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.
- Syed Jamal Shahid vs The StateK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 531 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- Syed Jamal Shahid vs The State1991 MLD 1715 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- Syed Ishtiaq Ali vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Interior And 11 Other1991 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Stenotypist in the Regional Passport Office, Islamabad, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal order that dismissed his challenge to his reversion from the post of Superintendent. The petitioner had been promoted to the post of Superintendent on a purely temporary and ad hoc basis in 1981, with the stipulation that the promotion was until further orders and would not affect the seniority of others. In 1984, he was reverted to his original post of Stenotypist. The petitioner argued that having held the higher post for over three years, he should not have been reverted without cause. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the initial promotion was explicitly ad hoc and temporary. Furthermore, the court noted that the reversion actually resulted in the petitioner's original post being upgraded to National Basic Pay Scale No. 12, which was more beneficial to him. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had no vested right to challenge the reversion order and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Does an employee promoted on a purely temporary and ad hoc basis have a vested right to challenge their reversion to their original post?
- Can an employee claim a right to a higher post based solely on the duration of their ad hoc service?
- Syed Iftikhar Hussain vs Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 27 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-04-24Read full judgment →
- Syed Hidayat Shah vs Shabbir Shah alias Shabbir Hussain Shah and another1991 P Cr. L J 255 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-27Read full judgment →
- Syed Hamid Ali Shah vs Mst. Razia Sultana1991 CLC 766 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition challenges the judgments and decrees of the Family Court and the Appellate Court, which awarded past maintenance to a minor child from December 1981 to March 1986, alongside future maintenance. The core legal question is whether, under Islamic Personal Law (Hanafi Law), a minor child is entitled to claim past maintenance from a father in the absence of a prior court decree or agreement. The Lahore High Court held that under Hanafi Law, past maintenance cannot be claimed by a child from a father unless it was previously fixed by a court decree or agreed upon by the father. Consequently, the Court set aside the decree for past maintenance covering the period prior to the filing of the suit. However, the Court upheld the award of future maintenance, noting that the father remains legally obligated to maintain the child until custody is determined. The Court further directed the Guardian Judge to expedite the pending custody application. The key principle established is that past maintenance is not recoverable under Islamic Law unless specifically decreed or agreed upon previously.
Questions settled- Is a minor child entitled to claim past maintenance from a father under Hanafi Law in the absence of a prior court decree or agreement?
- Does the pendency of a custody application before a Guardian Judge absolve a father of the obligation to provide future maintenance to a minor child?
- Can a court grant past maintenance to a minor child under Islamic Law?
- Syed Hamid Ali Shah vs (Mst) Razia SultanaK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 439 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
- Syed Ghulam Rasool Shah vs Inspector-General of Police and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1110 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
- Syed Ghulam Mujtaba vs The Senior Civil Judge_Election Tribunal And Another1991 SCMR 468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an Election Tribunal's decision to declare an election for a local seat in Ward No. 7, Town Committee, Sohawa, void. The petitioner, who was declared the winner by a margin of one vote, challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Tribunal failed to establish that the alleged illegal practices—specifically the casting of three unauthorized votes by female voters—affected the election result or were attributable to the petitioner. The core legal question is whether an election can be declared void due to irregularities without proof that such irregularities materially affected the outcome or constituted corrupt practices under the relevant election rules. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the lack of evidence of corrupt practices and the absence of proof that the disputed votes were cast for the petitioner required deeper examination. Consequently, the Court stayed the holding of fresh elections pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can an election be declared void without evidence that alleged illegal practices materially affected the result?
- Is it necessary to prove that disputed votes were cast in favor of a specific candidate to invalidate an election based on those votes?
- What constitutes sufficient evidence of corrupt or illegal practices under the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979 to warrant setting aside an election?
- Syed Ghazanfar Ali Chishty vs Director-General, Telegraph and Telephone and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 164 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ullah vs Muhammad AshrafK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 466 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
- Syed Ghayyur Hussain Shah vs Gharib AlamK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 72 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
- Syed Feroze Bakhat vs Abid Hussain Shah1991 CLC 615 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
- Syed Fazal Abbas vs Additional District Judge etc1991 CLC 1642 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Syed Fayaz Hussain Shah and 14 others vs Province of Sindh and 41991 PLC (C.S.) 447 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Dost Muhammad vs Jeenand And Another1991 SCMR 1987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 16-8-1990, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and upheld the appellate decision of the Majlis-i-Shoora. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding land, claiming it was ancestral property and that the respondents were tenant-at-will, whereas revenue records reflected the respondents as occupancy tenants. The trial court decreed the suit, but the Majlis-i-Shoora accepted the respondent's appeal, which was affirmed by the High Court upon assessing the evidence of cultivatory occupation. The core legal question concerns whether interference is warranted against concurrent findings of fact regarding revenue records and possession. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove his case with sufficient evidence and that concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums regarding cultivatory possession and revenue entries do not warrant interference. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on an assessment of evidence unless a solid legal ground is made out.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding revenue entries and cultivatory possession?
- Does a party fail to establish a case for declaration when evidence regarding tenancy-at-will is sketchy and disbelieved by courts?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a High Court judgment upholding an appellate decision based on concurrent factual assessments?
- Syed Chiragh Ud Din vs Shah Room Khan And 6 Other1991 SCMR 1772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee against a decree for pre-emption affirmed by the High Court. The petitioner sought to avoid the pre-emption decree by arguing that the purchased land was intended for the expansion of a charitable institution, specifically a Darul Ulum, and thus fell under the exemption provided by Section 5, clause (b) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the land, at the time of the transaction, constituted a part of the existing charitable institution. The Court held that because the land was not part of an existing building or institution at the time of the sale, it did not qualify for the statutory exemption. The Court affirmed that the exemption applies only to property that already constitutes a Darul Ulum or a part thereof at the time of the transaction. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, determining that the petitioner's intended future use of the land did not satisfy the requirements of the Act.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of land for the future expansion of a charitable institution qualify for exemption from pre-emption under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act?
- Is land that is not part of an existing charitable institution at the time of sale exempt from pre-emption under Section 5(b) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act?
- Syed Bashir Ahmed Shah vs Secretary, Govt. of Sindh C&W, Karachi(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 320) · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed Bahadar Ali Shah vs Syed Maryam Gillani and others1991 CLC 775 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Syed Atiq Ul Hassan And Another vs The State---Opponents1991 P Cr. L J 2342 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
- Syed Asmatullah vs Amanullah Khan And 2 Other1991 SCMR 2008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether an eviction application for the personal requirement of one co-owner (respondent No.2) is maintainable when the lease-deed was executed by another co-owner (respondent No.1), and whether a private settlement altering ownership could bar such an application. The Supreme Court held that all respondents are co-owners of the disputed property, that no proof of a private settlement was established, and that an eviction application for the personal requirement of a joint owner is maintainable. The key principle laid down is that co-owners can seek eviction of a tenant for the bona fide personal requirement of any of the co-owners, and collection of rent by one co-owner on behalf of others does not extinguish the rights of other joint owners.
Questions settled- Whether an eviction application can be filed for the personal requirement of a co-owner when the lease-deed was executed by another co-owner?
- Is a private settlement among legal heirs regarding the ownership of a rented property required to be proved by evidence to oust other co-owners?
- Whether an eviction petition is maintainable by joint owners of a property where one co-owner was collecting rent on behalf of all owners?
- Syed Asmat Ullah vs Aman Ullah Khan and 2 others1991 MLD 20 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against the appellant. The central legal question concerns whether co-owners of a property, who were not signatories to a specific lease agreement, qualify as 'landlords' under the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, and whether the personal bona fide requirement of one such co-owner constitutes valid grounds for eviction. The Court held that upon the death of the original landlord, all successors-in-interest become landlords by operation of law. The execution of a lease agreement by a single co-owner does not deprive other co-owners of their legal status as landlords or their right to seek eviction for personal use. The Court established that the definition of 'landlord' includes all persons entitled to receive rent, and the personal bona fide requirement of one co-owner is sufficient to maintain an eviction application. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 13-A of the Ordinance does not bar eviction claims based on personal need. The appeal was dismissed, granting the appellant six months to vacate.
Questions settled- Does the execution of a lease agreement by one co-owner exclude other co-owners from the definition of 'landlord' under the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can an eviction application be maintained for the personal bona fide requirement of a co-owner who is not a signatory to the lease agreement?
- Does the failure to serve notice under Section 13-A of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 invalidate an eviction claim based on personal bona fide requirement?
- Syed Arif Shah vs Abdul Hakeem Qureshi1991 PLD Supreme Court 905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a High Court order dismissing a revision petition against a trial court's order that rejected a review application. The appellant instituted a suit for specific performance of an immovable property sale agreement. The trial court found the agreement valid and voluntary, rejecting the respondent's pleas of coercion and inadequacy of consideration, but declined specific performance and awarded damages solely because liquidated damages were stipulated in the agreement. The appellant filed a review petition instead of an appeal, which was dismissed, and subsequent revision before the High Court failed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that under the Explanation to Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, there is a legal presumption that breach of a contract to transfer immovable property cannot be adequately compensated in money, which is not rebutted merely by naming a sum as damages. The Court held that ignoring binding precedent of superior courts constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review. The judgment was modified, granting specific performance.
Questions settled- Is a review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. competent where an appeal is provided by law but has not been preferred by the aggrieved party?
- Does a subordinate court's failure to follow a binding judgment of a superior court on a point of law constitute an error apparent on the face of the record for the purposes of review?
- Does the inclusion of a liquidated damages clause in an agreement for the sale of immovable property rebut the statutory presumption under the Explanation to Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act?
- Can the High Court interfere under Section 115 of the C.P.C. with an order of a trial court arbitrarily declining to exercise its review jurisdiction?
- Syed Aqil Ali vs Mst. Amina Bai1991 CLC 1884 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
- Syed Anwar Ali vs Syed Habib Hussain1991 MLD 945 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Amjad Hussain vs Qaiser Siddique and 11 others1991 CLC 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Amjad Ali And Others vs M.A. Aziz Chaudhary1991 SCMR 1479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of an application filed by a respondent-landlord for the petitioners' eviction from demised premises on the ground that the premises are required for the construction of a new building, having obtained necessary approval from the Quetta Municipality. The petitioners contended that an open plot was rented to them for a foundry workshop, making the ejectment application incompetent under the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The High Court set aside the Rent Controller's dismissal of the application and ordered eviction, holding that section 13(2)(iv) allows a landlord to obtain possession of rented land for erecting a building in good faith, and section 5-B does not protect tenants of rented land in the same manner as building tenants. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact that an open piece of land was rented for commercial purposes, falling under the definition of 'rented land', and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the landlord's right to seek eviction for reconstruction.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from rented land for the purpose of erecting a new building under the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does section 5-B of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, protect tenants of rented land from eviction upon the erection of a new building?
- Can a landlord obtain possession of land leased for commercial purposes for the construction of a residential or mixed commercial-residential building?
- Syed Ali Raza Asad Abidi vs Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan and 2 others1991 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed Ali Akhtar vs Secretary, Establishment Division and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 827 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-03-31Read full judgment →
- Syed Ahmad Taimure Bukhari vs Mst. Murrawwat Burjees1991 SCMR 1569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision application and maintained the dismissal of an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the rejection of a plaint. The respondent-landlady had initially filed an eviction application under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 on the ground of default, which was subsequently resolved through a compromise resulting in the vacation of the premises. Thereafter, the respondent filed a civil suit for the recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint, arguing that the suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2 and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that the compromise implied a waiver of the arrears. The Supreme Court held that neither the compromise application nor the order passed thereon indicated any settlement, waiver, relinquishment, or abandonment regarding the arrears of rent. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums that the subsequent suit for recovery of rent was maintainable and not barred by res judicata or Order II, Rule 2, dismissing the petition accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for recovery of arrears of rent is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a prior ejectment application under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 was resolved through a compromise limited to the delivery of possession?
- Does a compromise in rent proceedings regarding the vacation of premises amount to a waiver or relinquishment of the landlord's right to claim outstanding arrears of rent?
- Is a suit for recovery of arrears of rent hit by the doctrine of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the issue of arrears was not adjudicated upon on merits in prior rent proceedings?
- Syed Afzal Hussain Shah vs Qanita Khatoon1991 SCMR 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against a High Court judgment that dismissed his civil revision regarding a money decree. The petitioner, having lost in the lower courts, sought to challenge the decree for the recovery of Rs. 7,262.79. The High Court had previously affirmed the decree, finding no evidence of misreading or non-reading of evidence that would justify the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner abandoned his arguments on the merits of the case and focused solely on the issue of limitation. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the arguments regarding the limitation plea and noting that the liability to pay the amount had been clearly established against the petitioner, determined that the case did not warrant the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the lower court's decision.
Questions settled- Does the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence preclude the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court?
- Is the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal in a money suit discretionary?
- Syed Afzal Ahmad Hydari vs Secretary Defence Production Division, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi And 3 Other1991 SCMR 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal challenging his transfer order. The core legal question involved the competence and legality of transferring a civil servant to a post allegedly unsuitable to his medical condition and qualifications without his consent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, every civil servant is liable to serve anywhere within or outside Pakistan on any post under the government without requiring their consent, and that the competent authority possesses the unhindered jurisdiction to make such transfers. The key principle laid down is that transfer is an incident of service and a civil servant has no vested right to claim posting to a specific place or station, provided the statutory framework permits such transfer by the competent authority.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can be transferred to any post under the Federal Government without his consent?
- Does Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 place any bar on the jurisdiction of the competent authority to transfer a civil servant?
- Can a civil servant challenge a transfer order on the ground of personal ill-health or medical unfitness for a specific laboratory posting?
- Syed Adil Ahmed (Minor) vs Deputy Collector Customs and Central1991 SCMR 1951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that upheld the confiscation of an oil tanker used for transporting contraband Charas. The petitioner, a minor, argued that the confiscation was unlawful because no show-cause notice was served upon him personally. The Supreme Court observed that the vehicle was driven by a paid driver who acted on behalf of the petitioner, establishing vicarious liability for the driver's actions. Furthermore, the Court noted that the vehicle was transferred into the petitioner's name after it had already been apprehended, which indicated the presence of mens rea on the part of the petitioner or his agent. The Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the constitutional petition, as the orders passed by the Customs authorities were within their jurisdiction and not subject to interference in this manner. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that the administrative tribunal's decision regarding the confiscation of the vehicle remained valid.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition be directed against orders of administrative tribunals having jurisdiction in the matter?
- Is the owner of a vehicle vicariously liable for the actions of a paid driver regarding the transportation of contraband?
- Does the transfer of a vehicle's title after its apprehension by authorities indicate mens rea?
- Syed Abid Ali And Others vs Syed Habib Ur Rehman Through His Legal Heirs1991 SCMR 1667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking leave to appeal against a decision where remand proceedings relied upon a previous order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 10-10-1966. The petitioners argued that the High Court had earlier observed that the said order was passed without notice to them and was not binding, and therefore could not be relied upon in the remand proceedings. The core legal question concerns the binding effect of an order previously declared by the High Court to have been passed without notice and whether such an order can be utilized in subsequent remand proceedings. The court held that the contention raised requires consideration and granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the court ordered that status quo shall be maintained while the appeal is processed on the existing record with permission to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Can an order previously held by the High Court to be without notice and non-binding on a party be relied upon in subsequent remand proceedings?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when remand proceedings rely on an order passed without notice?
- Syed Abdul Hakim vs Muhammad Azam Khan And Another1991 SCMR 1976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of a house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The appellant obtained the property on a negotiation basis, a transfer later challenged by the respondent in a civil suit. The core legal questions were whether the respondent possessed the locus standi to challenge the transfer and whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter given the statutory bar. The Supreme Court held that the respondent lacked locus standi as he had failed to file the requisite forms for transfer under the Act, and the High Court’s prior order upholding the appellant's transfer had attained finality. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, explicitly ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts regarding the determination of property status and rights to transfer under the Act. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's suit, thereby setting aside the lower court's judgment.
Questions settled- Does Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to determine the status of property acquired under the Act?
- Can a party challenge a property transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, without having filed the requisite transfer forms?
- Does a final order of the High Court regarding the transfer of property under settlement laws preclude a subsequent civil suit challenging that same transfer?
- Syed Abdul Hakeem vs Abdul WahidK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 609 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Syed Abdul Hakeem vs Abdul Wahid1991 MLD 762 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-10-20Read full judgment →
- Syed Abdul Ghafoor And Others vs Syed Ghulam Abbas And Other1991 SCMR 1552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Civil Revision. The underlying dispute originated from a suit filed by the petitioners challenging an arbitration award dated 11-1-1973. This award, concerning the inheritance of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had been made a rule of the court after objections raised by the predecessor were rejected. The Civil Judge, Gujranwala, had initially passed a decree, which was subsequently affirmed by the District Judge in appeal. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The core legal question identified for consideration by the Court is whether, in a matter involving the inheritance of a Muslim, it is legally permissible to refer the dispute to an arbitrator for resolution. The Court condoned a one-day delay in filing the petition and directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record, while granting parties the liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Can a dispute regarding the inheritance of a Muslim be legally referred to an arbitrator for resolution?
- Syed Abdul Basit vs Mrs. M Ubarak1991 CLC 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant regarding a residential property in North Nazimabad, Karachi. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment, personal bona fide requirement, unauthorized alterations, subletting, change of use, and expiry of the tenancy agreement. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, finding no merit in the grounds and concluding that the personal requirement was not in good faith due to evidence suggesting an intended sale of the property. Upon appeal, the High Court affirmed that the landlord failed to prove grounds regarding alterations, subletting, or change of use. However, the Court found that the Rent Controller erred in its assessment of rent default. The Court held that the tenant failed to pay rent within the stipulated grace period, rejecting the Controller's erroneous application of a 60-day grace period. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Rent Controller's order, and ordered eviction based on the established default in rent payment.
Questions settled- Does a clause in a power of attorney indicating an intent to sell property negate the landlord's claim of bona fide personal requirement?
- Is a tenant entitled to a 60-day grace period for the payment of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does the failure to pay rent within the stipulated time period, despite subsequent deposits in court, constitute a default sufficient for ejectment?
- Swami Narayan Temple Estate Trust vs Director1991 CLC 1886 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Superintending Engineer and another vs Abdul Ghani1991 PLC 708 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-09Read full judgment →
- Superintendent of Police, Gujrat And Another vs Muhammad Hussain1991 SCMR 1802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Gujrat, and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala, challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had accepted the respondent's appeal, ordering his reinstatement as an officiating Sub-Inspector following his earlier reversion. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the disciplinary action taken against the respondent, based on allegations of registering a false First Information Report (F.I.R.) of a cognizable offence, was justified. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the F.I.R. in question was registered by another officer, the investigation was conducted by a different officer, and the challan had merely been submitted by the respondent for approval through official channels. The Court held that the allegations against the respondent lacked substance and that the Tribunal's judgment, both on factual and legal grounds, was sound. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that disciplinary action cannot be sustained where the factual basis for the alleged misconduct is demonstrably absent or misattributed to the employee.
Questions settled- Can disciplinary action for registering a false First Information Report be sustained against a police officer who did not register the report or conduct the investigation?
- Is a Service Tribunal's finding on factual aspects of a disciplinary matter open to interference by the Supreme Court if the findings are legally sound?
- Sultan Pervaiz vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail petition concerns an accused charged under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who sought release after remaining in custody for over two years without the conclusion of his trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or if he was excluded by the fourth proviso as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal.' The Court held that the lower court’s classification of the petitioner as a dangerous criminal was not supported by objective, admissible evidence on record. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition. The judgment establishes that the fourth proviso, acting as a clog on the statutory right to bail, must be construed strictly. Any opinion forming the basis of such exclusion must be objective, founded on legally admissible material, and not a subjective or mechanical exercise. Courts must consider the overall scenario, including cross-versions of the incident, before denying the statutory right to bail based on the character of the accused.
Questions settled- Does the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require an objective or subjective assessment by the Court to classify an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal'?
- Is an accused entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial has not concluded within the prescribed period?
- Must a court consider the overall scenario, including cross-versions of an incident, when determining whether an accused falls under the exclusionary fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Sultan Muhammad vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 56 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-09Read full judgment →
- Sultan Muhammad vs Muhammad Ashraf and 4 others1991 CLC 269 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a revision petition against an appellate court judgment that had dismissed his pre-emption suit. The revision petition was initially filed within the conventional three-month period but was returned by the Deputy Registrar for the removal of objections within three days. The petitioner's counsel failed to comply with this deadline, refiling the petition only after an eight-month delay without a plausible explanation. The Court addressed whether such a delay in refiling, despite the absence of a specific statutory limitation period for revision petitions, rendered the petition time-barred. The Court held that while no strict statutory limitation period exists for filing a revision, the conventional period of three months is considered reasonable. By failing to refile within the specified time and delaying for eight months, the petitioner demonstrated extreme negligence. Applying the principle of laches and the precedent that failure to refile within the Deputy Registrar's specified time renders a petition time-barred, the Court dismissed the revision petition in limine.
Questions settled- Is there a prescribed statutory period of limitation for filing a revision petition in the High Court?
- What is the consequence of failing to refile a revision petition within the time specified by the Deputy Registrar for the removal of office objections?
- Can a revision petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches if the counsel delays refiling it for an unreasonable period?
- Sultan Muhammad vs Commandant Pishin Scouts, Chaman1991 PLD Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution Petition concerns the authority of seizing agencies to retain property after a competent Customs authority has ordered its release. The petitioner sought the return of a tractor and trolley seized by the Pishin Scouts, which the Deputy Collector of Customs had ordered to be released following adjudication. The core legal question was whether a seizing agency, authorized under Section 6 of the Customs Act, 1969, possesses the jurisdiction to withhold property after the competent Customs authority has adjudicated the matter and ordered its release. The Court held that agencies authorized to act as Customs officers are legally obligated to transmit seized goods to Customs authorities and must comply with the adjudication orders issued by those authorities. The Court ruled that the respondent had no lawful authority to disregard or frustrate the adjudication order. The key principle laid down is that seizing agencies act under the scheme of the Customs Act and are bound by the decisions of the competent adjudicating authorities, as they enjoy no immunity from the law and cannot unilaterally withhold property once an adjudication order for its release has been passed.
Questions settled- Does a seizing agency authorized under Section 6 of the Customs Act 1969 have the jurisdiction to withhold property after a competent Customs authority has ordered its release?
- Are agencies acting as Customs officers bound by the adjudication orders of Customs authorities regarding the disposal of seized goods and conveyances?
- Does the mere filing of a review petition against a Customs adjudication order automatically operate as a stay of the order?
- Sultan Khan vs Sher Khan and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent of murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court had disbelieved the eye-witnesses, recovery evidence, and established motive, but convicted the respondent solely based on the inculpatory portion of his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal question was whether an accused's statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. can be parsed to use the inculpatory part against him while excluding the exculpatory part when there is no other reliable prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal and held that a statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. must be accepted or rejected as a whole. The court established that unless the prosecution provides reliable independent evidence contradicting the exculpatory part, courts cannot selectively rely upon incriminating portions while discarding self-exonerating claims, such as private defence.
Questions settled- Can the inculpatory part of an accused's statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. be used for conviction while excluding the exculpatory part in the absence of independent reliable evidence?
- Under what circumstances can the exculpatory portion of an accused's statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. be excluded by the court?
- Must the statement of an accused recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. be accepted or rejected as a whole when it forms the sole basis of the prosecution case?
- Sultan Khan vs Shahbaz Khan Etc.(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 31) · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ibrahim vs Muhammad Hayat And Other1991 SCMR 2050 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the plaintiff side against the High Court's decision to accept the respondents' Regular Second Appeal in a dispute concerning inheritance and the challenge to an alienation. The trial court had dismissed the suit, but the petitioner's first appeal was allowed. During the pendency of the second appeal before the High Court, the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 was promulgated. The High Court subsequently allowed the respondents' appeal by giving effect to Section 2-A of the newly enforced Ordinance. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel conceded that in light of Section 2-A and the Supreme Court's binding precedent in Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Shafi, the petitioner had no viable case to press. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that statutory changes under Section 2-A must be given full legal effect in pending inheritance and alienation disputes.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 on a pending second appeal challenging an alienation?
- Can a party successfully press an appeal when subsequent statutory amendments under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 extinguish their claim?
- Sultan Bibi vs Ibrahim and 2 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 705 · Shariat Appellate BenchRead full judgment →
- Sultan Azam Shah And Others vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1991 SCMR 1340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the interpretation and operation of paragraph 24 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The core legal question involves determining the proper scope and effect of the said regulatory provision. The court granted leave to appeal to examine this question of law of public importance. As part of its interim holding, the court ordered the petitioners, who are currently in possession, to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 95,000 within a month while the interim order continues and the appeal is prepared for hearing following the summer vacation. The key principle established relates to the grant of leave to appeal to settle substantial questions of law involving martial law regulations and the imposition of conditional interim safeguards for parties in possession.
Questions settled- What is the correct interpretation and operation of paragraph 24 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Under what conditions may the Supreme Court require a party in possession to furnish a bank guarantee upon granting leave to appeal?
- Sultan Ali and anothers vs Bunday Ali and 7 others1991 CLC 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ali And 2 Others vs Barkat Ali And Another1991 SCMR 1516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiffs in a declaratory suit regarding inheritance, challenging the High Court's dismissal of their Civil Revision. The dispute centers on land previously held by a widow as a limited estate, with lower courts having proceeded on the assumption that its devolution was governed by customary law, leading to an examination of legal necessity and consideration regarding the widow's alienation of the property. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, primarily to examine the implications of the Court's previous judgment in Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1985 SC 407) concerning the application of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983). The Court determined that the effect of this Ordinance on the devolution of such estates requires further judicial consideration, particularly in light of the specific decisions rendered in that precedent.
Questions settled- Does the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983) apply to the devolution of land previously held by a widow as a limited estate?
- Is the devolution of a widow's limited estate governed by customary law or the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983)?
- Sultan Ali and 2 others vs Barkat Ali and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a declaratory suit regarding inheritance where leave to appeal was granted to examine the devolution of land formerly held by a widow as a limited estate and the applicability of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 in light of prior jurisprudence. During the hearing, the parties submitted a written compromise deed signed by their respective advocates-on-record and the parties themselves, settling the dispute amicably. The Supreme Court accepted the compromise agreement, noting that it aligned closely with the devolution of inheritance under Islamic law and related enactments. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in terms of the agreed compromise, with no order as to costs, establishing that appellate matters concerning inheritance can be disposed of in accordance with lawful out-of-court compromises that reflect Islamic principles of inheritance.
Questions settled- Can an inheritance appeal before the Supreme Court be disposed of in terms of an out-of-court compromise reached by the parties?
- How does the devolution of land previously held by a widow as a limited estate get determined under customary and Islamic law?
- What is the effect of a written compromise deed signed by the parties and their advocates-on-record in a property inheritance dispute?
- Sultan Ahmed vs Syed Wahid Hussain1991 MLD 1340 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a batch of five first rent appeals arising from a common order regarding the eviction of tenants from flats and shops on the grounds of wilful default in rent payment and creating a nuisance by storing highly inflammable plastic goods. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord successfully discharged the burden of proving default and whether storing inflammable goods constituted a nuisance under rent law. The Sindh High Court held that once the landlord stated on oath that he had not received rent for the disputed period, the initial burden of proof was discharged and shifted to the tenants to affirmatively prove payment, which the tenants failed to do. Furthermore, the court held that storing highly inflammable plastic goods in the premises constituted a nuisance as it endangered life, health, and the comfortable enjoyment of property by other occupants. The appeals were consequently dismissed, upholding the eviction orders with a three-month grace period for vacating the premises.
Questions settled- Does the initial burden of proof lie upon the landlord to establish non-payment of rent in eviction proceedings?
- Does storing highly inflammable plastic goods in a rented building constitute a nuisance under rent restriction laws?
- Does the deposit of rent after the due date protect a tenant from eviction on the ground of default?
- When does the onus shift to the tenant to prove the payment of rent after the landlord's statement on oath?
- Sultan Ahmad And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 920 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Sulkhan Masih and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 1174 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
- Suleman Bhai vs Muzaffar Ahmad Qadri1991 CLC 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
- Sui Gas Employees' Union vs National Industrial Relations Commission1991 PLC 651 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- Sui Gas Employees' Union vs Member and Registrar, Industrywise Trade1991 PLC 643 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Sui Gas Employees Union vs Member and Registrar Industry Wise Trade(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Secvice Cases 247) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sufi Chiragh Ali Etc. vs Town Committee Etc.K.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
- Sudheer vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 736 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 393, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses in a red-handed arrest case involving injuries, and the competency of the Additional Sessions Judge to try offences under the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitness testimony was reliable and the appellant's arrest on the spot with injuries adequately established his guilt for attempted robbery. However, regarding the firearms charge, the Court held that under section 14-A of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, Sessions and Additional Sessions Courts lack jurisdiction to try offences under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, rendering that portion of the trial coram non judice. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the robbery conviction while setting aside the conviction under the Arms Ordinance due to lack of jurisdictional competence of the trial court.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies in the testimony of injured eyewitnesses are sufficient to discard their evidence in a case of red-handed arrest?
- Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to try an offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965?
- What is the minimum sentence prescribed under section 398 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when an offender attempts robbery while armed with a deadly weapon?
- Sudheer vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 414 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
- Subhan Bux and others vs The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1991 PLC 385 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-12-14Read full judgment →
- Subedar (Retd.) Fateh Khan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Sub. Maj. Sohbat Khan vs Gulab through Legal Heirs and others1991 CLC 307 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-23Read full judgment →
- State vs S.S.P LahoreK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 380 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar vs Murad1991 MLD 1937 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
- State Through Advocate General, Sindh Karachi vs Messrs Aspro1991 P Cr. L J 1363 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- State Through Advocate General, N: W.F.P., Peshawar vs Ali Rehman1991 SCMR 1685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by the State arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the acquittal of the respondent, Ali Rehman, who was tried for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the re-appraisal of evidence in an acquittal appeal, specifically concerning the reliability of a hostile eyewitness and an uncorroborated retracted confession. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of the sole eyewitness who resiled from his earlier statement and the uncorroborated retracted confession could not sustain a conviction. The Court further noted that multiple injuries suggested the involvement of more than one assailant and discrepancies in the medical evidence regarding the contents of the stomach cast doubt on the prosecution's timeline. The key principle laid down is that a retracted confession requires strong independent corroboration to form the basis of a conviction, and findings of acquittal based on a reasonable view of evidence will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether a retracted confessional statement can be the basis of a conviction without independent corroboration?
- What is the evidentiary value of a statement of an eyewitness who resiles from his earlier statement at the trial?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal passed by the courts below?
- State Through Advocate General N. W.F.P., Peshawar vs Saidul Haq---1991 P Cr. L J 469 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- State Through A. G., N. W.F.P. vs Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen1991 SCMR 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State filed an appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, which had granted bail to the respondent on medical grounds. The Supreme Court noted that it had already issued a detailed order in a connected Criminal Appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1990), which was filed by the complainant party against the same High Court order granting bail to the respondent. Upon the representation of the Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., who stated that in light of the observations and directions provided in the aforementioned connected appeal, the State did not wish to pursue the current matter, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be disposed of as not pressed when the issues raised have been addressed in a connected appeal?
- Is a bail order granted by a High Court subject to challenge by the State in the Supreme Court?
- State Life Insurance vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Khalid Rashid, Chairman Miraj Sons Ltd.1991 MLD 692 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-15Read full judgment →
- Star Automobiles vs Income-Tax Officer1991 PTD 69 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1989-02-23Read full judgment →
- Squadron Leader (Retd.) S. Muhammad Hassan And Another vs S. Javedi1991 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution and subsequently rejected an Intra-Court Appeal regarding the transfer of evacuee property. The petitioners, who were transferees of an evacuee bungalow, challenged the cancellation of their Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) by the Settlement authorities, arguing that under an amended Settlement Scheme, resumption proceedings were prohibited once 25% of the transfer price was paid. The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the non-appearance of counsel on a date later declared a public holiday and subsequently dismissed the Intra-Court Appeal, holding it incompetent against a Single Judge's order in a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court's proceedings on a declared public holiday suffered from legal infirmity and whether the dismissal for non-appearance constituted excessive penalty. The Court also addressed the competency of the Intra-Court Appeal in light of the Law Reforms Ordinance XII of 1972 and the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
Questions settled- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is competent against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court passed in a constitutional petition concerning evacuee property?
- Does the hearing of a case by the High Court on a date declared as a public holiday by the Federal Government suffer from legal infirmity?
- Does the non-appearance of counsel due to a declared public holiday constitute gross negligence warranting the dismissal of a petition for non-prosecution?
- Sorab Khan vs Muhammad Usman And 4 Other1991 SC M R1907 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a transporter holding a route permit between Quetta and Samungli, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dated 03-04-1989, which had set aside the cancellation of a route permit granted to respondent No.1. The core legal question involved the validity of the cancellation of the respondent's route permit amidst factual controversies regarding alleged misrepresentation and unauthorized vehicle substitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the legal position regarding the grant of route permits had already been authoritatively settled by this Court in Malik Niaz Muhammad v. Provincial Transport Authority (1989 SCMR 79), leaving no further question of law requiring examination. Furthermore, noting that the respondent had been successfully plying the bus to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities since the High Court judgment, the Court declined to interfere. The key principle laid down is that where the governing law on route permits is settled by precedent and the factual operation of the permit is running satisfactorily, leave to appeal against the restoration of a permit by the High Court will be refused.
Questions settled- Whether the cancellation of a route permit can be sustained when departmental authorities fail to resolve underlying factual controversies?
- Is leave to appeal to the Supreme Court warranted when the legal questions regarding the grant of route permits are already settled by precedent?
- Soofi Muhammad Din And Others Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain Qazi Syed1991 SCMR 905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of interconnected civil appeals and a petition arising from disputes over urban agricultural and potential urban land in Jhelum originally allotted to a displaced person and subsequently subjected to overlapping reservations, auctions, and claims. The core legal questions involved the scope of remand orders given by the High Court to the Notified Officer, the validity of land auctions and transfers alleged to be based on forged documentation, whether settlement authorities could go behind Permanent Transfer Deeds once issued, and the effect of laches on delayed challenges. The Supreme Court held that the remand order encompassed a comprehensive review of all connected issues rather than being restricted solely to the status of the land, and that where auction purchasers had paid the full transfer price and obtained Permanent Transfer Deeds, the settlement authorities could not subsequently reopen or invalidate the transfers on mere impressions of forgery without proper evidence. The ratio laid down is that issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed and completion of full payment under valid auction proceedings protect the transferee from cancellation by settlement authorities absent concrete, lawfully proven fraud.
Questions settled- Whether a remand order directing a Notified Officer to re-examine the status of land restricts the officer from inquiring into other connected legality aspects of the case?
- Can settlement authorities go behind a Permanent Transfer Deed once validly issued and full transfer price paid?
- Whether a finding of forged signatures on auction records can be sustained without formally summoning and confronting the concerned officer?
- Will a writ petition challenged after a delay of ten years be dismissed on the ground of laches?
- Solo Susice Narodni Podnik vs Sindh Match Works (Pvt.) Limited and another1991 CLC 37 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the rejection of an opposition filed by a foreign manufacturer against the registration of a trade mark by a local entity, Sindh Match Works. The core legal question was whether a local manufacturer could register a trade mark similar to an existing registered mark when the foreign proprietor’s goods had been absent from the local market for a prolonged period. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Deputy Registrar’s decision to allow the registration. The court held that where a foreign proprietor’s goods have been unavailable in the local market for a significant duration, and a local manufacturer has developed a sizable business using a similar mark without objection, the local user’s adoption is not dishonest. Such facts constitute "special circumstances" under Section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act, justifying the Registrar's discretion to allow concurrent registration. The court affirmed that distinctiveness is determined by the local market, not foreign markets, and that the absence of the foreign goods creates a vacuum allowing for legitimate local development of the mark.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a foreign proprietor's goods from the local market for a long duration constitute 'special circumstances' for registering a similar trade mark by a local manufacturer?
- Is the distinctiveness of a trade mark determined by its reputation in the local market or in foreign markets?
- Can the registration of an identical or similar trade mark be permitted under the Trade Marks Act despite the existence of a prior registered mark?
- Does the failure of a registered proprietor to object to the use of a similar mark by a local manufacturer over a significant period establish 'honest concurrent user'?
- Sohrab vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 234 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a batch of appeals and petitions challenging the constitutional validity and applicability of 'Surcharge' and 'Iqra Surcharge' levied as additional customs duties under the Finance Ordinance, 1982, Finance Ordinance, 1983, and Finance Act, 1985. The appellants contended that these levies could not be imposed on goods exempted from customs duty via notifications issued under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, invoking principles of promissory estoppel and legislative competence. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenges concerning statutory and constitutional exemptions (Annexure-A), holding that the levies are strictly customs duties within federal competence under Entry 43 of the Federal Legislative List. General exemptions under section 19 of the Customs Act do not automatically extend to new, special levies created by subsequent Finance statutes, nor can executive notifications fetter future legislative enactments. Regarding the factual disputes concerning locally manufactured machinery (Annexure-B), the Court partly allowed the appeals and remanded the matters for fresh departmental factual inquiry.
Questions settled- Does an exemption notification issued under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 automatically apply to additional customs duties or surcharges subsequently levied under independent Finance Acts or Ordinances?
- Can an executive exemption notification fetter, limit, or surrender the future legislative power of the Federal Legislature to impose new fiscal levies?
- Is Iqra Surcharge, levied on imported goods, within the legislative competence of the Federal Legislature as a customs duty under the Federal Legislative List?
- Can the validity of a tax or customs duty be assessed by reference to the proposed ultimate expenditure or purpose of the funds collected?
- Can customs authorities deny an import duty exemption on the ground that machinery is locally manufactured without ascertaining evidence of local manufacturing at the time the order was placed?
- Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. And Other vs Federation-Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And OtherPTCL 1991 CL. 388 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses the legality of Iqra Surcharge and additional customs duty levied under the Finance Ordinance, 1982 and Finance Act, 1985, particularly when prior exemptions from customs duties had been granted under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969. The Supreme Court held that the Finance Ordinances were validly enacted and affirmed by Article 270-A of the Constitution. It clarified that 'Iqra Surcharge' and 'Surcharge' were, in substance, additional customs duties falling within the Federal Legislative List, not an ultra vires education tax, and their nomenclature did not render them penalties. The Court ruled that general exemptions granted under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, did not extend to these new, specific levies, especially given the express declaratory provision in the Finance Ordinance, 1983. Arguments based on promissory estoppel or contractual obligations were rejected, as the executive could not fetter future legislative power. For cases involving factual disputes about local manufacturing of goods, the Court remanded these for fresh determination by departmental officers.
Questions settled- Are Finance Ordinances 1982 and 1983 valid despite not being laid before the National Assembly as per Article 89 of the Constitution?
- Is the Federal Government competent to levy 'Iqra Surcharge' as an additional customs duty, or is it an ultra vires education tax?
- Do exemptions from customs duty granted under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, apply to additional customs duties imposed by subsequent Finance Ordinances and Acts?
- Can the Federal Executive Authority, when exercising delegated legislative power, fetter or commit the Federal Legislative Power regarding future taxation?
- How should the condition 'such machinery as is manufactured locally' for customs duty exemption be interpreted and determined by departmental officers?
- Sohail Babri, I.T.P. for Appellant. vs M. Arshad Malik, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 669 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-24Read full judgment →
- Sodho vs The State and another1991 P Cr. L J 340 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to quash proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the legality of proceedings and the requirements of establishing habitual criminality, specific instances of dangerous conduct, and proper evidence of general reputation under Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as well as the simultaneous passage of orders under Sections 112 and 117(3). The court held that the proceedings were unsustainable, noting that a single or isolated instance of involvement does not constitute a 'habit' requiring repeated or persistent acts, that vague police allegations without specific instances are insufficient, that evidence of general reputation must come from neighbourhood residents rather than police officials alone, and that passing orders under Sections 112 and 117(3) simultaneously violates natural justice by denying a fair defense opportunity. The court established the principle that preventive sections cannot be used as an engine of oppression and must be supported by tangible facts showing habitual criminal tendencies or specific desperate acts.
Questions settled- Can a single or isolated involvement in a criminal case form the basis of proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the uncorroborated evidence of police officials alone sufficient to prove general reputation under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the simultaneous passing of orders under Sections 112 and 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 violate principles of natural justice?
- What constitutes 'habit' for the purpose of taking preventive action against habitual offenders under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Sirajul Islam And 3 Others vs Ahmed Idris And 14 Other1991 SCMR 903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves five consolidated appeals arising from pre-emption suits, concerning the interpretation of exemption claims under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950. The core legal question presented was whether a vendee, in order to claim the benefit of the exemption provided under section 5(c) of the Act, is legally required to purchase a partitioned holding or, alternatively, obtain the consent of all co-sharers prior to the purchase. The Supreme Court addressed this issue by referencing its prior determination in Fazal Karim v. Muhammad Zaman (PLD 1989 SC 764). The Court held that the High Court's interpretation, which imposed the requirement of purchasing a partitioned holding or obtaining prior consent, was incorrect. Consequently, the Court answered the legal question in the negative. The principle established is that the exemption under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950 does not necessitate that a vendee must purchase a partitioned holding or secure the consent of all co-sharers as a condition precedent to claiming the exemption. The appeals were decided accordingly.
Questions settled- Does a vendee seeking the benefit of section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950 need to purchase a partitioned holding?
- Is it a legal requirement for a vendee to obtain the consent of all co-sharers before purchasing property to claim exemption under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950?
- Sirajuddin And Another vs The State and 7 others-1991 P Cr. L J 2338 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
- Siraj Muhammad Bhatti and others vs Iqbal Begum and others1991 CLC 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din through his Legal Representativess vs Hamida Begum1991 MLD 2340 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din and anothers vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and others1991 MLD 1046 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-09Read full judgment →
- Singer Pakistan Ltd. vs Regnis Employees' Union1991 PLC 366 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
- Singer Pakistan Ltd. vs M.N.K. Qadri1991 PLC 353 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-10Read full judgment →
- Sindh Seed Corporation Employees' Union vs Aijaz Ahmad K. Sheikh and another1991 PLC 406 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
- Sindh Road Trransport Corporation vs Noor Bux(K.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 36) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
- Sindh Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad vs Noor Bux1991 PLC 736 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
- Sindh Road Transport Corporation vs Major (Rtd.) S.M. Ali Zaheer Khan1991 SCMR 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding an execution order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Thatta. The respondent originally filed a civil suit for a mandatory injunction, declaration, and permanent injunction concerning a plot of land. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise agreement whereby the plaintiffs agreed to sell a portion of the plot to the defendant, with the fair price to be determined by an arbitrator, leading to a consent decree. Subsequently, the executing court ordered the satisfaction of the decree, and the High Court dismissed the judgment debtor's appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the compromise terms were beyond the scope of the original suit and constituted a fresh contract. The Supreme Court accepted this contention, noting the concession of the respondent's counsel, held that the consent decree incorporating a fresh agreement to sell was beyond the scope of the suit and therefore inexecutable, and accordingly converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the impugned judgments.
Questions settled- Whether a compromise decree that incorporates terms beyond the scope of the original suit is executable?
- Does a compromise agreement involving a fresh contract to sell immovable property and submit to arbitration fall outside the scope of a partition and injunction suit?
- Can an inexecutable compromise decree be enforced through execution proceedings?
- Sindh Road Transport Corporation vs Fazal Ahmad1991 PLC 720 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
- Sindh Match Works (Private) Limited vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade1991 CLC 47 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns an application for the rectification and removal of a registered trade mark from the register due to non-use. The appellant sought to remove the respondent's trade mark under Section 37 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, alleging a continuous period of non-use exceeding five years. The core legal questions were whether the appellant qualified as an 'aggrieved person' with standing to challenge the registration and whether the respondent's non-use was excused by 'special circumstances' under Section 37(3). The Court held that the term 'person aggrieved' must be interpreted liberally to include any party whose commercial activities are restricted by an existing registration, thereby granting the appellant locus standi. However, on the merits, the Court found that the respondent's non-use resulted from an import ban, which constituted 'special circumstances' beyond the proprietor's control. The Court established that 'special circumstances' under Section 37(3) refer to involuntary, external events such as acts of State or war, rather than voluntary commercial decisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as the respondent's non-use was protected by the statutory exception.
Questions settled- Who qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' for the purpose of seeking the removal of a trade mark from the register?
- What constitutes 'special circumstances' under Section 37(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, to excuse the non-use of a registered trade mark?
- Does an import ban on goods constitute a 'special circumstance' sufficient to prevent the removal of a trade mark for non-use?
- Sindh Industrial Trading Estates vs West Pakistan Water and Power1991 PLD Supreme Court 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court order dismissing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) for restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an application for the readmission of an appeal dismissed due to default of appearance falls under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (30 days limitation) as a dismissal for 'want of prosecution', or under the residuary Article 181 (three years limitation). The Supreme Court held that the phrase 'want of prosecution' in Article 168 is used comprehensively to encompass both dismissal for failure to deposit costs under Order XLI, Rule 18, and default of appearance under Order XLI, Rules 11(2) and 17, C.P.C. Consequently, readmission applications under Order XLI, Rule 19 are strictly governed by the 30-day period prescribed by Article 168. The Court also held that inherent powers under Section 151 cannot override specific limitation periods, thereby affirming the High Court's dismissal of the time-barred application.
Questions settled- Does the expression 'want of prosecution' under Article 168 of the Limitation Act include dismissal of an appeal for default of appearance under Order XLI, Rule 17 of the C.P.C.?
- Is an application for readmission of an appeal dismissed for default of appearance governed by Article 168 or the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act?
- Can the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the C.P.C. be invoked to restore an appeal when the specific application under Order XLI, Rule 19 is barred by limitation under Article 168 of the Limitation Act?
- Sikandar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1433 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-09Read full judgment →