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.
- Nikhat Riaz vs Manzoor Hassan1991 SCMR 1434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal against the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlady seeking the eviction of the respondent from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide personal need. The core legal question was whether the sufficiency of accommodation available to the landlady while residing with her father in a house not owned by her, alongside her alleged past conduct of enhancing rent instead of pursuing eviction, constituted valid grounds to reject her claim of personal need. The Supreme Court held that a landlord has the prerogative to occupy their own property and cannot be compelled to continue living as a licensee or in accommodation owned by relatives, and that the finding of mala fides based on unproven past conduct was not sustainable on the evidence. The Court laid down the principle that the fact that a landlord is residing in premises belonging to relatives or in rented property does not disentitle them from seeking the eviction of a tenant for their own bona fide personal use.
Questions settled- Whether the fact that a landlord is living with relatives or in another house provides a valid ground to dismiss an ejectment application for personal need?
- Can an ejectment application be dismissed on the ground of mala fides based on a tenant's unproven allegations of past rent enhancements?
- Does a landlord have the prerogative to occupy their own property rather than residing in a house owned by a relative?
- Nihal Din alias Lal Khan and 2 others vs Muhammad Hussain and 3 others1991 MLD 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- Nifial Abbas Hashmi vs Gheyurul Islam and another1991 PLC 120 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-05Read full judgment →
- Niaz Muhammad and 3 others vs Muhammad Nazeer and 4 others1991 MLD 2098 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-07-10Read full judgment →
- Niaz Gul vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 705 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ahmad And 2 Others vs Habib Bank Ltd. And Other1991 SCMR 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against orders passed by a Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioners challenged conditional orders granting leave to defend suits for the recovery of financial facilities, arguing that the Banking Court should have granted unconditional leave and that the mortgaged property was undervalued for security purposes. The Supreme Court held that the Banking Court possesses the discretion to grant leave to defend either conditionally or unconditionally, provided such discretion is exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. In these cases, because the petitioners did not deny receiving the financial facilities and failed to produce evidence regarding the current market value of the mortgaged properties, the Banking Court’s assessment was deemed reasonable. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the Banking Court's exercise of discretion and refused the petitions. The judgment reinforces that conditional leave is appropriate when the underlying liability is not denied and the court has applied its mind to the facts.
Questions settled- Does a Banking Court have the discretion to impose conditions when granting leave to defend a recovery suit?
- Is the imposition of security as a condition for leave to defend a recovery suit permissible when the defendant admits to receiving financial facilities?
- Can a party challenge the valuation of mortgaged property by a Banking Court without providing evidence of its current market value?
- Niamuddin And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
- New Jubilee Insurance Employees' Union, Karachi vs Sindh Labour1991 PLC 10 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
- Nekam Khan vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2212 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-08-04Read full judgment →
- Nek Muhammad vs The State1991 SCMR 1630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for bail in a murder case registered under Section 302, Section 148, and Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was named in the FIR but subsequently found innocent by three successive police investigations, was entitled to bail, particularly when no specific injury was attributed to him. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision is that where an accused is not alleged to have caused any physical injury to the deceased and multiple police investigations have consistently declared him innocent, his precise liability constitutes a matter of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that the findings of successive investigating officers regarding innocence, coupled with the absence of specific injury attribution, provide sufficient grounds for the court to determine that the case against the accused requires further inquiry, thereby warranting the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does a finding of innocence by successive police investigations constitute a ground for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if they are not alleged to have caused any specific injury to the deceased?
- Can the Supreme Court grant bail to an accused whose bail application was previously dismissed by the High Court?
