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.
- Nadir Khan vs Muhammad Aslam Khan1991 MLD 938 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
- Nadeemn Iqbal and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 577 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Iqbal And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
- Nadeem H. Qureshi vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1991 PLC (C.S.) 216 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
- Nabi Bakhsh and another vs The State through Collector, D.I. Khan and others1991 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two consolidated writ petitions under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenged the jurisdiction of the Political Authorities of the South Waziristan Agency (a tribal area) over disputes arising in the settled area of Dera Ismail Khan. In the first case, the petitioner was summoned and forced to sign a Jirga agreement over a vehicle business dispute. In the second case, the petitioner was arrested under Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on charges under Sections 406, 420, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 11 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, arising from a brick-kiln partnership dispute. The High Court held that the mere fact that one party originally belonged to a tribal area does not confer jurisdiction on political authorities, nor does it divest ordinary civil and criminal courts of jurisdiction where the subject matter is situated, the transaction occurred, or the cause of action arose. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court ruled that Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 does not bar the High Court's jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights violated within its territorial jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the mere fact that one party to a dispute belongs to a Tribal Area confer jurisdiction on the Political Authorities of that area over transactions occurring in settled areas?
- Can Political Authorities oust the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil and Criminal Courts where the cause of action arose and the subject matter is situated within the settled area?
- Does Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to protect a person whose fundamental rights are violated within its territorial jurisdiction by tribal authorities?
- N.P. Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. And Others vs Collector of Customs (Appraisement) And Other1991 SCMR 1226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon petitions for leave to appeal involving questions already raised in pending matters where leave had previously been granted. The core legal question concerns the determination of customs-related issues similar to those under consideration in leading petitions. The Court decides to convert the current petitions into appeals so they may be heard alongside the connected matters already fixed for hearing. The key principle laid down is that related petitions raising identical questions of law and fact as pending granted leave matters should be converted into appeals and heard together for consistent adjudication.
Questions settled- Whether petitions for leave to appeal can be converted into appeals when identical questions are involved in pending matters?
- Can related appeals be clubbed together for hearing on the existing record with directions to file necessary documents?
- N.H. Naeem vs Messrs Pakistan Steel Mills1991 PLC 619 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
- N.D.F.C. Staff Union vs Registrar of Trade Union & Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 302) · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-07Read full judgment →
- M/s. Volkervam (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Sindh Employees' Social Security1991 SCMR 2361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the validity of social security contribution assessments made by the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution against the appellant. The core legal question was whether the Institution could lawfully assess contribution arrears for the years 1979 to 1981 based solely on findings derived from an inspection of the employer's records for the year 1982, without having issued a specific demand for the production of records for those earlier years. The Supreme Court held that while the assessment for 1982 was valid due to the employer's failure to rebut the findings, the assessment for 1979-1981 was unsustainable. The Court established that the power to assess contributions under Section 22(3) of the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965, based on satisfactory evidence, is contingent upon the employer's failure to produce records after a specific demand. Because no such demand was made for the 1979-1981 period, the Institution could not extrapolate liability from one year to another. The Court set aside the demand for 1979-1981, granting the Institution liberty to issue fresh notices for those years.
Questions settled- Can the Social Security Institution assess contribution arrears for previous years based solely on the findings of a single year's inspection?
- Does the power to assess contributions under Section 22(3) of the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 require a prior demand for records?
- Is an employer's failure to rebut a specific assessment of contribution liability sufficient to uphold that assessment?
- M/s. Sallos (Private) Limited. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, CompaniesPTCL1991 CL. 48 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ramzan & Sons Through Its Proprietor vs Income Tax Officer, Zone "B",PTCL 1991 CL. 271 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Pak Resources Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M/s. Compagnia Di-K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 662 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
- M/s. Novitas International vs Income Tax Officer (Films Circle) and1991 PTD 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing in limine the appellant's constitutional petition against the Income Tax Officer's decision to select the appellant's income tax return for detailed scrutiny under paragraph 5(b) of the Self Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1984-85. The core legal question was whether non-compliance within the prescribed 30-day period for submitting requisitioned documents automatically excluded an assessee from the Self Assessment Scheme, or whether the Income Tax Officer had discretion to condone the delay and evaluate the assessee's explanation. The Supreme Court held that the word 'eligible' in paragraph 5(b) confers discretionary power rather than imposing an automatic exclusion. The Court ruled that statutory discretion must be exercised reasonably, upon sound principles, and not mechanically. Concluding that the officer failed to apply his mind to the explanation furnished for the delay, the Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Income Tax Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Does failure to submit requisitioned documents within the 30-day period automatically exclude an assessee from the benefits of the Self Assessment Scheme under paragraph 5(b)?
- Does an Income Tax Officer possess the discretionary power to condone delay and accept documents submitted after the prescribed period under paragraph 5(b) of the Self Assessment Scheme?
- Is constitutional jurisdiction available to challenge the mechanical or arbitrary exercise of, or failure to exercise, a statutory discretionary power by an administrative authority?
- M/s. Habib Bank Ltd. vs M/s. Golden Plastic (Pvt.) Ltd.PTCL 1991 CL. 244 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
- M/s. H.M. Abdullah. vs The Income Tax, Officer, Circle-v, West Zone KarachiPTCL 1991 CL. 228 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Ebrahim Brotehrs (Pvt.) Limited vs The Commissioner of Income1991 SCMR 2289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the computation of capital gains for tax purposes. The core legal question concerns the correct valuation method for bonus shares: whether the cost of bonus shares should be calculated based on their face value or by averaging the cost of all shares, including the bonus shares. The High Court of Sindh answered this question in the negative, holding against the assessee's position. The petitioner contends that there is a conflict of judicial opinion on this matter, citing a contrary decision by the Lahore High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore v. Umar Saigol. The Supreme Court, noting the existence of this conflicting interpretation between the High Courts, granted leave to appeal to resolve the legal inconsistency regarding the appropriate method for determining the cost of bonus shares for capital gains computation.
Questions settled- Is the cost of bonus shares for the computation of capital gains to be determined by their face value or by the average cost of all shares?
- Does a conflict of view between High Courts on a tax interpretation matter warrant the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
- M/s. Continental Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner for WORKMEN's and(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 1) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Capgas (Private) Ltd. Karachi vs Ministry of Petroleum and(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 275) · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- M/s. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd vs The Superintendent, Central ExcisePTCL 1991 CL. 332 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Akhtar Ali Bhatti And Other1991 SCMR 1148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the National Bank of Pakistan against a Lahore High Court order that upheld the reinstatement of a bank cashier. The respondent had been removed from service in 1982 following allegations of theft involving two currency notes totaling Rs. 150. While the Punjab Labour Court initially dismissed the respondent's grievance petition, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal subsequently ordered his reinstatement without back benefits. The petitioner challenged this reinstatement through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court considered whether leave to appeal should be granted in light of the circumstances. The Court held that leave to appeal was not warranted. It reasoned that the respondent had already faced significant litigation, monetary loss, and mental anguish since his removal in 1982, which served as a sufficient penalty for his misconduct. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the reinstatement without back benefits, establishing that prolonged litigation and the resulting hardship can serve as an adequate disciplinary consequence for minor employee misconduct.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal against a High Court order upholding an employee's reinstatement where the employee has already suffered significant hardship through prolonged litigation?
- Can the mental torture and monetary loss resulting from years of litigation serve as a sufficient disciplinary consequence for an employee's minor misconduct?
- M/s. Afzal Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Chairman, Central Board OfPTCL 1991 CL. 7 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Mumtaz Industries vs Industrial Development Bank of PakistanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 459 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muzammil Hussain vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Khan and 45 others vs Accountant-General, Azad1991 PLC (C.S.) 124 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Hussain vs The Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Chairman, District Kasur And Other1991 SCMR 1424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an order of the High Court regarding rehabilitation and settlement authorities. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner's order dated 8-6-1976 was invalid because it relied upon a previous High Court order that had been suspended by an interim order in separate writ proceedings. The core legal question was whether the subsequent final disposal of those connected writ petitions rendered the initial suspension and the technical defect of the Commissioner's order academic. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court's earlier order was ultimately not interfered with when the connected writ petitions were finally decided, the challenge to the Commissioner's order became academic and did not warrant interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an interim suspension order passed in a writ petition precludes a rehabilitation authority from relying on a primary order that is subsequently upheld?
- Does the final disposal of connected writ petitions rendering a technical defect academic justify refusing interference in an appeal?
- Muzaffar Ali and 2 others vs Ch. Asghar Ali1991 CLC 2110 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, which was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court after the plaintiffs-appellants offered to have the suit decided on the basis of a special oath taken by the defendant-respondent on the Holy Qur'an. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that the respondent had committed fraud by falsely taking the oath despite previously admitting receipt of an amount in another proceeding, and further argued that one of the appellants was not bound by the oath proceedings as his counsel lacked specific authority. The High Court held that the plea of fraud was an afterthought since the appellants themselves initiated the special oath proposal with full knowledge of the facts and raised no contemporaneous objection. The Court further held that the advocate was duly authorized under the general recitals in his Vakalatnama empowering him to enter into a compromise or withdraw the suit, which inherently included the authority to agree to special oath proceedings. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party who initiated an offer for a special oath subsequently avoid the binding nature of the oath by raising a plea of fraud based on facts known to them at the time of the offer?
- Does an advocate holding a general power to compromise or withdraw a suit under a Vakalatnama possess the implied or express authority to agree to the disposal of a dispute on the basis of a special oath?
- Whether a client is bound by the statement of their counsel agreeing to special oath proceedings when no clash of interest is shown and the challenge is raised as an afterthought?
- Muzaffar Ahmed vs Pakistan through Secretary and others1991 MLD 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-29Read full judgment →
- Mutali And Another vs Shera And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court in a consolidation dispute. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the consolidation authorities' orders regarding the exchange and allotment of land parcels. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a pre-consolidation map and due to the unsubstantiated factual controversy, the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the impugned orders. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that factual controversies not substantiated by necessary documentation, such as pre-consolidation maps, do not warrant constitutional interference by superior courts.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in a consolidation matter involving a factual controversy where the pre-consolidation map has not been produced?
- Is leave to appeal maintainable against the dismissal of a constitutional petition arising from concurrent findings in consolidation proceedings without establishing material legal infirmity?
- Mustafa & Co. and others vs United Bank Ltd.1991 CLC 1690 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs S.M. Yousif and 2 others1991 CLC 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And Other1991 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Muhammad Rafique Tariq & Co.1991 MLD 2363 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Altaf Hussain and 3 others1991 MLD 2033 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-20Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1991 PLC 790 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Syed Ahmad Saeed Kirmani1991 CLC 140 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Lahore High Court arose from a suit filed by the appellant-Bank against the respondent for recovery of loan along with interest. The trial Court decreed the suit in part for the principal amount disbursed but disallowed interest and granted an equitable set-off/compensation to the respondent for lost rental income due to the Bank’s failure to disburse the full contracted loan amount, resulting in a net decree in favour of the respondent. The Bank appealed against the disallowance of interest and the award of equitable set-off. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that a court cannot base its decision on pleas not raised in the pleadings, nor can unpleaded evidence be considered. Because the respondent did not plead lost rental income in his written statement, the award of set-off was legally unsustainable. Additionally, since the Bank breached the contract by failing to advance the full agreed loan amount, it was disentitled from charging interest. The decree was modified to award the Bank Rs.3,55,210.37.
Questions settled- Can a court award damages or equitable set-off based on a claim or ground not set up in the party's pleadings?
- Can evidence led in respect of a plea not raised in the written statement or pleadings be considered by the court?
- Is a lending bank entitled to charge interest on disbursed instalments when it fails to advance the full contracted loan amount required for a project's completion?
- Can a respondent challenge an adverse finding of the trial court in an appeal without filing cross-objections or a cross-appeal?
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Asghar Bros. and others1991 CLC 1912 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Masih And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1058 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Mahmood and another vs Water and Power Development1991 PLC (C.S.) 93 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Hussain Shah And Others vs Sikandar1991 SCMR 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mushtaq Hussain Shah and others against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, which had remanded a civil suit regarding declaration of ownership and redemption of mortgaged land back to the trial court for fresh decision after recording further evidence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's remand order was legally flawed for failing to specify the exact nature or points of evidence to be produced. The Supreme Court held that the order of the High Court did not call for any interference and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's order remanding a case for further evidence unless a compelling legal infirmity is established.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a civil case for recording further evidence without specifying the exact points of evidence?
- Does an order of the High Court remanding a case to the trial court for fresh decision warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no jurisdictional defect is shown?
- Mushtaq Hussain Bokhari vs The State And 6 Other1991 SCMR 2136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a criminal complaint against police officials for the murder of the complainant's father. The central legal question concerned the necessity of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for prosecuting public servants, and whether such sanction remains mandatory after the accused's retirement. The High Court had ruled that retirement obviated the need for sanction. The Supreme Court set aside this judgment, noting that cognizance was taken while the accused were in service. The Court held that the trial court must determine, based on the evidence, whether the alleged acts were performed in the discharge of official duty. If the acts were not in the discharge of duty, no sanction is required; if they were, but exceeded legal authority, sanction might be necessary. The Court emphasized that the trial court must provide reasoned orders on this issue rather than withholding them to avoid prejudice. Furthermore, the Court deprecated the practice of challenging interlocutory orders, which causes excessive delays, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case on merits.
Questions settled- Is prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. required for the prosecution of a public servant who has retired after the court has already taken cognizance of the offence?
- At what stage of a criminal trial should a court determine the necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.?
- Does the act of a public servant exceeding their legal powers while believing they are acting in good faith for the discharge of duty necessitate sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.?
- Should courts encourage the practice of challenging interlocutory orders regarding the necessity of sanction during the pendency of a trial?
- Mushtaq Ahmed vs WAPDA And Another1991 SCMR 1526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a service dispute regarding the determination of seniority for an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner, who joined WAPDA in 1966, was transferred to Lahore in 1977, with his seniority reckoned from the date of his joining the Lahore office. Although a subsequent order in 1986 attempted to fix his seniority from his original date of appointment in 1966, this order was later withdrawn. The petitioner challenged this withdrawal before the Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. The Supreme Court examined the terms of the 1977 transfer order, which explicitly stipulated that seniority would be assigned from the date of joining the Lahore office. The Court noted that the petitioner had requested this transfer and accepted the conditions therein without objection at the time. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not later challenge the seniority terms he had voluntarily accepted. Leave to appeal was refused, and the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that an employee is bound by the terms of a transfer order accepted without protest.
Questions settled- Can an employee challenge the terms of a transfer order regarding seniority after having accepted the transfer without objection?
- Does a transfer made at the request of an employee preclude them from later claiming seniority from their original date of appointment?
- Mushtaq Ahmed vs The State And Another1991 SCMR 2395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of criminal proceedings. The petitioner, a tenant, had faced a private complaint initiated by his landlady under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, and Sections 500 and 506-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a dispute involving allegations of defamation and public nuisance. The petitioner contended that the averments in the complaint did not constitute an offence under Section 3 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's refusal to quash the proceedings. The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in determining that the application for quashment was premature at that stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and refused leave to appeal. The principle affirmed is that the High Court's inherent power to quash proceedings under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is discretionary and should not be invoked prematurely when a case is pending before a subordinate court.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the application is deemed premature?
- Does the High Court have discretion in exercising its inherent powers to quash pending criminal proceedings?
- Is a private complaint under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 subject to immediate quashment if the petitioner claims no offence is made out?
- Mushtaq Ahmed And Others vs The State1991 SCMR 2270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked the complainant party in a cotton field, resulting in three deaths and several injuries. The trial court convicted the appellants, and the High Court confirmed these convictions and death sentences. Upon review, the Supreme Court identified significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including the absence of evidence supporting the presence of the complainant party's crops at the alleged site, the failure of the investigating officer to recover evidence of the alleged self-defense by the complainant party, and medical evidence suggesting the complainant party was also armed. The Court held that the prosecution's ocular testimony was inconsistent and that the defense's version of events, which was rejected by the lower courts, raised reasonable doubts. Applying the principle that where two versions of an incident exist, the one favoring the accused must be adopted, the Court granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt, set aside their convictions, and ordered their acquittal.
Questions settled- When two conflicting versions of a criminal occurrence exist, which version must the court adopt?
- Does the presence of injuries on the accused that are not explained by the prosecution weaken the prosecution's case?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's ocular testimony is contradicted by physical evidence at the crime scene?
- Mushtaq Ahmed And Another vs The State and another-1991 PCr.LJ 2101 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1991 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by Mushtaq Ahmad against the dismissal of his revision petition, maintaining his conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 for possessing three bottles of liquid recovered from him. The core legal question was whether diluted rectified spirit contained in the bottles constitutes an 'intoxicant' or 'intoxicating liquor' within the meaning of clauses (g) and (h) of Article 2 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that since diluted rectified spirit can be used as a good substitute for an alcoholic beverage, it falls within the category of a liquid consisting of or containing alcohol normally used for purposes of intoxication, thus satisfying the statutory definition of 'intoxicating liquor'. The key principle laid down is that industrial alcohols such as rectified spirit, when prepared and diluted in a manner making them usable as substitutes for alcoholic beverages, qualify as intoxicating liquor under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979.
Questions settled- Whether diluted rectified spirit constitutes an intoxicating liquor within the meaning of Article 2(h) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Does the possession of rectified spirit capable of being used as a substitute for alcoholic beverages attract criminal liability under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- How should the expression 'intoxicating liquor' be construed when it includes liquids consisting of or containing alcohol normally used for purposes of intoxication?
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Muhammad Ikramulhaq and others1991 CLC 1626 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-29Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Messrs Hoechst Pakistan Limited, Karachi1991 PLC 698 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and AnotherK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases194 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Haji Qamaruddin and others1991 CLC 1551 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 206 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
- Musheer Ahmed Pesh Imam vs Dr. Razia Omer1991 CLC 678 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by a plaintiff seeking to restrain his former wife from alienating or parting with possession of a hospital property. The plaintiff alleged that the property, though registered in the defendant's name, was a benami transaction funded entirely by him. The defendant contended that she was an independent professional with sufficient resources to acquire and construct the property, and that she held legal title. The Court held that for an injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The Court determined that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of funding the purchase or exercising control over the property, whereas the defendant demonstrated independent financial capacity and legal title. Consequently, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and dismissed the application, emphasizing that the burden of proving non-ownership lies on the party challenging the title of the person in possession.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of intended advancement in favour of a wife apply to property transactions in Pakistan?
- What are the essential ingredients a plaintiff must establish to obtain a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie when challenging the ownership of a person currently in possession of a property?
- Can a court evaluate the merits of a case when deciding an interlocutory application for an injunction?
- Murtaza Khan and others vs Muhammad Zarif Khan and others1991 MLD 1015 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
- Murtaza Khan and 2 others vs Mst. Dil Ara Nasrin and 2 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through leave of the Court arises from a pre-emption suit regarding land measuring 22 kanals. The trial court decreed the suit for 4 kanals and 4 marlas while dismissing it for the rest. First appellate and revisional proceedings modified the decree to include an additional Khasra number, but left Khasra No. 46/27 un-decreed, prompting the plaintiffs' appeal on the ground of vicinage within the same Khata and block. The core legal question was whether pre-emption can be claimed on the ground of vicinage for Khasra No. 46/27 situated in the same block and Khata as the decreed land. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, as counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the plea of vicinage had been consistently rejected by the Supreme Court in earlier precedents. Additionally, the respondents' cross-objections seeking to set aside the decree in favour of the appellants were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the plea of pre-emption based on vicinage in such circumstances stands rejected in light of settled binding precedents.
Questions settled- Whether pre-emption can be claimed on the ground of vicinage for a Khasra number situated in the same block and Khata as the decreed land?
- Can respondents maintain cross-objections to challenge a decree when leave to appeal had already been refused to them by a separate earlier order?
- Mursaleen vs Ghulam Sarwar Through Legal Heirs And Another1991 SCMR 2042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court was directed against the judgment of the High Court confirming an eviction order against a tenant. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement for business following retirement from service. On the question of default, the Court noted that the tenant failed to specifically controvert the non-payment of rent for several months in his written statement, holding that uncontroverted factual allegations in pleadings need no further proof and that the onus shifted to the tenant to show payment through cogent evidence, which he failed to do. Regarding personal requirement, the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, rejecting unpleaded and unsubstantiated allegations raised at a late stage concerning the landlord's alleged mental incapacity or lease of another shop. Finally, the Court held that the subsequent death of the landlord after the eviction order was passed did not abate the proceedings, as the decree of eviction remains executable by his legal heirs. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether facts specifically alleged in an ejectment application and not controverted in the written statement stand established without further proof?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish payment of rent once the landlord alleges non-payment?
- Can a tenant raise new factual pleas regarding the landlord's mental incapacity or leasing of another property for the first time in appeal without having pleaded or led evidence on them at trial?
- Does an eviction order passed in favor of a landlord become inexecutable or abate upon the landlord's subsequent death during appeal?
- Murid Hussain vs Nazir Ahmad And 3 Other1991 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court's judgment, which acquitted certain respondents of murder charges while maintaining the convictions of others. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent, Nazir Ahmad, despite the complainant's assertion that ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence was sufficient for conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly distinguished the case of the acquitted respondent from the convicted co-accused. The ratio of the decision is that where there is no corroborative evidence, such as abscondence, to support the ocular testimony against a specific accused, that accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court affirmed that the High Court’s assessment of evidence was sound, noting that the absence of corroboration for the acquitted respondent necessitated his acquittal, unlike his co-accused whose convictions were supported by additional evidence. The principle laid down is that in the absence of corroborative material, an accused cannot be convicted solely on ocular testimony if other co-accused have been acquitted on similar grounds.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt in the absence of corroborative evidence?
- Can an appellate court distinguish between co-accused based on the presence or absence of abscondence?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused by a trial court create a basis for extending the benefit of doubt to other accused?
- Murammadnawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Murad vs Manzoor Hussain1991 CLC 512 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
- Murad Shah vs The State1991 MLD 887 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Murad And Others vs Government of the Punjab And Other1991 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions by the High Court regarding the resumption of government land leases. The petitioners, who held cultivation leases under a 15-year scheme, challenged the cancellation of their leases, arguing that the non-availability of canal water rendered the cultivation conditions impossible to perform. They also contended that the denial of proprietary rights conflicted with the Federal Government's Peasants Charter. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds that the petitioners had failed to exhaust available departmental remedies and that the joint writ petition was procedurally flawed due to the distinct facts and circumstances of each individual case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a consolidated writ petition is misconceived when the underlying causes of action, dates of resumption, and specific factual circumstances differ for each petitioner. The Court established that the existence of common legal questions does not exempt individual petitioners from the necessity of exhausting departmental remedies or filing separate proceedings to address the unique facts of their respective cases.
Questions settled- Is a consolidated writ petition maintainable when the underlying causes of action and factual circumstances differ for each petitioner?
- Does the existence of common legal questions exempt petitioners from the requirement to exhaust departmental remedies?
- Must petitioners approach departmental authorities separately before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Munshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
- Munshi Khan and 54 others vs Punjab Province through Collector, Mianwali and 23 others1991 MLD 534 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-25Read full judgment →
- Munshi Gumano and another vs Commissioner, Hyderabad and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 910 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Munna War Naimat vs Her Excellency MRS.Benazir BhuttoK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 472 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-21Read full judgment →
- Munir Qureshi, A.C./D.R. for Appellant. vs Muhammad Qadeer Alam, I.T.P. for1991 PTD (Trib.) 404 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1702 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs The State1991 MLD 1781 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs District Manager and another1991 PLC 512 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad Khan vs Water and Power Development Authority1991 SCMR 1869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a Meter Reader, from service with the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner had been dismissed following allegations of furnishing bogus meter readings. The core legal question was whether the failure to conduct a regular inquiry, as mandated by the WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, vitiated the dismissal order. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was lawful because the petitioner had explicitly admitted to the incorrectness of the meter readings in his reply to the show-cause notice. The Court established the principle that where an employee admits to the misconduct charged in response to a show-cause notice, the necessity for a formal, regular inquiry is dispensed with, as the facts are no longer in dispute. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
Questions settled- Is a formal regular inquiry mandatory under the WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, when the employee has admitted to the misconduct in response to a show-cause notice?
- Does an admission of guilt in a reply to a show-cause notice dispense with the requirement for a regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings?
- Munir Ahmad Khan vs Municipal Corporation, Lahore1991 PLC (C.S.) 247 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad And Others vs Mulla Baz Muhammad And Other1991 SCMR 2010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court dated 30-7-1990, which had set aside the trial court's decree in favor of the petitioners in a suit for declaration and injunction regarding the suit land. The petitioners contended that they were in possession of the suit land based on concurrent findings of lower forums and an old document (Exh.P.1), while the High Court noted that the purchase of the land was not established though possession was proven through oral testimony and Khasra Girdawari entries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether the petitioners were entitled to the claim over the suit land in view of the concurrent findings regarding their possession. The Court granted leave, ordered security, and directed that the stay regarding possession shall continue.
Questions settled- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the claim to the suit land in view of concurrent findings of possession?
- Does proof of long-standing possession through oral testimony and Khasra Girdawari entries substantiate a claim for declaration in a civil suit?
- Municipal Committee, Tando Allah Yar vs Anis Javed and another1991 PLC 175 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, Pasrur vs Compensation Commissioner and others1991 PLC 488 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-01Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, Lalamusa vs Punjab Appellate Tribunal And Other1991 SCMR 1762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the dismissal of a primary school teacher. The teacher, dismissed for unauthorized absence, successfully challenged his termination before a Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which ordered his reinstatement. The petitioner (Municipal Committee) challenged these orders in the High Court, arguing the teacher was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and thus the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction. The High Court agreed that the teacher was not a workman and that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction. However, the High Court proceeded to examine the dismissal's legality on its own merits and granted relief to the teacher. The core legal question is whether a High Court, having determined that a lower tribunal lacked jurisdiction over a matter, can proceed to adjudicate the merits of the underlying dispute and grant relief. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the contention that the High Court should have merely quashed the lower orders without granting relief.
Questions settled- Can a High Court, after determining that a Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition, proceed to adjudicate the merits of the case and grant relief?
- Does a primary school teacher fall within the definition of a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Municipal Committee And 3 Others vs Muhammad Ramzan1991 SCMR 1643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant Municipal Committee against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court in a suit for recovery of damages. The respondent's suit was founded on the assertion that despite an exemption from a tax known as Chhajja Tax, he was subsequently compelled to pay it, causing humiliation and insult. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed the respondent's appeal, and the High Court dismissed the petitioners' civil revision. Upon hearing the learned counsel, the Supreme Court considered the controversy a fit case for further examination and granted leave to appeal, directing the appeal to be prepared on the existing record with instructions for the parties to file essential documents necessary for the disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the wrongful demand of a tax previously exempted amount to humiliation and insult warranting damages?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the concurrent findings of lower courts in a suit for recovery of damages?
- Muneer-Ud-Din vs Secretary Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab1991 MLD 2371 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
- Munawar Naimat vs Her Excellency Mrs. Benazir Bhutto1991 PLD Karachi 223 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-21Read full judgment →
- Munawar Hussain vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2241 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Munawar Hussain vs The StateK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 501 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Munawar Hussain Alias Asghar Ali vs The State1991 SCMR 1601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based solely on the circumstance that the deceased was last seen alive in his company. The core legal questions involved the correctness of applying the principle of 'last seen alive together' without corroborative evidence and the legal effect of omitting to put this incriminating circumstance to the accused during his examination under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that uncorroborated 'last seen' evidence is generally insufficient to sustain a murder conviction and that failure to put such a circumstance to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the evidence inadmissible against him. The key principle laid down is that the circumstance of an accused having been last seen with the deceased requires strong corroboration, and any material piece of evidence not put to the accused in his examination under section 342 cannot be used to support a conviction.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on uncorroborated 'last seen' evidence?
- What is the legal effect of omitting to put an incriminating circumstance of 'last seen' to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the circumstance of the deceased being last seen alive in the company of the accused normally require corroborative evidence?
- Munawar Ali Shamsi vs Registrar, University of Engineering and Technology1991 PLC (C.S.) 239 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
- Munawar Ahmad vs The State1991 MLD 2025 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz/Taj Muhammad vs Subedar Muhammad Amin And Other1991 SCMR 1521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee property (Shop No. 265/C) originally auctioned to the respondent in 1961. The petitioner challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that had set aside an order by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, which had cancelled the respondent's transfer order. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to declare the property as evacuee trust property and subsequently cancel a validly issued transfer order in favour of the respondent, particularly when the petitioner had withdrawn his own claim to the property. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner lacked the competence to declare the property as evacuee trust property, a matter falling under the purview of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that a party who has failed to prove their own entitlement to a property cannot maintain a claim based solely on the alleged infirmities of an adversary's title. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an Additional Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to declare a property as evacuee trust property?
- Can a party who has failed to prove their own entitlement to a property challenge the title of an adversary?
- Is a transfer order valid if the property was auctioned as evacuee property but later claimed to be evacuee trust property?
- Mumtaz Hussain vs Chairman, Zila Council, Jhang and others1991 MLD 2191 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Hussain and another vs Muhammad Achar and 2 others1991 CLC 209 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second civil appeal arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts decreeing a pre-emption suit filed by the predecessor of the respondents against the appellants. The core legal questions involved the determination of the vendor's religious sect (whether Sunni or Shia) governing the right of pre-emption, the effect of a private partition on co-ownership, and the strict compliance required for making the necessary demands (Talab-e-Mowasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad) under Muslim law. The Sindh High Court held that the vendor was a Shia by faith, making Shia law applicable, which does not recognize pre-emption on the grounds claimed, and that the pre-emptor failed to make valid demands by omitting reference to the first demand during the second demand. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the pre-emption suit, laying down that strict compliance with pre-emption formalities is mandatory and that the vendor's professed sect must be given due credence without arbitrary rejection.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can a finding of fact be reviewed and disturbed in a second civil appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Which sect's law of pre-emption applies when the vendor and the pre-emptor belong to different sects or when the vendor's Shia faith is established?
- Is the non-reference to the first demand (Talab-e-Mowasibat) at the time of making the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad) fatal to a pre-emption suit under Muslim law?
- Does a private partition of a joint house defeat the status of a co-sharer for the purpose of claiming a right of pre-emption?
- Mumtaz Ali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 734 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ali vs District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation and 2 others1991 PLC 762 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ali and anothers vs Abdul Jabbar1991 CLC 586 · Board of Revenue · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- Multan Shah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 888 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Multan Improvement Trust Etc vs Sultan Mehmood EtcK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 115 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Multan Chemicals Ltd. vs District Council, Lahore through Chief1991 MLD 910 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Multan Chemicals Ltd vs District Council Lahore EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 637 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Pipe Company Through Its Proprietor Mukhtar Ahmad vs Mian1991 SCMR 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute between a tenant and a landlord regarding an ejectment application. The petitioner-tenant challenged an order allowing the landlord's son to evict the tenant based on personal need, despite a previous failed attempt by the father to evict the same tenant from the same premises. The core legal questions involved whether Section 14 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, barred a subsequent ejectment application based on personal need due to the principle of constructive res judicata, and whether the landlord's failure to disclose existing business premises constituted a suppression of material facts invalidating the claim of bona fide personal requirement. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the contentions regarding the alleged mechanization of the landlord and the potential applicability of res judicata, found that the issues raised required detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed the deposit of security, and issued an interim order restraining the disturbance of the petitioner's possession, pending the final adjudication of the matter.
Questions settled- Does Section 14 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 preclude a fresh ejectment application on the ground of personal use if a previous application was dismissed?
- Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply to successive ejectment applications filed by family members regarding the same tenancy?
- Is a landlord's failure to disclose the possession of other suitable business premises a valid ground to defeat an ejectment application based on personal need?
- Mukhtar Hussain vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 642 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ali vs The State and others-1991 P Cr. L J 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which forfeited the bail bonds of the petitioner, who stood surety for an accused, Talib Hussain, due to the accused's failure to appear in court on four successive dates. The petitioner was ordered to pay the bond amount or face attachment of his property. The core legal question is whether a surety remains liable for the forfeiture of bail bonds when the accused has subsequently surrendered and been granted interim bail by a competent court. The Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained. It reasoned that because the accused had surrendered to the court's jurisdiction and was granted interim bail before arrest, the purpose of the surety bond was effectively satisfied. Consequently, the petitioner was absolved of his legal liability to produce the accused. The key principle laid down is that a surety's liability to produce an accused is extinguished once the accused surrenders to the court's jurisdiction and is granted fresh bail, rendering the forfeiture of the original bond unjustified.
Questions settled- Does a surety remain liable for the forfeiture of bail bonds if the accused subsequently surrenders to the court's jurisdiction?
- Is a surety absolved of the obligation to produce an accused once the accused is granted interim bail by a competent court?
- Mukhtar Ali Khan Lodhi and 8 others vs Dy. Administrator, E.T.P. (Rural)1991 CLC 803 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-08Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmed vs The Police Surgeon, Govt. of Sindhh, Karachi and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 44) · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmed vs Muhammad Saleem Bakhshi1991 CLC 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the appellant landlord against the respondent tenant seeking eviction from a commercial shop on the sole ground of personal bona fide use. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application, holding that the appellant failed to establish his personal bona fide need. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether a landlord's bare, general assertion of personal need without particulars of the proposed business, available capital, or prior experience is sufficient to discharge the burden of proving bona fide requirement under rent laws. The High Court dismissed the appeal and held that a landlord seeking to evict a tenant from commercial premises must establish good faith and reasonable need through cogent evidence, including full particulars of the proposed business, capital, and experience. The key principle laid down is that scanty statements are insufficient to prove bona fide personal need, and the heavy burden lies on the landlord to substantiate the claim with detailed particulars.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord's bare statement of personal need is sufficient to establish bona fide requirement for commercial premises?
- What is the extent of the burden of proof resting on a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal use?
- Must a landlord provide particulars of proposed business, capital, and experience to succeed in an ejectment application based on personal need?
- Mukhtar Ahmed Shaikh vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1991 PLD Karachi 372 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the legality of a Government of Sindh notification dated 14-5-1990, which purported to grant an exemption from the payment of octroi tax on machinery and equipment used for new industrial units in rural areas. The petitioner, an octroi contractor, argued that the government lacked the statutory authority to grant such exemptions under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the provincial government possesses the power to exempt goods from octroi tax under the existing legislative framework. Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the High Court held that the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, does not reserve the power of granting tax exemptions to the government, distinguishing between the power to 'suspend' or 'abolish' a tax and the power to 'exempt' it. The court declared the notification to be issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect, establishing the principle that subordinate rules or notifications cannot confer powers of exemption that are inconsistent with or absent from the parent statute.
Questions settled- Does the Government of Sindh have the statutory power under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, to grant exemptions from the payment of octroi tax?
- Is there a legal distinction between the power to suspend or abolish a tax and the power to grant an exemption from it?
- Can a rule made under a statute be used to grant an exemption if the parent statute itself does not provide for such power?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding a contractual dispute bar a party from challenging the vires of a government notification via a constitutional petition?
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 896 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1991 MLD 2241 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-03Read full judgment →