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.
- Iqbal Ahmad and 7 others vs Messrs Pakistan Steel Mills1991 PLC 257 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-17Read full judgment →
- International Industries Ltd. vs Collector of Customs (Appraisement)1991 MLD 1447 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
- Interform Design Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Bahria Foundation1991 CLC 1023 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns objections filed by both parties against an arbitration award regarding a consultancy agreement dispute between Interform Design Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. and Bahria Foundation. The core legal questions addressed whether the arbitration reference was void because the defendant was not a party to the original agreement, whether the appointment of a different arbitrator than the one named in the contract was valid, whether the defendant, as a charitable endowment, could only be sued through its Treasurer, whether the arbitrator’s fee arrangement constituted misconduct, and whether the award suffered from an error of law regarding evidence assessment. The court dismissed all objections, holding that the defendant had adopted the agreement through conduct, the parties had consented to the arbitrator's appointment, the Charitable Endowments Act did not apply to these proceedings, and the fee arrangement was not misconduct. The court established that an arbitrator is the sole judge of facts, and the court cannot act as an appellate body to re-evaluate evidence or interfere with findings simply because it might have reached a different conclusion.
Questions settled- Can a party be bound by an arbitration agreement if they were not an original signatory but adopted it through subsequent conduct?
- Does the appointment of a sole arbitrator by court consent override a contractual clause naming a specific person as arbitrator?
- Are proceedings against a charitable endowment restricted to being filed only through its Treasurer under the Charitable Endowments Act 1890?
- Does an arbitrator's demand for additional fees, shared by both parties, constitute legal misconduct?
- Can a court interfere with an arbitration award on the ground that it would have reached a different conclusion on the evidence?
- Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Hub Steel Mills1991 CLC 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
- Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Ironite Industrie (Pvt.)1991 CLC 438 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
- Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.,) Limited, Kararchi vs Chairman, Fourth Wage Board And Other1991 SCMR 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two cross-petitions for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Sindh High Court dated 26th April, 1989. The underlying constitutional petition challenged specific decisions contained in the award of the Fourth Wage Board for newspaper employees, published via notification in October 1985. The High Court had declared certain paragraphs of the award null and void as being in excess of the Wage Board's powers, while dismissing the petition regarding the remaining paragraphs. Both parties, being dissatisfied with the divided success, approached the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved examining the scope of the Wage Board's powers under the relevant legislation to define wages, include payments like gratuity and pension, and grant allowances, as well as questions regarding laches and the scope of constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions for a comprehensive examination of the points of law raised, suspended the operation of the High Court's judgment subject to certain conditions, and ordered the appeals to be heard together.
Questions settled- Whether the Wage Board constituted under the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, has unlimited power to declare any payment as wages for the purposes of the said Act?
- Whether section 17 of the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, which incorporates Standing Order 12(6) of the W.P. (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, makes the inclusion of gratuity in the meaning of wages under section 2(h) redundant?
- Whether pension being analogous to gratuity empowers the Board to include it in the meaning of wages under section 2(h) of the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
- Whether the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction can substitute its own opinion for that of the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction in the discretionary field?
- Whether laches debar a petitioner from challenging the inclusion of gratuity in the meaning of wages by Wage Boards?
- Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt) Ltd and Another vs SyedK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 163 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Income Tax Officer And 2 Others vs M/s. Shaikh Ghulam Shah1991 SCMR 2368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the eligibility of a registered partnership firm of contractors for assessment under the Self-Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1982-83, pursuant to Circular No. 10 of 1982. The core legal question was whether a registered firm of contractors that maintained no accounts was required to file a balance sheet and a profit and loss account as a mandatory precondition to qualify for the Self-Assessment Scheme. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that registered firms seeking to avail the benefit of the Self-Assessment Scheme must comply with all mandatory procedural requirements, including the filing of the prescribed accounts and statements according to the nature of their business, irrespective of whether they maintain regular books of accounts. The key principle laid down is that fulfillment of all stipulated conditions in a fiscal circular is mandatory for an assessee to qualify for self-assessment, and in the absence of ambiguity in the scheme, the failure to submit required financial statements disentitles the assessee from its benefits.
Questions settled- Whether a registered firm of contractors is required to file a balance sheet and profit and loss account to qualify for the Self-Assessment Scheme?
- Does the failure to submit mandatory financial statements under the Self-Assessment Scheme render the return ineligible for self-assessment?
- Can a registered firm claim the benefit of the Self-Assessment Scheme without fulfilling the procedural conditions stipulated in the governing circular?
- Income Tax Officer and 2 others vs M/s. Shaikh Ghulam Shah-1991 PTD 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment concerning the eligibility of a registered firm of contractors for the Self-Assessment Scheme under Circular No. 10 of 1982. The core legal question was whether a registered firm, despite not maintaining formal accounts, was required to file a Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account to qualify for the Scheme's benefits. The Supreme Court held that the Self-Assessment Scheme imposes mandatory filing requirements on registered firms. The Court determined that the respondent's failure to provide the specified financial statements disqualified them from the Scheme, rendering the return liable for assessment under Section 59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. The Court emphasized that the Department requires these documents to verify income and prevent concealment, ensuring the effectiveness of the Scheme's provisions. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, ruling that compliance with the prescribed conditions is a prerequisite for claiming the benefits of the Self-Assessment Scheme, and the Department's demand for these documents was lawful.
Questions settled- Is a registered firm required to file a Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account to qualify for the Self-Assessment Scheme under Circular No. 10 of 1982?
- Can an assessee claim the benefits of the Self-Assessment Scheme without complying with the mandatory filing requirements prescribed in the relevant Circular?
- Does the failure to file required financial statements allow the Income Tax Officer to assess income under Section 59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 instead of the Self-Assessment Scheme?
- Inayatullah vs Taj Muhammad and another-1991 P Cr. L J 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah vs Muhammad Panah and others1991 MLD 386 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah And Another vs The Telephone Industries of Pakistan1991 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding wage disputes between piece-rated workers and their employer, the Telephone Industries of Pakistan. The workers, initially transferred between shops, claimed wages based on a prior settlement (the 'first settlement') despite a subsequent agreement (the 'second settlement') between the employer and the Collective Bargaining Agent. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal erred by failing to consider the impact of the second settlement on the workers' claims for wage arrears. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in remanding the matter for consideration of the second settlement. The Court reasoned that a settlement between an employer and a Collective Bargaining Agent remains operative for the period specified therein or as provided by law. Consequently, the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal were obligated to evaluate the effect of the subsequent settlement on the petitioners' claims. The petitions were dismissed as the Court found no merit in the contention that the second settlement could not affect the workers' entitlements.
Questions settled- Does a settlement between an employer and a Collective Bargaining Agent remain operative for the period specified in the agreement?
- Is a Labour Court required to consider the impact of a subsequent settlement on a worker's claim for wage arrears?
- Can a subsequent settlement between an employer and a Collective Bargaining Agent supersede a prior settlement regarding wage payments?
- Inayatuliah and others vs Principal, Balochistan Agriculture College1991 PLD Quetta 63 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Inayat vs Mst. Jalan1991 CLC 1326 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Inayat Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-25Read full judgment →
- Inayat Ullah vs American Life Insurance Co. LtdK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 514 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Inayat Ullah vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with1991 MLD 2549 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-27Read full judgment →
- Inayat Masih And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
- Inayat Khan vs Amir Dad and OtherK.L.R. 1991 CivU Cases 148 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
- Inayat Hussain alias Inayat Ullah vs Nasrullah and another1991 MLD 170 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
- Inayat Bibi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- In re: Zainab Bai vs Not1991 CLC 1736 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
- In Re: Yakka vs Not1991 SCMR 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a jail petition filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence for murder. The petitioner was tried under Section 302 read with Sections 109 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court sentenced him to death and a fine, which the High Court subsequently commuted to life imprisonment while maintaining the fine. The core legal questions addressed whether the conviction was based on a proper appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of ocular testimony and the established motive of family honor. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the prosecution's evidence—including consistent eyewitness accounts and forensic reports—was reliable and that the motive regarding the abduction of the petitioner's sister was credible. Furthermore, the petition was found to be time-barred by 50 days. The Court affirmed the principle that questions of family honor regarding female relatives are of significant weight in assessing motive in criminal cases and upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular testimony that was consistent despite lengthy cross-examination?
- Is the motive of family honor regarding the abduction of a female relative a relevant factor in assessing criminal liability?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same testimony automatically invalidate the conviction of the principal offender?
- In re: the Insurance Act, 1938 and the Companies Act, 1913 and the1991 CLC 1510 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- In Re: Registration of NLC Sherdil Peoples Welfare Union of Pakistan,1991 PLC 605 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1989-12-26Read full judgment →
- In re: Reference Made by the President, Azad Jammu and Kashmir1991 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 63 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Jaffar Ali vs Muhammad Tufail1991 MLD 48 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a civil suit for possession of a house based on ownership, which was decreed by the trial court. On appeal, the parties' counsel agreed to have a third party, Muhammad Ameen Lambardar, summoned as a solitary witness and to have the suit and appeal decided based solely on his statement without cross-examination. The appellate court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit based on the witness's statement. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, arguing that the statement recorded on solemn affirmation was inadmissible as a specific oath had been prescribed by the High Court pursuant to amendments in the Oaths Act. The High Court accepted the revision, held that the statement recorded on solemn affirmation in disregard of the prescribed oath was inadmissible and irrelevant, set aside the appellate court's judgment and decree, and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether a statement recorded on solemn affirmation in disregard of the oath prescribed by the High Court under the Oaths Act is admissible in evidence?
- Can an appellate court base its judgment on a witness statement that is legally inadmissible?
- What is the effect of recording a witness's statement contrary to the prescribed procedure under the Oaths Act?
- Jaffar Abbas and 2 others vs Ahmad and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 1131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for possession of land where the defendants, including a minor, agreed to have the suit decided based on the special oath of a third-party referee. The core legal question was whether an agreement by a guardian ad litem to be bound by a third party's special oath constitutes an 'agreement or compromise' under Order XXXII, rule 7, C.P.C., requiring prior court leave, or if it is merely a procedural mode of evidence. The Supreme Court held that such an agreement is not a compromise or adjustment of the suit under Order XXXII, rule 7, but rather a method of proof and a tactical decision regarding evidence. The Court affirmed that a guardian has the authority to conduct the case, including agreeing to special oaths, without seeking court leave, provided there is no fraud or gross negligence. The principle laid down is that agreeing to be bound by a referee's statement on oath is an evidentiary admission under section 20 of the Evidence Act, not a compromise requiring court sanction under Order XXXII, rule 7, C.P.C.
Questions settled- Does an agreement by a guardian ad litem to be bound by a third party's special oath require the leave of the court under Order XXXII, rule 7, C.P.C.?
- Is an agreement to be bound by the statement of a referee considered an 'agreement or compromise' under Order XXXII, rule 7, C.P.C.?
- Can a statement made by a person referred to for information in a dispute be treated as an admission under section 20 of the Evidence Act?
- Is a minor bound by the consent of their guardian ad litem to a specific mode of evidence if no fraud or gross negligence is present?
- In re: Messrs Lodhran Cotton Ginners (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Not1991 CLC 415 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
- In re: Messrs Hyesons Sugar Mills Limited vs Not1991 CLC 313 · Corporate Law Authority · 1990-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the imposition of a penalty on Hyesons Sugar Mills Limited for failing to comply with a directive issued under Section 170 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The Company had been ordered to hold overdue annual general meetings and pass annual accounts within a specified 90-day period. While the Company convened meetings within the timeframe, it only successfully held the meeting for 1985, while adjourning the meetings for 1986 and 1987 until a date well beyond the deadline. The core legal question was whether a company, when acting under a specific directive issued pursuant to Section 170, retains the authority to adjourn meetings under general provisions, or if it must strictly adhere to the timeline set by the competent authority. The Corporate Law Authority held that directions under Section 170 are mandatory and override general provisions regarding meeting adjournments. Consequently, the Company’s failure to hold the meetings within the stipulated period constituted a violation under Section 171 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, warranting the imposition of a penalty.
Questions settled- Can a company adjourn an annual general meeting beyond the deadline set by a directive issued under Section 170 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Are directions issued under Section 170 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, mandatory or directory in nature?
- Does the power to adjourn meetings under general provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, apply to meetings convened pursuant to a specific directive under Section 170?
- In re: Colony Textile Mills Limited vs Not1991 CLC 494 · Corporate Law Authority · 1990-10-11Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Masth vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 829 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Hussain and others vs The State1991 MLD 1980 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Ahmad Khan And Others vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1991 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging concurrent findings of revenue authorities. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were alleged trespassers, had any valid interest in the disputed land to challenge the restoration of tenancy granted to the respondents. The respondents had successfully obtained an order from the Collector for the restoration of their tenancy, which the petitioners had repeatedly contested through various revenue forums, including the Tehsildar, Additional Commissioner, and the Member, Board of Revenue, all of whom ruled against the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any legitimate interest in the property and appeared to be trespassers. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that since the order for the restoration of tenancy remained unimplemented and the petitioners failed to demonstrate a legal basis for their possession, there was no justification for granting leave to appeal. The key principle established is that a party lacking a demonstrated legal interest or title in disputed property cannot successfully challenge orders restoring possession to rightful tenants.
Questions settled- Can a party claiming no legal interest or title in disputed property successfully challenge an order restoring tenancy to the occupants?
- Does the failure to implement an order for the restoration of tenancy provide grounds for a petitioner to seek leave to appeal against concurrent findings of revenue courts?
- Imran alias Ashfaque Taddi vs The State1991 PLD Lahore 431 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-19Read full judgment →
- Imdad Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 53 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
- Imdad Ali vs Syed Nabi Muhammad1991 CLC 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
- Imamuddin vs Messrs Modern Textile Mills Ltd., Tando Jam1991 PLC 574 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Imam-Ul-Din Alias Bashir vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 513 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Imam-Ud-Din alias Bashir vs The State1991 MLD 1699 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Imam Din vs Muhammad Jamil through Legal Heirs1991 CLC 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Imam Bakhsh and others vs Mst. Amiran1991 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
- Imam Bakhsh and others vs Additional District Judge1991 CLC 842 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Ilyas vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 325 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
- Ilam Din vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1637 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Ilam Din vs Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner and others1991 CLC 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
- Ilam Din Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Muhammad Ishaque1991 SCMR 1911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which set aside the concurrent decrees of the lower courts and dismissed the petitioners' civil suit. The petitioners had challenged an oral gift of agricultural land made by Ibrahim to his son-in-law, Muhammad Ishaq, on the ground that under the applicable custom and Riwaj, Ibrahim was not competent to make the gift. During the pendency of the second appeal before the High Court, the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 came into force. The core legal question was the impact of the said Ordinance on pending litigation concerning alienations made under custom. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly applied section 2(a) of the Ordinance to accept the appeal and dismiss the suit. The key principle laid down is that statutory interventions governing personal law and custom apply to pending proceedings, superseding prior customary limitations on property disposal.
Questions settled- Whether the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 applies to pending proceedings?
- Is a property owner competent to gift agricultural land under custom when superseded by subsequent statutory amendments?
- Ikramullah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 118 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-29Read full judgment →
- Ikhtiar Khan vs Dilawar and anothers1991 MLD 2210 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Hussain Qureshi vs Chief Conservator of Forests and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 145 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Aleem And 9 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2296 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ahmed vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Ihsan Ullah Bajwa vs The Chairman, City and Regional Planning1991 MLD 1688 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Ihrar Khattak vs Mian Muzaffar Shah and others1991 CLC 175 · Election Tribunal · 1990-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an election petition filed under section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, challenging the election of a Member of the National Assembly from Constituency NA-4 Peshawar-IV on the ground of corrupt and illegal practices. The core legal questions relate to whether the failure to file witness lists and affidavits along with the election petition, and the failure to supply copies thereof to the respondent within the statutory limitation period, render the petition liable to dismissal. The Election Tribunal held that the provisions of the notification issued under section 62(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, requiring the petition to be accompanied by documents, witness affidavits, and an acknowledgement receipt of service to the respondent, are mandatory. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner's failure to comply with these mandatory requirements and the submission of lists beyond the limitation period—which the Election Commission had no legal competence to extend—were fatal to the petition. The key principle laid down is that procedural requirements under the Representation of the People Act and its subordinate notifications regarding the advance supply of documents and witness affidavits to the respondent are mandatory, and non-compliance results in the dismissal of the election petition.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement to accompany an election petition with documents and witness affidavits under section 62(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 is mandatory?
- Does the Election Commission have the legal competence to extend the statutory period for filing an election petition along with its necessary documents and witness lists?
- What is the legal effect of failing to supply a copy of the witness list and affidavits to the respondent prior to filing an election petition?
- Is non-verification of annexures that do not make additional substantive allegations fatal to an election petition?
- Iftikhar Hussain Shah And Others vs Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi And Other1991 SCMR 2193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court addressed whether the Federal Government, its departments, or beneficiary institutions possess the locus standi to file appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against decisions on references under Section 18. The appellants, private landowners, challenged the competence of such appeals, which the High Court had previously accepted. The Court held that the Federal Government and beneficiary entities lack the legal standing to file such appeals. It clarified that constitutional provisions, specifically Articles 149, 152, and 173, do not confer locus standi upon the Federal Government in land acquisition proceedings; such authority must be derived strictly from the Act. The Court rejected the argument that the Provincial Government acts as an agent for the Federal Government in these matters. Additionally, the Court ruled that because the impugned orders were appealable, they could not be treated as Civil Revisions. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Federal Government and beneficiary institutions were dismissed for lack of competence, reaffirming the principle that statutory rights of appeal must be expressly provided.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Government have the locus standi to file an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against a decision on a reference under Section 18?
- Can the Federal Government invoke constitutional provisions like Articles 149, 152, and 173 to establish standing in land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Is a company or local authority for whose benefit land is acquired entitled to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Can an appeal that is incompetent under the Land Acquisition Act be treated as a Civil Revision to protect the impugned decision?
- Iftikhar Hussain and anothers vs Muhammad Aslam and others1991 MLD 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ali Khan and 9 others vs The Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore and 4 others1991 PLD Lahore 55 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Iftikhar Alam and others vs Province of Punjab and others1991 CLC 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the cancellation of the petitioners' promotion to BPS-16, which followed their success in the departmental examination conducted under the Punjab (Buildings and Highways) Sub-Engineer Professional Examination Rules, 1977. The petitioners were initially promoted by the competent authority but were subsequently demoted after the Secretary, Communication and Works Department, cancelled the examination results. The core legal question is whether the Secretary had the authority to cancel the examination results and whether the subsequent demotion order was valid. The Court held that the order was a nullity, characterizing it as coram non judice. The Court reasoned that the competent authority had acted mechanically under the dictates of the Secretary without applying an independent mind, and the petitioners were denied the right to be heard. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the constitutional bar under Article 212 does not apply where the impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority. The key principle laid down is that an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction or without the application of an independent mind is a nullity in the eye of the law.
Questions settled- Does the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to orders passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction?
- Can a competent authority cancel a promotion order without applying an independent mind and merely acting on the dictates of a superior?
- Is an administrative order passed without providing an opportunity of being heard valid?
- Iftikhar Ahmed vs Mst. Suraya Jamil and others1991 CLC 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 293 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-01Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad vs Syed Muhammad1991 MLD 191 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad Alias Popi vs The State1991PCr.LJ 129 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad Alias Bobi And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 488 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
- Iffat Mir vs Mobeen Qasim Mir1991 P Cr. L J 2372 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This habeas corpus petition was filed by a mother seeking the custody of her minor son, aged six, who was being retained by the father in Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, could order the restoration of a minor's custody to the mother when the father had forcibly retained the child, despite a foreign court order granting custody to the mother. The Court held that under Muslim Law, the mother is entitled to the hizanat (custody) of a male child until he reaches seven years of age, and the father’s retention of the child without legal authority or a court order rendered his custody illegal or improper. The Court affirmed that it possesses the jurisdiction to restore custody to the rightful guardian under Section 491(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as this constitutes dealing with the minor according to law. The principle established is that while custody disputes are primarily for Guardian Courts, the High Court may intervene to restore custody to the mother where the child is illegally or improperly detained.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore the custody of a minor to the mother if the father has retained the child without a court order?
- Does the mother have a legal right to the custody of a male child under seven years of age under Muslim Law?
- Is a foreign court's custody order relevant when determining the legality of a minor's detention in Pakistan?
- Can a High Court order the production of a minor under Section 491(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even if the detention is not found to be illegal?
- Ifadur Rahman And 2 Others vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And .2 Other1991 SCMR 1512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition concerning medical college admissions in Sindh. The petitioners, male students, contested the authorities' decision to revise admission lists to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in Shrin Munir v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1990 SC 295). The petitioners argued that the classification of seats between male and female students was reasonable, supported by the prospectus, and that the abrupt implementation of the new policy mid-process was improper. The Supreme Court held that once the law on the subject was declared in Shrin Munir's case, executive authorities were under a mandatory duty to implement it. Notices and lists issued contrary to this declared law could not create vested rights for the petitioners. The Court further held that the arguments regarding the reasonableness of the classification had already been addressed and rejected in the Shrin Munir judgment, which established that such material was insufficient to suppress the merit of female students. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Are executive authorities obligated to implement a Supreme Court judgment regarding admission policies even if it necessitates revising lists already in progress?
- Can admission notices or lists issued contrary to a declared Supreme Court judgment create vested rights for applicants?
- Does the existence of a prospectus provision regarding seat classification justify suppressing the merit of female students in medical college admissions?
- Idreesul Hassan Usmani vs Government of Pakistan Through The Secretary To The Government Of Pakistan, Establishment Division And Other1991 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Idreesul Hassan Usmani against the Government of Pakistan, challenging his reversion from the post of Assistant Director National Savings (BPS-17) to National Savings Officer (BPS-16) during his extended probationary period. The core legal question is whether the reversion of a probationer due to unsatisfactory performance amounts to a reduction in rank requiring a prior show-cause notice and hearing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the reversion of an employee during probation, based on unsatisfactory performance, is a routine assessment of fitness and does not constitute a punishment or a reduction in rank. Therefore, it can be validly ordered without issuing a show-cause notice. The key principle laid down is that a probationer has no vested right to hold the higher post during probation, and the competent authority may revert them to their original post upon unsatisfactory performance without affording a prior hearing.
Questions settled- Does the reversion of a probationer to their original post due to unsatisfactory performance amount to a reduction in rank?
- Is a show-cause notice required before reverting an employee during their probationary period?
- Does an employee have a right to a prior hearing when relieved of a promotional post during probation?
- Ibrahim vs Mst. Saeeda Khatoon and others1991 CLC 1496 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-04Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim vs Maqbool Ahmad1991 P Cr. L J 2293 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim Siddat, Ca. for Appellant. vs Ilyas Shaikh, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD 917 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim Kutty vs Mrs. Surraya Rashid1991 CLC 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim Etc vs Sardar Khan Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 121) · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-10Read full judgment →
- Ibadat Yar Khan, J Mst. Mansooba vs The State and another1991 MLD 1706 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- I.N. Pasha for Appellant. vs Qadar-ul-Jalil D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 817 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-12-17Read full judgment →
- I.N. Pasha for Appellant. vs Ashrafuddin Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 518 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
- I.N. Pasha and Ayub Lambat for Appellant. vs Agha Kafil Barik, D.R. for Respondent1991 PTD (Trib.) 323 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
- I.C.I. Pakistan Limited vs Salahuddin And Other1991 SCMR 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from land acquisition proceedings where land was acquired for the benefit of the petitioner-company. After the Senior Civil Judge enhanced the compensation on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the petitioner-company filed an appeal, which the High Court dismissed as incompetent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a company for whose benefit land is acquired has the locus standi to file an appeal against a referee court's judgment enhancing compensation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a company has no statutory right of appeal under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Court laid down the principles that the right of appeal is a creation of statute and cannot be inferred or claimed through administrative acts like a sale-deed transfer. Furthermore, invasive provisions depriving citizens of their property must be construed strictly, and allowing companies to drag displaced landowners into prolonged litigation would defeat the ends of justice.
Questions settled- Whether a company for whose benefit land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 has the right to file an appeal against a judgment passed by a referee court under Section 18?
- Can a right of appeal be conferred upon a beneficiary company through an administrative act, such as the execution of a sale-deed by the Government?
- Does the statutory right of a beneficiary company to lodge cross-objections under Sections 20 and 20-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 imply a corresponding right of appeal against the final award?
- I.A. Sharwani vs Government of Pakistan1991 PLC (C.S.) 1205 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a Shariat Petition challenging the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, specifically regarding the legality of compulsory leave and suspension of civil servants. The core legal question was whether the unilateral stoppage of a civil servant's salary during suspension, as mandated by Fundamental Rule 53 and corresponding provincial rules, is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Federal Shariat Court held that while the Government possesses the authority to suspend a civil servant from duty to ensure an impartial inquiry, it cannot unilaterally withhold the civil servant's salary during the period of suspension as long as the contract of service subsists. The Court reasoned that Islamic principles require the fulfillment of contractual undertakings and the timely payment of wages. Consequently, the Court declared Fundamental Rule 53 and parallel provincial rules repugnant to the Qur'an and Sunnah to the extent that they permit the stoppage of salary. The Court directed the President of Pakistan and Provincial Governors to amend these provisions by May 10, 1991, to ensure conformity with Islamic Injunctions, failing which they would cease to have effect.
Questions settled- Can the Government unilaterally stop the salary of a civil servant during the period of suspension?
- Is the suspension of a civil servant from duty for the purpose of an inquiry permissible under Islamic law?
- Does the Government have the authority to place a civil servant on compulsory leave during disciplinary proceedings?
- Are Fundamental Rule 53 and parallel provincial rules regarding the stoppage of salary during suspension repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- I.A. Sharwani And Others vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary,Finance Division, Islamabad And Other _1991 SCMR 1041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions, filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, challenged the government's practice of denying enhanced pension benefits to retired civil servants and judges based on their date of retirement. The core legal question was whether such sub-classification among pensioners constitutes discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that while the government may establish reasonable classifications, it cannot arbitrarily discriminate between pensioners who are otherwise similarly situated. The Court ruled that pensioners constitute a single class, and while the government may fix dates for the enforcement of new benefits, such classification must be based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Consequently, the Court declared the denial of specific benefits—such as the additional 2% pension for service exceeding 30 years and certain cost-of-living allowances—to those who retired before specified dates as discriminatory and violative of Article 25. The judgment affirms that the state must ensure equitable treatment of pensioners, prohibiting arbitrary distinctions that lack a reasonable basis.
Questions settled- Can the government discriminate between pensioners based solely on their date of retirement when granting pension enhancements?
- Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the vires of rules or notifications affecting pension rights?
- Are associations of retired civil servants competent to file constitutional petitions under Article 184(3) without complying with Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C.?
- Does the principle of equal protection of law under Article 25 of the Constitution prohibit the state from creating arbitrary sub-classes among pensioners?
- I. G. Frontier Corps, Baloch1stan, Quetta and Other vs The Superintendent, Central Jail, Mach and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Crimipal Cases 157 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- I Lahore] Mian Hamidul Haq and others vs Taj Company Ltd.1991 MLD 841 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 was filed by 77 depositors of Taj Company Limited seeking a court-ordered meeting of a class of creditors to propose an arrangement to safeguard deposits, initially through converting deposits into shares or equity, and later modified to issuing redeemable and transferable debentures. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners constituted a distinct 'class of creditors' under the Ordinance, whether the proposed arrangement was feasible, bona fide, and reasonable, and whether the company's consent was a prerequisite. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the power to order a meeting under section 284 is discretionary and requires judicial satisfaction regarding the feasibility, reasonableness, and bona fides of the scheme. The Court held that persons making a proposal cannot arbitrarily constitute themselves a separate 'class of creditors' merely based on commonality of desire for that specific proposal, as a class must consist of persons whose rights are sufficiently similar to consult for common interest. Furthermore, an arrangement under the section requires the company's consent. Since the proposal lacked feasibility, statutory backing, and the company's or majority creditors' consent, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the court has discretionary power under section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 to order a meeting of creditors only after being satisfied with the feasibility and bona fides of the proposed scheme?
- Can a group of creditors constitute a distinct 'class of creditors' under section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 merely by virtue of sharing a common interest in a specific proposed arrangement?
- Is the consent of the company a necessary prerequisite for the court to order a compromise or arrangement meeting under section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Whether unsecured creditors who have filed suits or obtained decrees are deemed to be of the same class as other unsecured creditors under section 284(6) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs Messrs Fateh Jeans Ltd.1991 MLD 284 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arose out of a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent, claiming lawful possession of the suit land as a prospective purchaser under an agreement to sell, against the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, but the appellate court reversed this decision, prompting the revision. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for declaration and injunction is maintainable by a person holding possession under an agreement to sell without a formal sale deed, and whether the civil court's jurisdiction is barred by the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act 1975 or the Sindh Local Government Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that a plaintiff in lawful possession under an agreement to sell can seek a declaration and injunction, and that statutory bars on civil court jurisdiction do not apply to mala fide acts or disputes regarding whether property is public property. The court laid down that the bar of jurisdiction under encroachment laws is not all-purpose and civil courts retain jurisdiction to examine if public functionaries acted intra vires.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for declaration and permanent injunction is maintainable by a person who holds possession of land under an agreement to sell without having obtained a formal sale deed?
- Does Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 require that a plaintiff seeking a declaration regarding property must be the absolute owner thereof?
- To what extent is the jurisdiction of a civil court barred by Sections 11 and 13 of the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act 1975 when public property status or mala fide official action is challenged?
- Can the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be sustained when the allegations in the plaint require factual inquiry and evidence?
- Hyderabad Development Authority Labour Union vs The Registrar, Trade Unions and others1991 PLC 77 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Hussain vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 26 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-24Read full judgment →
- Hussain vs Allah Bakhsh1991 SCMR 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from execution proceedings where an objector, claiming as a mortgagee with possession, challenged the execution of a decree for possession obtained by a donee. The core legal question was whether the appellant's mortgage rights stood revived after a subsequent sale in his favour was annulled, and whether the High Court erred in directing redemption within the execution proceedings without requiring a separate redemption suit or allowing further defences. The Supreme Court held that the appeal lacks merit, finding that the mortgage had already been redeemed by a definite act and mutation years prior, leaving no dormant element to revive upon the annulment of the subsequent sale, and that the appellant's failure to challenge the redemption mutation or raise the plea during the original suit barred him from raising it in execution. The key principle laid down is that a mortgage extinguished by a distinct transaction and redemption mutation does not automatically revive upon the annulment of a subsequent competing transaction, and a party cannot raise defences in execution proceedings that ought to have been raised during the original trial.
Questions settled- Whether a mortgage extinguished by a redemption mutation can revive upon the annulment of a subsequent sale transaction?
- Can an objector raise defenses regarding mortgage redemption in execution proceedings that were not pleaded during the original suit for possession?
- Whether the High Court can direct the deposit of mortgage money within execution proceedings without necessitating a separate redemption suit under the circumstances?
- Hussain Lal vs Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd1991 PLC 348 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-10Read full judgment →
- Hussain Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
- Hussain And Another vs Husaini1991 SCMR 760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal filed by tenants against the dismissal of their rent appeals by the High Court, which affirmed their eviction orders on the ground of default in payment of rent. The core legal question concerned whether the tenants actually defaulted in paying the rent, given that they asserted full payment and produced material before the High Court showing payments through money orders and court deposits. The Supreme Court held that the material prima facie established payment and created a strong impression of a conscious effort by the tenants to avoid default, thereby warranting further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, ruling that the questions raised required detailed consideration on the existing record, while directing the continuation of the stay order.
Questions settled- Whether the production of additional documents in the High Court sufficiently establishes the timely payment of rent to avoid eviction for default?
- Does a tenant's effort to deposit rent through money orders and court proceedings absolve them from the charge of default?
- When should leave to appeal be granted in rent matters involving disputed questions of fact regarding rent payment?
- Hussain and 15 others vs Abdul Khaliq and another1991 CLC 967 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- Hussain Ahmad Islahi vs Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir1991 PLC (C.S.) 693 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Humayun vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1631 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
- Humayun Saifullah Khan vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Justice And Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad And Other1991 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment, which declared a reference filed under Section 8-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962, as invalid and incompetent. The petitioner, a parliamentary leader, had initiated proceedings before the Election Commission of Pakistan regarding the alleged defection of the respondent, a member of the Provincial Assembly. The High Court had accepted the respondent's constitutional petition, which challenged the vires of Section 8-B as being inconsistent with fundamental rights and constitutional provisions. The core legal questions involve the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition against the Election Commission when a statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court exists, and whether the High Court could declare the reference incompetent without factual evidence regarding the petitioner's status as a parliamentary leader. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing the public importance of these constitutional issues, but declined to suspend the High Court's order restraining the Election Commission from proceeding with the reference pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a High Court issue a writ of prohibition against the Election Commission when a statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court is available?
- Is it permissible for a High Court to declare a reference before the Election Commission incompetent without factual evidence regarding the petitioner's standing?
- Does a High Court have the jurisdiction to restrain the Election Commission from deciding a reference filed under Section 8-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962?
- Hudaybia Textile Mills Ltd. And Others vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.1991 SCMR 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are two review petitions seeking review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment arising from execution proceedings under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question revolved around whether the power of the Special Court regarding the execution of decrees under section 8(3) of the said Ordinance displaces the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether a distinction exists between the "confirmation of auction" and "confirmation of sale" such that parties can compromise before final confirmation. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that there is no legal distinction between "auction" and "sale" in the context of execution proceedings, as an auction is simply a public mode of sale. The key principle laid down is that terms like "auction" and "sale" are interchangeable in execution proceedings, and reservations requiring court confirmation of an auction do not create a special distinct procedure exempt from general principles governing judicial sales or allow parties to set aside completed public auctions through subsequent compromises without valid legal grounds.
Questions settled- Whether the terms "auction" and "sale" are interchangeable in the context of execution proceedings under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the power of the Special Court under section 8(3) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, create a distinct procedure for confirmation of auction separate from the confirmation of sale under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Can parties to an execution application enter into a compromise to settle their dispute after a public auction has been conducted but before its formal confirmation by the court?
- Hotel Jabees vs Mahmood Ali and another1991 PLC 754 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-07-18Read full judgment →
- Hong Leong Finance Limited vs m.v. Asian Queen through Nazir High1991 PLD Supreme Court 1021 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an admiralty suit involving competing claims against the sale proceeds of the vessel 'm.v. Asian Queen'. The appellant, a mortgagee, challenged an order directing that interest accrued on the sale proceeds deposited in court be paid to the crew members and Master of the vessel, whose claims for wages had been granted priority over the mortgage claim. The core legal question was whether crew members and the Master, having been paid their decretal amounts in full, were entitled to additional interest earned on the sale proceeds while held by the court, despite such interest not being awarded in their original decrees. The Supreme Court held that the crew and Master were not entitled to the accrued interest. The Court reasoned that a maritime lien grants a proprietary interest in the res (or its proceeds) only to the extent of the claim. Once a decree is satisfied, the claimant has no further right to the surplus funds or accrued interest. Interest is discretionary and must be awarded by the court at the time of the decree; it cannot be claimed as a matter of right on equitable grounds after the decree has been satisfied.
Questions settled- Does a maritime lien holder have a right to interest accrued on sale proceeds held by the court if such interest was not awarded in the original decree?
- Does the concept of maritime lien entitle a claimant to interest on the decretal amount beyond the satisfaction of the claim itself?
- Is the interest earned on sale proceeds deposited in court considered an accretion to the res that must be distributed rateably among all claimants?
- Can a claimant seek interest on a decretal amount on equitable grounds if the court specifically refused to grant interest at the time of passing the decree?
- Homi Jehangir Gheesta vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay1991 PTD 288 · Supreme Court of India · 1960-09-22Read full judgment →
- Hindu Panchayat of Sukkur vs Matloob Ahmed and others1991 MLD 480 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
- Himayat Ahmad and others vs Khalid Khan and others1991 MLD 153 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
- Hilbro (Pvt.) Limited and anothers vs Ejaz Ahmad Chatha and another1991 MLD 1225 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-13Read full judgment →
- Hikmat Khan vs Assistant Commissioner and 2 others1991 CLC 838 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →