Latest 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.

• Shah-E-Karbala Trust vs Syed Iqbal Ahmed Rizvi1991 PLC 542 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-26Read full judgment →
• Shah Zulam Khan and 3 others vs Messrs Hussain Weaving and Finishing1991 PLC 538 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman vs Zain Khan1991 SCMR 1789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-21
  pre-emption suitadmission in evidenceretraction of admissionrecord of rightspresumption of truthtenancymortgagee rightsmerger of rightsamendment of written statement
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising out of a pre-emption suit. The petitioner/vendee purchased land measuring 18 Kanals, which the respondent successfully pre-empted before the trial court. The Appellate Court reversed this decree based on an admission by the pre-emptor that the vendee was a tenant. Consequently, the vendee had amended his written statement to adopt this admission, despite having originally claimed possession as a prior mortgagee. The High Court overturned the Appellate Court's decision and restored the trial court's decree, holding that the admission was erroneous, contradicted by revenue records carrying a presumption of truth, and had been rightly retracted. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment and refused leave to appeal, holding that an erroneous, retracted admission contradicted by the record of rights cannot benefit a party whose substantive case was that of a mortgagee. Furthermore, mere cultivation does not establish a statutory tenancy for pre-emption, and any tenancy would merge into the mortgagee status.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant rely on an erroneous and retracted admission made by the plaintiff regarding tenancy when it is contradicted by the record of rights?
  • Does a party's status as a tenant merge into their status upon claiming to be a mortgagee of the same property?
  • Does admitting a person to be the cultivator of land automatically confer the legal status and pre-emptive rights of a tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs Town Committee, Khairpur Nathan Shah through Chairman, District Dadu and another1991 MLD 1272 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs The State1991 MLD 1170 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Ansari vs Messrs Karachi Sheraton Hotel, Karachi1991 PLC 860 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-02Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Alias Shano vs The State-1991PCr.LJ 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2391 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Senior Superintendent Police, Multan and AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 132 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Multan and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 611 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-10-02Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad Khan And Another vs The State1991PCr.LJ 65 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shah Hussain Alias Papu And Another vs The State1991 SCMR 1453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealidentification testocular evidencebenefit of doubtmashir of arrestmurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the High Court’s dismissal of appeals against convictions under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain convictions after the trial court excluded identification test evidence and recovery evidence on technical grounds. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction of the primary assailant, Muhammad Rasheed, was sustainable based on credible ocular testimony, motive, and medical evidence, the case against the co-accused, Shah Hussain, was doubtful. The Court established that identification tests become futile when eye-witnesses act as mashirs of arrest, as this compromises their impartiality. Furthermore, unexplained delays in conducting identification tests and transmitting crime weapons to the Chemical Examiner undermine the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction of the main assailant but acquitted the co-accused, granting him the benefit of the doubt, as the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish his identity beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces that ocular evidence remains a valid basis for conviction when witnesses are credible and their presence is established, despite the exclusion of technical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the participation of eye-witnesses as mashirs of arrest render subsequent identification test evidence inadmissible?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when recovery and identification evidence are excluded?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a crime weapon to the Chemical Examiner undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Is the identification of an accused by a witness who did not know them previously reliable if the identification test is procedurally flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Abdur Razzaq Gillani vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief1991 PLC (C.S.) 374 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-13
  constitutional jurisdictionappointment to a particular postmala fidescivil servantProvincial Selection Boardjudicial reviewadverse ACR
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Assistant Agricultural Engineer against the Government of N.-W.F.P., challenging a notification whereby a junior officer (respondent No.4) was promoted and appointed as Director Agricultural Engineering, and seeking a declaration that the notification was issued mala fide and without lawful authority. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant has a vested right to be appointed to a specific post and whether an administrative appointment can be set aside on the grounds of unproven or bald allegations of mala fides. The Peshawar High Court held that suitability for appointment to a particular post falls exclusively within the administrative domain of the Government and is not justiciable, unless mala fides is proved with cogent and tangible evidence. The Court found that the allegations of mala fides were not substantiated, as the selection was made objectively by the Provincial Selection Board and adverse ACR entries against the petitioner had been lawfully upheld. The writ petition was consequently dismissed, though the Court made observations recommending fair consideration of the senior petitioner for future promotion and equivalent placement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim appointment to a particular post?
  • Is the suitability of a civil servant for appointment to a specific post open to judicial review?
  • What standard of proof is required to establish mala fides against an administrative authority in making an appointment?
  • Does an adverse entry in an ACR, once upheld by the competent authority, lose its legal effect if initially recorded by a rival officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiqur Rehman vs Saeed Ahmed1991 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-04Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1424 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
• Shafiq vs Mst.Khurshid BegumK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 541 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Shafiq Ur Rehman vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Shafiq Ahmad vs Malik Wazir and others1991 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-27
  civil revisiongift deedpre-emptionjurisdictionouster of jurisdictionland reformsMartial Law Regulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit filed by a co-owner seeking a declaration that a registered gift deed of land was void for violating Martial Law Regulation No. 64, or alternatively, seeking possession of the land through pre-emption. The trial court declared the gift void under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 read with Martial Law Regulation No. 115, and decreed pre-emption. The appellate court set aside the pre-emption decree but maintained that the gift was void ab initio. On revision, the petitioner argued that the gift was valid under the amended provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 and that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court held that under the relevant land reform regulations, the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a transaction violates the regulations and is void lies with the Land Commission or the Chief Land Commissioner, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts. The High Court accepted the revision, set aside the lower courts' declaratory decrees, and directed the respondents to approach the Chief Land Commissioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to declare a land transaction void for violating the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
  • Which authority has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of a transaction challenged under Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
  • Can a civil court return a plaint containing multiple reliefs if one relief falls within its jurisdiction but another relief is within the exclusive jurisdiction of a special forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaffaqat Ali Mullah Alias Juj vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2395 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
• Shafaat Hussain vs Masood Hasan Khan1991 CLC 1962 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
• Shabrati vs Qamar Sultan And 4 Other1991 SCMR 312(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-23
  enhancement of sentenceleave to appealcapital punishmentlife imprisonmentsentencing discretionpresidential amnestyculpable homicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking the enhancement of sentences awarded to the respondents by the High Court. The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court under Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the High Court subsequently convicted them under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in failing to impose the normal penalty of capital punishment upon convicting the respondents for murder. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the High Court was legal. The Court reasoned that the High Court had exercised its discretion in declining to impose capital punishment, and further noted that imposing a death sentence would have inadvertently granted the respondents the benefit of a subsequent Presidential Order of Amnesty. Additionally, the Court considered the medical circumstances surrounding the deceased's death, including the development of gangrene and subsequent amputation, as relevant factors in the sentencing determination. The judgment affirms the appellate court's discretion in sentencing matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the discretion to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty for a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a sentence of life imprisonment where the High Court has explicitly considered and declined to impose capital punishment?
  • Is a sentence of life imprisonment for murder considered legal if the appellate court provides reasons for departing from the normal penalty of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Tiles and Ceramics Limited through Managing Director vs Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Karachi and 21991 PTD 527 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State1991 MLD 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs Divisional Superintendent, P.R., Karachi and another1991 PLC 564 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
• SH.Muhammad Saeed vs Muhammad Sultan Nizami Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 274 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
• Sh. Zulfiqar Ali And Another vs WAPDA Through Its Chairman1991 SCMR 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-19
  removal simpliciterservice tribunalpunitive contentleave to appealstatutory removaldepartmental authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the findings of the Service Tribunal regarding the removal of employees by departmental authorities. The core legal question examined is whether an order of removal simpliciter passed under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1955, could be given a punitive content and colour by the Tribunal through observations characterizing the removal as a punishment for corruption charges. The Court granted leave to appeal to consider the propriety of the Tribunal's observations importing punitive elements into a statutory removal simpliciter, thereby settling the scope of review and characterization of removal orders under the relevant statutory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of removal simpliciter passed under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1955 can be given a punitive content and colour by the Tribunal?
  • Can the Service Tribunal characterize a statutory removal from service as an appropriate punishment for corruption charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Sadiq Ali Gohar vs Additional District Judge and others1991 MLD 1599 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sh. Mumtaz Ali alias Mumtaz Alam vs Government of the Punjab1991 PLC (C.S.) 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-18
  constitution petitiondate of birth correctionservice recordex parte decreesuperannuationjudicial officerbinding effect of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition was filed by a confirmed Additional District and Sessions Judge seeking a direction against the Government of Punjab to correct his date of birth in his service record from 01-01-1930 to 16-10-1931 pursuant to an ex parte decree obtained against the University of the Punjab, and to restrain his impending superannuation retirement. The core legal questions pertained to whether an ex parte civil court decree obtained against an educational institution is binding on the Government when the Government was not a party to the suit, and whether service records can be altered near superannuation contrary to established government instructions. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the decree was not binding on the Government as it was not impleaded. The Court noted that government instructions mandated seeking service record corrections within two years of entering service, whereas the petitioner joined service decades prior. The Court deprecated the trend of judicial officers seeking ex parte age corrections at the fag-end of their careers and rejected allegations of discrimination due to lack of substantiating record.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil court decree binding upon the Government if the Government was not impleaded as a party to the suit?
  • Can a civil servant seek correction of their date of birth in service records beyond the time period prescribed by relevant government instructions?
  • Whether an ex parte decree for age correction obtained against an educational institution creates an enforceable right to alter service records against an employer who was not a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Siddiq vs Mst. Naseem Akhtar1991 MLD 1424 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• SH. Muhammad Siddiq vs (Mst). Naseem AkhtarK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 661 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Sadiq and anothers vs La. Khan1991 MLD 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• SH. Muhammad Sadiq & Another vs I. A. KhanK.L.R. 1991, Civil Cases 543 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad Nisar and 2 others1991 CLC 99 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-17
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenantestoppeltitle disputeevacuee propertysettlement authoritiesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an appellate order dismissing an ejectment petition filed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The petitioner sought the respondent's eviction based on default and personal use, claiming ownership through a predecessor. The respondent denied the landlord-tenant relationship, citing an order by the Settlement Authorities declaring the petitioner's title to the property bogus. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could maintain an ejectment petition despite the cancellation of his title and whether the tenant was estopped from denying the landlord's title. The Court held that the petitioner, having lost his title due to the Settlement Authorities' order, could not maintain the ejectment proceedings. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the principle of estoppel does not apply when a landlord's title has ceased to exist after the tenancy began. Consequently, the appellate court's dismissal of the ejectment petition was upheld, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition should his title be restored by a competent civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord maintain an ejectment petition under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 if their title to the property has been declared bogus by Settlement Authorities?
  • Does the principle of estoppel prevent a tenant from denying a landlord's title if the landlord's ownership ceased after the commencement of the tenancy?
  • Is a finding by an appellate court regarding the lack of landlord title a permanent bar to future ejectment proceedings if the landlord later establishes title in a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Akhtar vs Muhammad Siddique1991 SCMR 1154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-16
  dismissal for non-prosecutionabsence of appellantsettlement of disputeSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal arising from a civil or criminal dispute between Sh. Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Siddique. When the matter was called for hearing, the appellant and his advocate were absent. Based on the report of the process-server and the endorsement thereon, it appeared to the court that the parties had settled their dispute out of court, which likely accounted for the non-appearance. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The core legal question addressed was whether an appeal should proceed when the parties have reconciled and fail to appear. The court held that the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the appellant and the apparent settlement of the dispute between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • What action does the court take when an appellant and their advocate fail to appear at the hearing of an appeal?
  • Does an out-of-court settlement between parties justify the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution when the appellant is absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Gulzar Ali & Company and others vs Special Judge, Special Court of Banking for Sindh at Karachi and another1991 MLD 2136 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-13Read full judgment →
• Sh. Ghulam Ali vs Azhar Ali1991 MLD 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sh. Fazal Ur Rehman And Another vs Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation1991S C M R 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-24
  locus standiagreement to sellwrit petitionfraudulent allotmentprospective vendeesettlement land
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court, which had challenged the sale of agricultural land by the Government of the Punjab to the University of the Punjab. The petitioners claimed rights over this land based on agreements to sell executed in their favor by the original allottees. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners, being mere prospective vendees under an agreement to sell, lacked the locus standi to challenge the government's alienation of the land. While the Supreme Court acknowledged the petitioners' argument regarding the standing of a prospective vendee to maintain a writ petition, it ultimately upheld the dismissal of the petition. The Court held that because the original allotments in favor of the petitioners' vendors were themselves fraudulent and illegal, the petitioners had no valid claim on the merits. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the underlying illegality of the vendors' title precluded any relief for the prospective purchasers.

  Questions settled

  • Does a prospective vendee under an agreement to sell have the locus standi to maintain a writ petition challenging the alienation of the subject land?
  • Can a petitioner claim rights over land where the original allotment to their vendor was obtained through fraud and illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Barkat Ali vs Ch. Muhammad Latif and others1991 CLC 1687 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-31Read full judgment →
• SH. Abdul Haq & Sons Ltd. vs The Punjab Industrial Development1991 PLD Lahore 427 · Lahore High Court
  judicial validitypresumption of regularityjudicial recordelevation of judgeministerial actswritten judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to the validity of a written judgment delivered by a former Chief Justice of the High Court who had been elevated to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether a written judgment, signed by a Judge who subsequently ceased to hold office, becomes legally void if the administrative processing of the file, such as the addition of a 'blue slip,' occurred after the Judge's departure. The Court held that there is a strong presumption of credibility that a judgment signed by a Judge was executed while they held office. Administrative or ministerial acts, such as the receipt of the file by the office or the addition of a blue slip by staff, do not rebut this presumption. The Court established that the date of a judicial signature cannot be determined solely by the date of administrative file processing; the two are distinct, and the judicial record enjoys a presumption of regularity that cannot be overturned by ministerial notations.

  Questions settled

  • Does a written judgment signed by a judge lose its legal validity if the file is processed by the office after the judge has left office?
  • Can administrative notations like a 'blue slip' rebut the presumption of regularity attached to a judicial record?
  • Is the date of a judicial signature necessarily determined by the date of receipt of the file in the office?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Ghani vs Secretary, Housing Environmental Physical1991 PLC (C.S.) 613 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
• SH Ujauddin vs The State1991 MLD 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department vs Syed Tasneem HussainK.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 34 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
• Secretary, District Evacuee Trust Property vs Qazi Habibullah and 21991 PLD Supreme Court 586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-23
  evacuee trust propertyreligious institutionpreponderance of evidencerevenue recordtrust deeddisplaced personallotment cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the status of land allotted to a displaced person, which was subsequently cancelled by the Evacuee Trust Board on the grounds that the property was attached to a religious institution (Mandir Hari Har) and thus constituted evacuee trust property. The core legal question was whether, in the absence of a formal trust deed, property recorded in revenue records as belonging to a religious institution could be declared an evacuee trust property. The High Court had initially ruled against the Board, requiring strict proof of trust creation. However, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the absence of a formal trust deed does not preclude a finding that property is attached to a religious or charitable institution. The Court established that where sufficient prima facie evidence exists in official revenue records, and such evidence remains unrebutted, the matter should be decided based on the rule of preponderance of evidence rather than requiring the production of a formal trust deed.

  Questions settled

  • Can property be declared as attached to a religious or charitable trust in the absence of a formal trust deed?
  • Does the absence of a registered trust deed prevent the classification of property as evacuee trust property?
  • What is the evidentiary value of official revenue records in determining the nature of property attached to a religious institution?
  • Is the rule of preponderance of evidence applicable when determining if property is attached to a religious or charitable trust?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power1991 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-16
  seniorityreinstatementmartial law regulation 114martial law order 23office memorandumnext below ruleservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Government of the Punjab arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the seniority and pro forma promotion of a civil servant who was retired under Martial Law Regulation 114 and subsequently reinstated under Martial Law Order 23. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government's Office Memorandum dated 5-7-1978, regulating the seniority of reinstated civil servants, or the normal statutory seniority rules govern the determination of seniority upon promotion to a higher grade. The Supreme Court held that the Office Memorandum validly amplifies and adapts the statutory rules to address the exceptional situation arising from mass reinstatements, and that reinstated officers take seniority from the date of their regular appointment to the higher grade without automatic application of the 'next below rule'. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the Tribunal's judgment set aside, establishing that executive policy instructions designed to meet extraordinary administrative situations supplement statutory provisions rather than conflict with them.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Office Memorandum dated 5-7-1978 govern the seniority of government servants reinstated under Martial Law Order 23?
  • Can an office memorandum issued by the Government amplify or supplement existing statutory rules regarding service seniority?
  • Does the 'next below rule' enjoy the status of a statutory rule or a binding law?
  • Are civil servants reinstated after retirement under Martial Law Regulation 114 entitled to automatic promotion on the 'next below rule'?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to the Government of Punjab and others vs Mst. Hussan Ara1991 CLC 1699 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Secretary to the Government of N: W.F.P. Local Council & Election &1991 SCMR 470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16
  service regularizationLocal Council ServiceIntegrated Rural Development Programmeseniority rightsgovernment notificationad-hoc appointmentlegitimate expectation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had allowed writ petitions filed by employees whose services were transferred from the Integrated Rural Development Programme (I.R.D.P.) to the Local Council Service. The core legal question was whether the government could unilaterally regularize the respondents' services from a later date (1987) despite prior assurances and notifications that their services would be regularized from their initial date of appointment, following their selection by a properly constituted committee. The High Court had directed the government to notify the terms and conditions and inter se seniority of the respondents in accordance with the initial 1984 notification, ruling that the subsequent impugned notification could not bar regularization from the initial date of appointment. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record, affirmed that the respondents were initially selected by a properly constituted committee and were assured regularization from their initial appointment date. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding it well-reasoned, and dismissed the petitions, thereby confirming the employees' entitlement to regularization from their initial appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government can unilaterally alter the effective date of service regularization contrary to prior assurances given at the time of initial appointment?
  • Does the selection of employees by a properly constituted committee entitle them to regularization from the date of their initial appointment upon transfer to a new department?
  • Can a subsequent government notification override the terms and conditions of service established by an earlier notification regarding seniority and regularization?
  Read full judgment →
• Schlumberger Seaco Inc. through Manager for Pakistan And Attorney-in-Fact vs Central Board of Revenue through its Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others1991 PTD 975 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-27Read full judgment →
• Sawar Muhammad Sharif and 2 others vs Makhmool through Legal Heirs1991 MLD 561 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sawar Muhammad Sharif And 2 Others vs Makhmool And Other1991 SCMR 1419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-02
  pre-emptionlis pendenssuperior right of pre-emptiondivisibility of salelimitation periodleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench dismissing the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal in a pre-emption matter. The petitioners, three brothers, purchased the disputed property on 26-7-1974, and a pre-emption suit was subsequently instituted against them on 24-7-1975. Two of the brothers, who had no right to compete with the pre-emptor, transferred their interest to the third brother who had an equal right, attempting to avoid the pre-emption claim. The core legal question concerned the application of the doctrine of lis pendens to a resale in favour of a co-vendee with a superior right, and the divisibility of a sale where shares are specified but money is not apportioned. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to pre-emption claims, and a resale to a person with a superior right must occur within the period of limitation; once the right is lost by lapse of time, the resale cannot be in recognition of that right. Furthermore, where a share is specified but the money is not apportioned in respect of each share, the sale remains indivisible. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to pre-emption claims when a vendee transfers interest to a co-vendee?
  • Within what timeframe must a resale be made to a person having a superior right of pre-emption to avoid the effect of lis pendens?
  • Can a sale be considered divisible where the share is specified but the money is not apportioned in respect of each share?
  Read full judgment →
• Sattar Cotton Ginning Factory Limited vs Eastwest Shipping and Trading Company Limited and 4 otherss1991 CLC 670 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
• Satia vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1968 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Sarwari vs The State1991 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-06
  post-arrest bailinstigationfurther inquirymurderpolice raidco-accusedleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had rejected the petitioner's bail application and subsequent review application. The prosecution's case was that during a police raid on a gambling site, the petitioner was apprehended by a police constable. The petitioner then called out to his co-accused to get him released, prompting the co-accused to pull out a pistol and shoot the constable, causing fatal injuries, which allowed the petitioner to escape. The petitioner contended that no overt act was attributed to him and that his plea for help did not amount to instigating the co-accused to fire. The Supreme Court held that a specific role of instigation had been ascribed to the petitioner, which led directly to the fatal shooting of the police officer. Consequently, the Court determined that the case did not fall under the category of further inquiry and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a call for assistance by an apprehended accused to a co-accused, resulting in a fatal shooting by the co-accused, constitutes sufficient instigation to disentitle the accused to bail?
  • Does the absence of a direct physical overt act by an accused warrant the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry when there is an allegation of active instigation leading to murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfuddin Chughtai vs Settlement Department and others1991 MLD 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Khan vs Water and Power Development Authority and 21991 PLC (C.S.) 9 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-04-23Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Khan and 3 others vs Abdul Karim and another1991 MLD 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Hussain vs Allah Rakha and 2 others1991 MLD 735 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Hussain Bangash vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1991 PLD Supreme Court 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-24
  service appealspecial payemolumentsFederal Service Tribunalservice conditionsparity of payFundamental Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal arose from the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's claim for special pay. The appellant, an Assistant Soil Chemist in the Pakistan Forest Institute, sought special pay based on the practice of Provincial Governments granting such allowances to equivalent posts. The core legal question was whether a Federal Government employee is legally entitled to claim special pay based on the emoluments or practices applicable to Provincial Government employees. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that his duties met the criteria for special pay as defined in Fundamental Rule 9, which requires proof of arduous duties, additional work or responsibility, or an unhealthy locality. Furthermore, the Court held that Federal and Provincial Government employees constitute distinct categories for the purpose of emoluments and service conditions. Consequently, a Federal employee cannot claim parity with Provincial employees regarding special pay. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the classification between Federal and Provincial service structures is distinct and legally sufficient, requiring no further justification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Federal Government employee claim special pay based on the emoluments granted to Provincial Government employees?
  • What are the statutory criteria for the grant of special pay under Fundamental Rule 9?
  • Is there a legal basis for parity in emoluments between Federal and Provincial Government employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 52 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1093 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-02Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Ahmad Khan vs Government of Pakistan and 2 others1991 PLC 477 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Tahir Mahmood vs Ikramulhaq1991 MLD 164 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sikandar Hayat Khan vs Syed Ghulam Mujtaba Bokhari and another1991 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sardar Rahim Bux vs Federal Land Commissioner and others1991 CLC 845 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Sarwar Khan vs Zafar Iqbal and 4 others1991 MLD 34 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 949 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Sardar Mehmood Ali vs (Mst) Rahimunnisa and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 534 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Sardar Masih And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar M. Afsar Khan vs Habib Bank Limited and another1991 MLD 1962 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khursheedul Hassan vs Inspector-General of Police and 21991 PLC (C.S.) 208 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-22Read full judgment →
• Sardar Javid Iqbal vs Inspector-General of Police and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 697 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-08-30Read full judgment →
• Sardar Hidayat Ullah Khan Mokal vs Government of the Punjab1991 PLC (C.S.) 532 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
• Sardar Asghar Ali and others vs Muhammad Salim and 11 others1991 MLD 908 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahad Bakhsh Khan Khitran vs Secretary, Population Welfare1991 PLC (C.S.) 285 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan And Others vs The Land Acquisition1991 SCMR 2164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-13
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationpotentiality of landcompulsory acquisition chargessimple interestindustrial estate
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan resolves a batch of civil appeals arising from the acquisition of land in villages Kot Najibullah and Bandi Gullo for setting up an Industrial Estate by the Sarhad Development Authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal questions involved the determination of appropriate market value and classification of the land, whether compensation should include enhanced rates for potential and commercial strip usage, the rate of compulsory acquisition charges, and the entitlement to compound versus simple interest for delayed payments. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation rates determined concurrently by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Additional District Judge, nor was the Additional District Judge justified in granting an additional sum for delay without a statutory basis. The Court laid down that market value must be assessed based on relevant preceding sale statistics and recorded potentials, and that concurrent findings of lower fora regarding land classification and strip valuation should not be disturbed lightly unless perverse or contrary to evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Land Acquisition Collector and the Additional District Judge regarding the classification and market value of acquired land?
  • Is a land-owner entitled to enhanced compensation on the entire Khasra number when only a portion abuts a road and possesses commercial potential?
  • Whether an additional sum for delay in making an award can be granted by a court in the absence of a specific statutory provision applicable at the relevant time?
  • What is the correct applicable rate of interest on excess compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended in the North-West Frontier Province?
  Read full judgment →
• Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 396 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
• Sarang And Others vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Saqib Brothers and another vs Messrs Ciba Geigy (Pakistan) Limited1991 CLC 710 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29
  regular first appealproper judgmentnon-evaluation of evidenceremand of caserecovery suitcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Chiniot, on 10-04-1989, which decreed the respondent's suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,77,459.86. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court's judgment constituted a proper judgment under the relevant procedural law when it failed to discuss, consider, or disbelieve the evidence produced by the defendants. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to write a proper judgment because it completely omitted any discussion or evaluation of the statements made by the three defense witnesses, rendering it a one-sided decision. Consequently, the appellate court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision after hearing the parties. The key principle laid down is that a trial court is legally obliged to consider, discuss, and evaluate the evidence produced by both parties before rendering a decision, and failure to do so vitiates the judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judgment that fails to discuss or disbelieve the evidence produced by the defendants qualify as a proper judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the legal consequence when a trial court ignores and fails to consider the statements of defense witnesses?
  • Can an appellate court remand a matter for a fresh decision if the trial court delivers a one-sided judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Santas Maria Teresa vs The State1991 MLD 2576 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
• Sanghar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 5 others1991 CLC 456 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-20
  central excise dutysugar millsexemption notificationvested rightpromissory estoppelretrospective operationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses multiple constitutional petitions filed by various sugar mills located in the Province of Sindh, challenging the withdrawal of central excise duty exemptions and the demand for refunds. The core legal questions involved whether the Federal Government could lawfully withdraw exemptions previously granted to old and new sugar mills under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, whether such exemptions created vested rights or invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, and whether excise duty is leviable upon manufacture or upon clearance from the factory. The Court held that exemptions granted under section 12-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 can be varied or rescinded by the Federal Government under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as they constitute privileges rather than vested rights, and promissory estoppel does not bar statutory powers. However, the Court ruled that for new sugar mills whose two-year statutory exemption period had already commenced and taken effect, the withdrawal before the expiry of that period was illegal and without lawful authority. The petitions of old sugar mills and the refund challenges were dismissed, while specific petitions by new sugar mills regarding unexpired two-year exemptions were allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government has the power under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to rescind or withdraw tax exemptions granted under section 12-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  • Does a tax exemption notification create a vested right that prevents the Government from withdrawing the exemption before the expiry of a stated period?
  • Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against the Government to restrain it from withdrawing statutory tax exemptions?
  • Whether central excise duty is to be levied based on the date of manufacture or on the date when goods are cleared from the factory?
  • Whether the withdrawal of a 50% central excise duty exemption granted to new sugar mills before the expiry of their two-year production period is lawful?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The StatePLD 1991 Federal Shariat Cou · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases198 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-09-30Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Naik for Appellant. vs Mian Masood, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 1075 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Khan And Another vs The State and 2 others-1991 P Cr. L J 1375 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
• Sanatta vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1516 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Samuel And 9 Others vs Mst. Rabia Bibi And Others1991 P Cr. L J 885 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 187 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah vs Works Manager and others1991 PLC 411 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
• Salman Pasha for Appellant. vs Ashrafuddin Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 1078 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-09-24Read full judgment →
• Salman Ashraf vs Begum Asmatunnisa1991 MLD 1510 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-08Read full judgment →
• Sally Textile Mills. Limited, Messrs Fazal Shafiq Textile Mills (Pvt.)1991 SCMR 721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  constitutional interpretationcustoms dutytaxationimplied repealfinance ordinancestatutory interpretationdelegated legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a batch of petitions and appeals challenging the validity of tax levies imposed under the Finance Ordinance, 1982 and the Finance Act, 1985. The core legal questions addressed whether Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 impliedly repealed paragraph 7 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 upon the revival of Article 89 of the Constitution; whether the Finance Ordinance, 1982 lapsed for lack of parliamentary approval; and whether general exemptions under the Customs Act, 1969 applied to specific customs duties like the Iqra and Additional Surcharge. The Supreme Court held that Article 270-A did not repeal paragraph 7 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977, as the two provisions could coexist. The Court further affirmed that the charging provisions for these taxes were distinct and not subject to general exemptions under the Customs Act, 1969. It was also held that the Customs Authorities, not the licensing authorities, are the competent bodies to determine the rate of duty leviable on imported goods. The petitions were dismissed, though certain appeals were remanded for factual determination regarding local manufacture status.

  Questions settled

  • Does the revival of Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 impliedly repeal paragraph 7 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977?
  • Are general exemptions granted under Section 19 of the Customs Act 1969 applicable to the Iqra and Additional Surcharge duties?
  • Which authority is competent to determine the rate of duty leviable on imported goods: the licensing authority or the Customs Authorities?
  • Does the definition of 'Act of Parliament' in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 allow for legislation that does not require consideration by the Senate?
  Read full judgment →
• Salim Khan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1950 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
• Salim Dil Khan vs Haji Mirza Khan & OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 618 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-10Read full judgment →
• Salim Alias Seema vs The State1991PCr.LJ 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Saleh Khan vs Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization and another1991 PLC 405 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
• Saleemuddin Chundrigar vs Sindh Seed Corporation, Hyderabad and 31991 PLC 867 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Saleem Dil Khan and 2 others vs Haji Mirza Khan and 16 others1991 MLD 1006 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-10Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar vs Director of Education, Rawalpindi and 2 others1991 PLC 654 · Service Tribunal · 1990-10-18Read full judgment →