- Nek Dayer vs Trust Ceramic Industries(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 52) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-20Read full judgment →
- Nek Dayer vs Trust Ceramic Industries1991 PLC 734 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Neelum Flour Mills through Kafayat Hussain Naqvi, Managing Director, Asgharabad, Muzaffarabad, A.K. vs Government of the State of Azad Jammu and Khashmir through Chief Secretary and 2 others1991 PLD Azad J & K 26 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
- Neelam Mawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 412 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-01Read full judgment →
- Neelam Mawaz vs The State1991 MLD 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Nazir Begum vs Muhammad Salim and others1991 CLC 952 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmed vs The District Judge1991 CLC 1183 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-11Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1991 PLD Lahore 469 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs S.H.O.1991 P Cr. L J 1046 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-18Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore Through Its Chairman1991 SCMR 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a service matter where the appellant challenged the Service Tribunal's failure to adjudicate his entitlement to salary and allowances for the period between his initial dismissal and subsequent reinstatement. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal correctly abstained from passing an order regarding these arrears. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred by failing to address the prayer for salary arrears, which was a matter explicitly raised before it. The Court emphasized that under the second proviso to Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, a civil servant whose dismissal or removal is set aside is entitled to such arrears of pay as the authority setting aside the order may determine. Because the Tribunal had not exercised this discretion or adjudicated the claim on its merits, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to that extent and remanded the case to the Service Tribunal for a decision in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Is a Service Tribunal required to adjudicate a claim for salary arrears when an order of dismissal is set aside?
- Does Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 mandate that the authority setting aside a dismissal order must determine the entitlement to arrears of pay?
- Can a Service Tribunal abstain from deciding a specific prayer regarding back benefits raised in a service appeal?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Director, Education (S), Faisalabad and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 579 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-08-05Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs Border Area Committee1991 MLD 1154 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Khan vs Member (Colonies), Borad of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And Other1991 SCMR 1726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the recovery of a penalty imposed for illicit cultivation of resumed Government land under the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the petitioner to discretionary relief regarding the quantum of penalty. The Supreme Court held that since the amount being recovered was admittedly not commensurate with the benefit obtained by the petitioner, discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction as well as leave to appeal should be denied. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking discretionary equitable relief must demonstrate clean hands and entitlement thereto, and disproportionate benefits or lack of merit disentitles them to interference from superior courts.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner entitled to discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction when the penalty amount is not commensurate with the benefit obtained?
- Can leave to appeal be refused by the Supreme Court on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief?
- Nazir Ahmad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 329 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-08Read full judgment →
- Nazar-Ul-Husnain vs Collector, Etc.(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 8) · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2433 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-18Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad vs Messrs Marker Alkaloids And Other1991 SCMR 1351(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a Constitution Petition by the Baluchistan High Court, which upheld the Labour Appellate Tribunal's order setting aside the reinstatement of the petitioner workman with back benefits. The petitioner had been dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry for disorderly behavior, hurling filthy abuses at a co-worker, and threatening a supervisor. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court rightly declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with the factual findings of the Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the validity of the domestic inquiry and the reliance on unchallenged witness testimony. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that where a witness's statement is left unchallenged and no motive for false implication is established, the inquiry officer can lawfully rely upon it without requiring corroboration, and the High Court correctly refused to re-appreciate evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that an unchallenged statement of a witness not suffering from any impeachable motive constitutes strong proof and does not require corroboration.
Questions settled- Can an inquiry officer rely on an unchallenged statement of a witness without corroboration?
- Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction regarding findings of a Labour Appellate Tribunal?
- Does the failure to cross-examine a complainant or establish a motive for false implication validate the reliance on witness testimony in a domestic inquiry?
- Nazar Muhammad vs General Manager, Administration and Personnel, Utility Stores Corporation Ltd., Islamabad and 2 others1991 PLC 914 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad and anothers vs Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1991 MLD 458 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad And Another vs Talib Hussain1991 SCMR 1320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 21-2-1989, arising out of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question raised was whether the respondent had waived his right of pre-emption by participating in the sale transaction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the absence of waiver were unexceptionable, noting that the assertion of the petitioners that the respondent took part in the transaction was merely oral, unsupported by any written undertaking, and stood successfully rebutted by the unrebutted evidence that the respondent was not present in the village on the day of the sale. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the right of pre-emption.
Questions settled- Whether oral assertion alone is sufficient to establish waiver of a right of pre-emption?
- Can a pre-emptor's right to pre-empt be defeated without proof of active participation and a clear undertaking at the time of sale?
- Nazar Muhammad And Another vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner And Another1991 SCMR 1896 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding property demarcation and rent assessment. The petitioners, Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddiq, challenged the High Court's dismissal of their earlier Constitution petition. The High Court had dismissed the initial petition on two primary grounds: first, that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the court against the order passed in the second revision petition; and second, that if a review petition was still pending before the Settlement Officers, the writ petition was premature. The Letters Patent Bench affirmed these findings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had thoroughly examined the facts, claims, and entitlements of the parties. As the petitioners failed to demonstrate any error of law in the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, holding that no case for interference was made out.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the court?
- Is a writ petition premature if a review petition regarding the same matter is still pending before the administrative authority?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the petitioner fails to demonstrate an error of law in the impugned judgment?
- Nazar Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition before the Lahore High Court challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, Nazar Khan, who was straightaway convicted under sections 18, 33, and 34 of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 upon pleading guilty to the charge of illegal possession of plots. The core legal question was whether a trial court can immediately convict an accused upon an admission of guilt without affording an opportunity to show cause. The Court held that the trial Court erred by convicting the petitioner straightaway without complying with the mandatory procedure under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which requires asking the accused if he has sufficient cause to show why he should not be convicted upon his admission. The ratio decidendi is that an admission of guilt does not dispense with the statutory requirement of issuing a show cause notice prior to conviction. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, declining to order a retrial given the nature of the case, and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner.
Questions settled- Can a trial court straightaway convict an accused upon a plea of guilt without issuing a show cause notice?
- What is the mandatory procedure required under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 upon an admission of guilt?
- Whether an appellate or revisional court should order a retrial when a conviction is vitiated by procedural non-compliance?
- Nazar Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1155 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain vs Inspector-General, Frontier Corps and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 821 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-08Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain and Other vs Anwar Begum and OtherK.L.R 1991 Civil Case 86 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-19Read full judgment →
- Nayyar Iqbal vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 728 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Nayer Bari vs Government of Sindh and 6 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1168 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Nawaz Khan Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 445 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Nawaz Khan and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 956 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Nawabzada Muhammad Shah Khan Through His Attorney Haji Sharfuddin1991 SCMR 732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose out of land dispute proceedings originating from the provincially administered tribal areas under the Settlement of Immovable Property Disputes (Dir and Swat) Regulation, 1972. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan were whether the Chairman or a Member of the Federal Land Commission could individually exercise revisional powers under Martial Law Regulation No. 123, and whether the Chairman and Members of Federal Land Commission (Validation of Orders) Ordinance 1981 (Ordinance XXII of 1981) applied without formal extension under Article 247 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that statutory conferment of authority designating officers individually is to be read distributively unless a contrary intention appears. Furthermore, as a remedial and curative statute validating specified past orders, Ordinance XXII of 1981 did not require formal extension to tribal areas under Article 247. The Court established that curative statutes must be given full remedial effect once the targeted defect and remedy are clear.
Questions settled- Can the Chairman or a Member of the Federal Land Commission singly exercise revisional powers conferred upon designated officers?
- Does a remedial and validating Ordinance require formal extension under Article 247 of the Constitution to affect orders originating from tribal areas?
- How should statutory authorisations enumerating or designating specific officers be interpreted where joint exercise of power is not expressly required?
- Nawabzada Ali Nawaz Khan Mamdot vs Deputy Administrator and 221991 MLD 960 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
- Nawab vs Mst. Rabia Bibi Through Legal Heirs And 13 Other1991 SCMR 1280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interlocutory order of the High Court, which refused to implead the petitioner as a respondent in a pending case relating to Land Reforms. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant of the land in question and asserted that proper application of the relevant law would ultimately entitle him to ownership of a portion of the land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a necessary or aggrieved party entitled to be impleaded in the pending proceedings. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court correctly noted the petitioner had not yet suffered a direct grievance making him a necessary party, in the interest of justice and given the circumstances, the petitioner should be granted an opportunity of being heard through counsel during the hearing of the main writ petition. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that assistance from a claimant asserting a potential proprietary interest through tenancy under land reforms can be accommodated by permitting an appearance and hearing in pending constitutional petitions.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant claiming potential ownership under Land Reforms is a necessary party to be impleaded in pending constitutional proceedings?
- Can the High Court permit a party to be heard through counsel during the hearing of a writ petition even if they are not strictly a necessary party?
- Does an interlocutory order refusing to implead a party warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Nawab Khan Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 173 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-25Read full judgment →
- Nawab Din vs Nazar Hussain And Another1991.P Cr. L J 2321 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
- Nawab Chaudhary vs Sirajul Arfin and another1991 CLC 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Nawab Ali vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Naveed Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector of Customs and others1991 CLC 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
- National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation Employees &1991 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a registered trade union whose registration was cancelled by the Labour Court and affirmed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court on statutory and standing grounds, filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan with a 14-day delay. The core legal questions were whether ignorance of the limitation period or delay in picking up a certified copy constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay under the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and whether a time-barred petition for leave to appeal can be converted into a direct constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when fundamental rights under Article 17 are alleged for the first time. The Supreme Court held that each day of delay must be explained, collecting a copy late without justifiable reason and ignorance of law do not constitute sufficient cause, and refused to convert the petition into one under Article 184(3) as the constitutional issue was not raised before the High Court. The petition was dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Does failure to collect a certified copy on the date fixed by the copying agency constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules 1980?
- Is ignorance of the law governing limitation periods a valid ground for condoning delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Can a time-barred petition for leave to appeal be converted into a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution when the fundamental rights issue was not agitated before the High Court?
- National Development Finance Corporation vs M/s. Rawal PapersK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 645 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-03Read full judgment →
- National Development Finance Corporation vs Messrs Rawal Papers1991 MLD 1456 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- National Development Finance Corporation vs Hashtnagar1991 MLD 2574 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
- National Development Finance Corporation Staff Union (Pakistan)1991 PLC 841 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the registration of a new trade union (Respondent No. 2) by the Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No. 1) in an establishment where an elected Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) was already functioning. The petitioner union, being the CBA, contended that Respondent No. 2 lacked the mandatory one-fifth (20%) membership required under Section 7(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and that several workers were unlawfully claimed as dual members in violation of the proviso to Section 3(a). Respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection asserting that an existing trade union lacked locus standi to challenge another union's registration. The High Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that an established CBA has locus standi to challenge an unlawful registration where statutory requirements are bypassed. The Court ruled that because Section 3(a) prohibits dual membership and factual disputes existed over membership thresholds, the Registrar was bound to hold an inquiry and hear the CBA. The registration certificate was declared without lawful authority and remanded for fresh determination.
Questions settled- Does an elected Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) have locus standi to challenge the registration of a newly formed rival trade union in the same establishment?
- Is the Registrar of Trade Unions legally obligated to hear an existing CBA and investigate objections regarding membership thresholds before granting registration to a new union under Section 7(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- How must the Registrar of Trade Unions resolve disputed dual memberships and disclaimers in light of the prohibition in Section 3(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Can a trade union be lawfully registered under Section 7(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance without the Registrar independently verifying that it satisfies the one-fifth membership requirement?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Zulfiqar Ali Shah1991 PLC (C.S.) 834 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-07Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Tradewell (Pak1stan) Corporation and 2 others1991 CLC 1243 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex parte decree passed against the defendant in a summary suit. The core legal question was whether a suit filed under the summary procedure of Order 37, Rule 2 is maintainable when the claim includes items extraneous to the promissory note, such as salary, allowances, and conveyance charges. The Court held that the summary procedure is strictly reserved for claims based solely on bills of exchange, hundis, or promissory notes. Including extraneous items in the plaint invalidates the use of the summary procedure, as it deprives the defendant of the right to defend the suit under ordinary procedure. Consequently, the Court set aside the ex parte decree, finding that the defendant was prejudiced by the improper application of summary proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a plaintiff cannot elect the summary procedure under Order 37 if the claim includes items other than those specified in the rule; such suits must be tried under the ordinary procedure.
Questions settled- Can a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be maintained if the claim includes items other than bills of exchange, hundis, or promissory notes?
- Does the inclusion of extraneous claims in a summary suit prejudice the defendant's right to defend?
- What constitutes 'special circumstances' for setting aside an ex parte decree under Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a defendant entitled to have an ex parte decree set aside if the summary procedure was improperly invoked for a claim containing non-negotiable instrument items?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another1991 PLC 213 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected constitutional petitions were filed by the National Bank of Pakistan challenging the common order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had awarded full back-benefits to reinstated employees whose termination had already been declared illegal. The petitioner-Bank contended that the employees were disentitled to back-benefits because they failed to state in their pleadings or evidence that they remained jobless during the period of dismissal. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that once termination is found to be unlawful, the employee is entitled to back-benefits as a matter of course. Interpreting Supreme Court precedent, the Court ruled that the initial burden does not lie on the worker to prove the negative fact of non-employment; rather, the burden lies on the employer to affirmatively prove through cogent evidence that the worker was gainfully employed elsewhere. Since the Bank produced no such evidence, the grant of full back-benefits was upheld.
Questions settled- Does the initial burden of proof lie on a worker to establish that they were not gainfully employed elsewhere to claim back-benefits after unlawful termination?
- Whether an employee is entitled to full back-benefits as a matter of course once their termination is held to be illegal?
- Is an employer required to affirmatively prove that an illegally terminated employee was gainfully employed elsewhere to defeat or reduce a claim for back-benefits?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Nisar Ahmed through his Legal Heirs1991 CLC 1958 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Muneer Ahmad1991 PLC 615 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Moiz and anothers1991 CLC 1260 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Akram Khan And Other1991 SCMR 1535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby a constitution petition filed by the first respondent was allowed and a departmental punishment order dated 30-12-1986 was set aside due to the failure to afford an opportunity of personal hearing. The core legal question raised in the petition is whether, upon finding a departmental order bad in law for violating principles of natural justice, the High Court ought to have set aside the entire proceedings from the commencement or merely the proceedings held after the illegality, and whether consequential benefits could be granted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these points, suspended the operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court, and directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record.
Questions settled- Whether failure to afford an opportunity of personal hearing vitiates the entire departmental proceedings or only the proceedings held after the illegality?
- Can consequential benefits be granted when a departmental punishment order is declared to be without lawful authority?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs M.M. Agencies and 5 otherss1991 CLC 1763 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Manzoor Ali1991 PLC 460 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs M.A. Rehman Baig1991 PLC 132 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Kamal Ahmad Khan1991 PLC 545 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
- Neik Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 499 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-20Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Abdul Jabbar1991 PLC 342 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-06Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan And Another vs Muhammad Riaz And Another1991 SCMR 1572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the dismissal of an employee from the National Bank of Pakistan for embezzlement. The employee was dismissed following an inquiry, and his subsequent grievance petition was allowed by the Labour Court, which ordered reinstatement with back benefits. While the Labour Court acknowledged the employee's guilt regarding criminal negligence, it deemed the punishment of dismissal too harsh, yet simultaneously noted it lacked the authority to substitute the punishment. The High Court initially set aside the Labour Court's order on jurisdictional grounds, but the Supreme Court previously held that the Labour Court possessed jurisdiction to enforce Wage Commission awards. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Labour Court is justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by an employer when the employee's guilt of misconduct has been established. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Labour Court, having found the employee guilty of criminal negligence, erred in law by failing to uphold the departmental punishment.
Questions settled- Is a Labour Court justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by an employer after establishing the employee's guilt of misconduct?
- Does a Labour Court have the authority to substitute a punishment of dismissal with a lesser punishment once criminal negligence is proven?
- Nasrullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 294 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah vs Mrs. Fatima Begum1991 CLC 2018 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah Khan Marri and anothers vs The Federal Land Commission1991 MLD 353 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-08Read full judgment →
- Nasreen F1rdous vs Tanweer Kishwar Siddiqui and 5 otherss1991 CLC 907 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Nasiruddin Siddique vs The Chief Secretary and 5 Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 155) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
- Nasir-Ud-Din Siddiqui vs The Chief Secretary and 5 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1157 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
- Nasir vs The State1991 MLD 2524 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
- Nasir Khan And Another vs The State1991PCr.LJ 19 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-09Read full judgment →
- Nasir Hameed Siddiqui vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 568 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
- Nasir Ali vs Muhammad Tufail And Other1991 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the jurisdiction of the Punjab Local Council Election Authority in an election dispute. The core legal question involves interpreting the scope of Section 17(1) versus Section 17(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, specifically determining which subsection governs the adjudication of the election matter at hand. The Chairman of the Punjab Local Council Election Authority had previously asserted jurisdiction under Section 17(1), relying on Supreme Court precedents. Conversely, a Division Bench of the High Court held that the matter fell under the ambit of Section 17(2), distinguishing the precedents cited by the Chairman. The Supreme Court, recognizing the delicacy of the issue and the conflicting interpretations regarding the applicability of its prior rulings, granted leave to appeal. The Court ordered that the appeal be prepared on the existing record and scheduled for hearing, while directing that the interim order dated 13-11-1989 remain in operation pending the final adjudication of the jurisdictional dispute.
Questions settled- Does the Punjab Local Council Election Authority have jurisdiction under Section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, to decide an election dispute?
- Does an election dispute fall within the ambit of Section 17(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Nasir Abbas vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1378 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
- Nasir Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 472 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-23Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmed Uppal vs Pakistan Water and Power Development1991 SCMR 792 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-appeals against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that set aside the removal of a Divisional Accountant from the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal correctly interfered with WAPDA’s discretionary power to remove an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, and whether the employee was entitled to back benefits. The Supreme Court allowed WAPDA's appeal, holding that the Service Tribunal erred in setting aside the removal order. The Court established that where an authority exercises its discretionary power under Section 17(1-A) to remove an employee without assigning reasons, the Tribunal should not interfere if there is sufficient material justifying the action and no proof of mala fides. In this case, a high-powered committee report detailing the employee's complicity in significant financial irregularities constituted sufficient material to support the removal. Consequently, the Court upheld the original removal order and dismissed the employee's appeal for reinstatement and back benefits.
Questions settled- Can the Service Tribunal interfere with an order of removal passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act when there is sufficient material supporting the action?
- Does the absence of specific reasons in a removal order under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act render the order invalid?
- Is a report from a high-powered committee sufficient material to justify the removal of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Naseer Ahmed Uppal vs Pakistan WAPDA1991 SC M R1998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns review petitions filed against a Supreme Court judgment that had set aside a Service Tribunal's decision, which had previously overturned the removal of an employee from WAPDA. The core legal questions were whether the removal of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act constitutes a penal order requiring proof of fault or adherence to disciplinary standards, and whether the Tribunal applied the correct legal test in evaluating the validity of such removal. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, affirming its previous holding. The Court laid down the principle that an order of removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act is a termination simpliciter, not a penal order. Therefore, such an order does not require the existence of a specific fault, nor must it be commensurate with disciplinary standards like the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Furthermore, allegations of mala fides must be specifically pleaded and particularized to be considered, and qualitative performance assessments of different employees do not constitute discrimination.
Questions settled- Is an order of removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act considered a penal order?
- Does the termination of service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act require the existence of a specific fault attributable to the employee?
- Must allegations of mala fides be specifically pleaded and particularized to be considered in service matters?
- Does a qualitative difference in performance evaluation between two employees constitute discrimination?
- Naseer Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 574 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmad vs Messrs Lipton (Pakistan) Ltd1991 PLC 403 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-01-25Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmad Alias Naseera vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2157 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
- Naseem Zafar, I.T.P. for Appellant. vs Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant1991 PTD (Trib.) 313 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
- Naseem Ahmad and anothers vs Air Botswana (Pvt.) Limited and 5 others1991 MLD 141 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-20Read full judgment →
- Naseebullah vs The State1991 SCMR 2450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail to an accused facing trial in a murder case before the Sessions Court. The core legal questions involve whether bail should be granted on the ground that the sole eye-witness has exonerated the accused at trial despite an earlier statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the discretion exercised by lower courts in refusing bail while the trial is ongoing. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it does not normally sift and assess the value of evidence while a trial is still proceeding and thus declined to interfere with the lower courts' orders. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will generally refrain from evaluating evidence prematurely during an ongoing trial, leaving the assessment of witness statements and recoveries to the trial court while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will sift and assess the value of evidence while a trial is still proceeding for the purpose of granting bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail solely because the sole eye-witness examined at trial has exonerated the accused, notwithstanding an earlier statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What directions may the appellate court issue when a criminal trial is unreasonably delayed?
- Najmul Islam Usmani vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation and another1991 PLC 748 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-02Read full judgment →
- Najmuddin vs Mst. Anis Fatima1991 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an ejectment order where the tenant's defense was struck off for non-compliance with a rent deposit order. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was justified in striking off the tenant's defense for failing to deposit rent in the current proceedings, despite the tenant having already deposited the equivalent amount in a separate Miscellaneous Rent Case. The Supreme Court held that the order striking off the defense was illegal and unjust. The Court found that the tenant had acted in good faith by depositing the rent in the Miscellaneous Rent Case and had repeatedly requested the Rent Controller to facilitate the transfer or adjustment of these funds before the deadline. The key principle laid down is that a Rent Controller has a duty to apply their mind to the facts and assist in the adjustment of rent deposits rather than mechanically striking off a defense when the tenant has demonstrated a bona fide effort to comply with payment obligations. The Rent Controller's failure to facilitate the adjustment of funds already held by the court constituted a failure of justice.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defense for non-payment when the rent has already been deposited in a separate miscellaneous rent case?
- Is a Rent Controller required to facilitate the adjustment of rent deposited in a separate proceeding before striking off a tenant's defense?
- Does the failure of a Rent Controller to apply his mind to the availability of previously deposited rent render an order striking off a defense illegal?
- Najmuddin Ahmad vs Messrs National Bank of Pakistan Appeal1991 PLC 86 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
- Najjat Hussain And Others vs Allah Ditta And Other1991 SCMR 2056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order refusing to restore a Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A.) that had been previously disposed of following the withdrawal of the suit by one of the appellants. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who claimed to be interested parties in a representative suit, were entitled to the restoration of an appeal that had been withdrawn and dismissed years prior, particularly in light of an alleged compromise reached between the parties. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioners had failed to seek restoration for a considerable period. The Court held that the High Court's order was legal and proper, emphasizing that the petitioners' remedy for enforcing an alleged compromise was not through the restoration of a long-disposed appeal, but rather by instituting a fresh suit and filing the compromise agreement within those proceedings. The principle laid down is that where a suit or appeal has been withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit, the appropriate legal recourse for enforcing subsequent compromises is the institution of a new suit rather than seeking to revive stale litigation.
Questions settled- Can a party seek the restoration of an appeal that was previously withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit?
- Is the institution of a fresh suit the appropriate legal remedy for enforcing a compromise agreement after the original appeal has been disposed of?
- Does the dismissal of an appeal due to withdrawal preclude parties from later seeking restoration based on an alleged compromise?
- Najbuddin vs Sharfuddin Etc.K.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 133 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-01Read full judgment →
- Najam-Ul-Hassan & 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 522 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
- Najabat Ali and others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1991 MLD 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
- Naik Muhammad vs The State1991 MLD 781 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-20Read full judgment →
- Naheed Usmani vs Mst. Anwari Begum1991 CLC 1774 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant-tenant contested the landlady’s application, disputing her age, the bona fides of her requirement for the premises, and alleging she owned other commercial properties. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a National Identity Card for proving age, the necessity of the landlady’s personal appearance in court, and whether the requirement of "good faith" applies to eviction proceedings under Section 14. The Court held that the appeal was meritless, affirming that the National Identity Card is a public document with probative value. Furthermore, the Court held that the landlady’s non-appearance did not prejudice the tenant where her attorney provided sufficient evidence. Crucially, the Court affirmed that Section 14 is a beneficial provision for specific classes of landlords, and unlike Section 15, it does not require the landlord to prove the "bona fides" or "good faith" of their need for the premises. The eviction order was upheld.
Questions settled- Does the requirement of 'good faith' or 'bona fide' need apply to eviction applications filed under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a National Identity Card be considered valid evidence to prove the age of a landlord in eviction proceedings?
- Is the personal appearance of a landlady in court mandatory when her attorney is available to testify on her behalf in an eviction case?
- Naeem vs The State1991 MLD 2225 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
- Naeem Iqbal vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government1991 PLC (C.S.) 497 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-12-24Read full judgment →
- Naeem Akhtar Alias Nanna vs The State-1991 PCr.LJ 2318 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Naeem Ahmed vs Inspector-General of Police, Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 250 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →