication of the underlying constitutional petition?
- Syed Maqsood Abbas Naqvi vs Province of Punjab1991 PLC (C.S.) 141 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
- Syed Maqbool Ahmad vs Board of Revenue Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 301 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
- Syed Mansoor Ahmad vs Mst. Maqbool Begum And Other1991 SCMR 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No. 43/1988, dated 17th December, 1989. The petitioner contended that while closing his evidence before the trial court, he had requested that the evidence and documents from set-aside arbitration proceedings be brought on record, and since the respondents did not object, this material should have been considered as evidence. The Supreme Court held that this contention was devoid of substance and, furthermore, could not be raised for the first time in a review application since it was not raised during the main hearing of the appeal. Finding no other error or ground for interference with the judgment under review, the court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new plea for the first time in a review application if it was not raised during the main hearing of the appeal?
- Whether documents and evidence from set-aside arbitration proceedings can be automatically treated as evidence in a trial court without proper admission, solely on the ground of lack of objection by the opposing party?
- Syed Laique Ali vs Mst. Noushin Murad and 2 others1991 CLC 605 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-17Read full judgment →
- Syed Laiq Ali Zaidi vs Government of Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1136 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Syed Khalid vs Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and another1991 PLC 647 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →