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.
- Cafedekhan vs Government of Pakistan through Deputy Controller, Department of Tourist Services, Karachi and another1991 CLC 337 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
- Cafe Capital Firm, Karachi vs The Collector, Central Excise and Land1991 PLD Karachi 283 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
- C.M. Bashir vs State Life Insurance Corporation(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 27) · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-15Read full judgment →
- C.I.T., Central Zone `B', Karachi vs Messrs Hussain Sugar Mills Ltd.1991 PTD 207 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-09Read full judgment →
- C. Nazir Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant. vs Nemo for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 408 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
- Bukhtiar Ahmad vs Agricultural Engineer, Agricultural Workshop1991 PLC 292 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-25Read full judgment →
- Budhu Shah and others vs Chief Administrator Auqaf and others1991 CLC 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
- Brig. Sher Ali Baz and another vs The Secretary, Establishment Division1991 PLD Supreme Court 143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals filed by former Army Brigadiers who were appointed as Joint Secretaries in the Federal Government. The appellants challenged the refusal of the Establishment Division to count their prior military service as Brigadier towards their seniority in the civil service Grade-20. The core legal question was whether the 'principle of equivalence' established by the Presidential Order dated 8th August 1979, which equated military ranks with National Pay Scales, entitled the appellants to reckon their military service for seniority purposes in the Secretariat Group. The Supreme Court held that the appellants could not claim such seniority. The Court reasoned that the specific Secretariat Group Service Rules governing seniority, which mandate that seniority be determined from the date of continuous regular officiation in Grade-20, are special provisions that prevail over general equivalence formulas. The Court further clarified that the equivalence formula was intended for pay and perquisites, not for determining seniority in civil cadres. The principle laid down is that general administrative dispensations regarding equivalence do not override specific, formal statutory rules governing seniority in civil service, and military rank service is irrelevant for civil seniority unless explicitly provided for by specific service rules.
Questions settled- Does the 'principle of equivalence' between military ranks and National Pay Scales entitle military officers to count their military service for seniority purposes upon induction into the civil service?
- Can a general administrative order or equivalence formula override specific statutory rules governing seniority in the civil service?
- Is seniority in the civil service a vested right under the Civil Servants Act?
- Does the definition of 'Grade' in the Civil Servants (Change of Nomenclature of Services and Abolition of Classes) Rules, 1973, encompass military ranks?
- Brig. (Retd.) N.A. Ashraf vs Federation of Pakistan, Through Secretary, Establishment Division And 2 Other1991 SCMR 372(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the entitlement of the petitioner, a retired Brigadier, to pensionary benefits. The core legal question presented for the Court's consideration is whether the specific terms and conditions of the petitioner's employment, particularly condition No. 1, inherently contemplated or visualized the payment of a portion of the pension to the petitioner, regardless of other factors. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the petition, granted leave to appeal to examine this issue in depth. The Court directed that the matter be heard on the existing record, while granting liberty to the parties to submit additional documentation. Furthermore, the Court ordered that this case be heard alongside other pending matters involving similar subjects to ensure consistency in the adjudication of pensionary rights and employment contract interpretations. The decision establishes that the interpretation of specific employment conditions regarding pension eligibility requires a detailed examination by the Court to determine the scope of contractual obligations owed to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the term of employment under condition No. 1 visualize the payment of part of the pension to the petitioner?
- Brig. (Retd.) Abdur Rashid vs Secretary, Establishment Division And Other1991 SCMR 1288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for a Secretariat Allowance. The petitioner, then Chairman of the Central Board of Film Censors, argued that because the Finance Division granted a 20% Secretariat Allowance to employees of the Federal Secretariat and the Central Board of Revenue, he was entitled to the same benefit as an attached department head. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had a legal right to claim an allowance granted to other classes of civil servants in the absence of a specific provision extending that benefit to his department. The Supreme Court held that an allowance is only payable when specifically made applicable to a particular class of persons. The Court determined that no law or statutory rule mandates that an allowance granted to one class of civil servants must automatically extend to all other civil servants. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish a violation of service terms or statutory rights.
Questions settled- Does the grant of a Secretariat Allowance to one class of civil servants automatically entitle other civil servants to the same allowance?
- Is a civil servant entitled to an allowance not specifically made applicable to their department or class of service?
- Can a service appeal be maintained in the absence of a specific statutory provision or rule supporting the claim for an allowance?
- Boota and others vs Sardar and others1991 MLD 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
- Bonifacio-a-Burayage, Philippine National vs The StatePTCL 1991 CL. 81 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-26Read full judgment →
- Bonifacio A. Burayag vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, convicted under the Customs Act, 1969 for smuggling 8 Kgs of heroin, challenged his 7-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, arguing it was harsh and that he was merely a 'carrier' entitled to leniency. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the sentence was excessive and if the status of a 'carrier' necessitated a reduction. The Court held that the sentence was not harsh, noting that a carrier could be liable for life imprisonment. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner’s attempt to resile from his earlier judicial confession undermined any claim for leniency. Emphasizing that sentencing must balance the nature of the offence and its detrimental impact on society against potential extenuating circumstances, the Court ruled that there were no such circumstances in this case. Consequently, the Court affirmed that it would rarely interfere with a properly exercised sentencing discretion and dismissed the petition, reiterating that courts must prioritize the welfare of society over the interests of convicts in narcotics cases.
Questions settled- Is a person convicted of smuggling narcotics entitled to a reduced sentence solely on the ground of being a carrier?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a sentence where the trial court has properly exercised its discretion?
- Does an attempt to resile from a judicial confession negate a claim for leniency in sentencing?
- Should the impact of narcotics on society be a primary consideration when determining the quantum of sentence?
- Bonifacio a Burayag, Philppiine National vs The State1991PCr.LJ 22 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Bonaventure Paul, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese, Hyderabad vs Ali Muhammad and another1991 MLD 145 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-27Read full judgment →
- Boladar And Others vs Abdul Ghafoor And Other1991 SCMR 1650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court. The petitioners contended that the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly by neglecting to consider documentary evidence on record that allegedly established their claim. The core legal question was whether the High Court was under a legal obligation to examine the documentary evidence presented by the petitioners during the proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found merit in the submission that the High Court had not adequately addressed the jurisdictional and evidentiary issues raised. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record, and permitted the parties to file additional documents within a specified timeframe. The Court further ordered the continuation of its previous interim order dated 27-8-1989 and directed that the appeal be scheduled for an early hearing.
Questions settled- Is the High Court under a legal obligation to examine documentary evidence produced by a party on the record?
- Does a failure by the High Court to advert to the question of jurisdiction and evidence constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal?
- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and another vs Muhammad Rafique1991 PLD Supreme Court 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines whether the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education was justified in requiring a deposit of Rs. 70 for expenses to summon examination staff for cross-examination, and whether the Board applied its mind before disqualifying a candidate for unfair means involving substituted answer books. The Controller of Examinations discovered that answer books of certain candidates, including the respondent, had been replaced, and their scripts lacked authorized signatures. The respondent was issued a charge-sheet, heard, and subsequently disqualified. The High Court set aside the disqualification, holding that requiring a deposit violated natural justice and that the Board acted without a handwriting expert report. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the deposit rule for summoning external witnesses for cross-examination is reasonable, that the conditional order seeking an expert report showed proper application of mind, and that strict rules of evidence do not apply to domestic academic inquiries regarding substitution of records. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments and restored the Board's order.
Questions settled- Whether requiring a candidate to deposit expenses for summoning a witness on duty in an examination hall for cross-examination violates natural justice?
- Whether a conditional order passed by an educational board awaiting an expert opinion shows a lack of application of mind?
- Whether strict rules of evidence requiring direct proof of forgery apply to domestic enquiries conducted by educational institutions regarding substituted answer books?
- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar vs Muhammad Iqbal and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arise from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning the removal from service of board employees for alleged corruption and misconduct regarding the leakage of examination question papers. Initially, the High Court set aside their removal on the ground that the Board, rather than the Chairman, was not the competent authority under the service rules, leaving it to the Chairman to pass appropriate orders. Following this, the Chairman passed removal orders after appeals to the Board were dismissed. The employees challenged these orders in a second round of writ petitions, which the High Court allowed, holding procedural flaws in the disciplinary proceedings. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Chairman had acted validly in accordance with the prior High Court judgment, as no fresh proceedings were mandated and the competent authority had properly exercised its jurisdiction after affording an opportunity of defense. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment, while protecting the employees from salary reimbursement.
Questions settled- Whether the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is the competent authority for the appointment, suspension, and removal of Class B employees under the 1978 Calendar Rules?
- Does a previous judgment setting aside a removal order on the sole ground of competency necessitate a complete de novo disciplinary inquiry, or can the competent authority pass orders based on the existing record?
- Whether an employee's right of appeal is safeguarded when an order of removal is passed by the Chairman and an appeal is subsequently heard and decided by the Board?
- Block Drug Company Inc. vs The Registrar of Trade Marks1991 MLD 2310 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Amir vs The StateK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 198 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
- Bilawal Haque vs Inspector-General of Police, Sindh and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 460 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- Bilawal Haque vs I. G. Police Sindhh Karachi and 2 Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 19) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- Bilal Nasir vs The Province of Punjab and another1991 MLD 708 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
- Bilal Hussain vs The State1991 PLD Lahore 346 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the dismissal of an application for acquittal filed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought acquittal from the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, arguing that the case was not triable by that court because no automatic weapon (Kalashnikov) was recovered during the investigation. The core legal question was whether the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975 depends upon the actual recovery of an automatic weapon or merely on the allegation of its use in the commission of an offence. The Court held that the jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the allegations rather than the recovery of the weapon. It ruled that the trial by the Special Court was proper because the offence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was allegedly committed in combination with an offence under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The principle laid down is that the trial of an offence by a Special Court is not contingent upon the recovery of the weapon used, but on the allegations made in the FIR.
Questions settled- Does the jurisdiction of a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975 depend on the actual recovery of an automatic weapon?
- Is an offence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 triable by a Special Court if committed in combination with an offence under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965?
- Can an application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted solely on the ground that the weapon alleged to have been used was not recovered?
- Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 626 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
- Bibi Khatoon vs Taj Muhammad And Other1991 SCMR 1984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute concerning a declaration of ownership and the cancellation of a sale deed regarding specific land. The petitioner claimed ownership based on an alleged gift from her father twenty-two years prior to the suit, while the respondents asserted ownership through purchase from the original owners, supported by long-standing possession and settlement records. Following conflicting decisions by the Qazi and the Majlis-i-Shoora, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision, finding that her witnesses failed to substantiate her claim and that the settlement entries favored the respondents. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts had properly appreciated the evidence and whether there was any misreading of the record. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove her title or the alleged gift, noting that the respondents' possession was undisputed and corroborated by settlement records. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the evidence had been correctly appreciated by the lower courts and finding no grounds for interference with the concurrent findings of fact.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner can succeed in a suit for declaration of ownership without proving the underlying title or gift?
- Does the failure of witnesses to support a claim of ownership justify the dismissal of a civil suit?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact where there is no misreading of evidence?
- Bibi and another vs Noor Muhammad (deceased) through Legal Heirs and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 1007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the appellants' suit as time-barred, overturning concurrent findings of the lower courts. The dispute concerned the inheritance of property from a deceased individual, where the appellants (claiming to be the sister and heir) were excluded by a mutation in favour of a paternal aunt. The core legal question was whether the suit for declaration was time-barred from the date of the mutation's attestation or from the date of a subsequent hostile act (a gift deed). The Supreme Court held that the plaint could be amended to seek possession, bringing the suit within the limitation period calculated from the date of the hostile act (the gift). Furthermore, acknowledging the need for a fair adjudication on merits, the Court allowed the respondents to introduce additional evidence regarding the appellants' lineage and inheritance shares. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the merits, incorporating the amended pleadings and additional evidence.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be amended to seek possession in a suit originally filed for declaration to overcome a limitation bar?
- Does the limitation period for a suit challenging inheritance start from the date of mutation or the date of a subsequent hostile act?
- Can an appellate court remand a case to the High Court to allow for the introduction of additional evidence and fresh adjudication on merits?
- Bhap vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1831 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
- Bhag Mal vs Muhammad Sharif And 2 Other1991 SCMR 2118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court decision that had set aside an order of the Border Area Allotment Committee. The core legal question was whether the Border Area Allotment Committee, when exercising powers under the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959, constitutes a 'Court' within the meaning of the Evidence Act, 1872, thereby making the strict provisions of the Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to its proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the mere conferment of specific powers—such as summoning witnesses or compelling document production—does not automatically elevate a quasi-judicial tribunal to the status of a 'Court' governed by the Evidence Act or the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court reaffirmed that such tribunals act in a quasi-judicial capacity and are not bound by the technicalities of the Evidence Act or the Code of Civil Procedure, although they may adopt general principles of fairness and justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for fresh adjudication on merits without applying the strict rules of evidence.
Questions settled- Does the conferment of powers to summon witnesses and compel document production make a tribunal a 'Court' under the Evidence Act 1872?
- Are the strict provisions of the Evidence Act 1872 and the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings before the Border Area Allotment Committee?
- Is a quasi-judicial tribunal bound by the technical rules of evidence in the absence of a specific statutory mandate?
- Can a tribunal exercise quasi-judicial functions without being classified as a Court?
- Bhag Din and Another vs Mian Hamad Mahmood and Other.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 271 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
- Best Foods (Private) Limited vs Tabani Corporation1991 CLC 1897 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- Berger Paints Pakistan Limited vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others1991 CLC 1277 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the recovery of excise duty on 'white spirit', 'xylene', and 'toluene' by the excise authorities, who contended these items were petroleum products under headings 03.14 and 03.16 of the Central Excise Tariff, rather than 'thinners' under heading 04.03, which were exempt from duty. The core legal question was whether these specific chemical substances qualified as 'thinners' (ancillaries of paints) under the exemption notification issued pursuant to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court, following Supreme Court guidance, applied the principle that statutory terms in taxation laws should be interpreted according to their popular sense or their specific meaning within the relevant trade. Holding that these substances are widely recognized as 'thinners' used to facilitate paint application, the Court ruled they fall under heading 04.03. Consequently, the Court declared the recovery proceedings unlawful, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the authorities to refund any excise duty collected on these items, establishing that trade usage and common parlance prevail over technical classification when interpreting tax exemptions for specific industrial materials.
Questions settled- Should terms in a taxation statute be interpreted according to their popular sense or their specific meaning within a particular trade?
- Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction examine findings of fact if they are erroneous on the face of the record and go to the root of jurisdiction?
- Do 'white spirit', 'xylene', and 'toluene' qualify as 'thinners' under heading 04.03 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Behram Khan vs Government of Balochistan And Other1991 SCMR 1238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a show-cause notice issued to the appellant's Advocate-on-Record. The core legal question concerns the grant of further time to the appellant's counsel to contact clients and comply with procedural requirements, and whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution upon failure to do so. The Court held that no further time should be granted and accordingly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, while observing that the Advocate-on-Record may request for the revival of the appeal if instructions are subsequently obtained. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when a request for adjournment or extension of time is refused, subject to a potential subsequent application for revival upon obtaining instructions.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when the appellant's counsel fails to proceed?
- Can an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution be revived upon a subsequent request by the Advocate-on-Record after obtaining instructions?
- Begum Rabia Hamoodur Rehman and Another vs Lahore DevelopmentK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 92 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Begum Munawar Khatoon vs Hamayun and another1991 MLD 2352 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
- Begum Masooda Malik . vs Province of PunjabK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 157 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Before Muhammad Amir Malik J Khushi Muhammad vs Muhammad Idris1991 MLD 184 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-07Read full judgment →
- Before Abdul Rahim Kazi, Muhammad Hanif Khan vs Mst. Iqbal Begum1991 MLD 294 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
- Batala Engineering Company and others vs Thal Development1991 CLC 1407 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Bashiruddin A. Memon vs Secretary, Ministry of Works, Islamabad and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 224 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-04-02Read full judgment →
- Bashir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
- Bashir Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 49 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
- Bashir And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
- Bashir Alias Sarwar And Another vs Fateh Muhammad1991 SCMR 1366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the possession of land, while a related civil petition involving the title to the same land was already pending before the Supreme Court. The core legal question examined by the court was whether the success of the petitioners in the connected appeal regarding title would react upon and impact the present case concerning possession, thereby necessitating an examination of the merits of both matters. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to examine the interlinked controversy between the parties. The court further condoned the delay in filing the petition, exempted the petitioners from depositing separate security for costs in view of their indigent circumstances, and directed that both related matters be heard together.
Questions settled- Will the success of a party in an appeal concerning land title react upon a connected case regarding possession of the same land?
- Can the Supreme Court condone delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal based on the grounds stated in an application?
- Whether separate security for costs needs to be deposited when a related matter between the same parties already has security ordered?
- Bashir Ahmed vs Syed Mubashir Kazmi and another1991 MLD 382 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs M. Zakria and another1991 MLD 380 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs Ghulam Mujtaba Khan1991 CLC 894 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed Qasuri and anothers vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Health (Health Division), Islamabad and 2 others1991 CLC 691 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed and others vs Muhammad Yaqoob and others1991 MLD 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed and others vs Muhammad Boota and others1991 CLC 1153 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed and others vs Ghulam Hyder and others1991 MLD 360 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad, Line Superintendent I, Lahore vs Water and Power1991 SCMR 2093 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against his compulsory retirement, which was ordered under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958. The petitioner, a Line Superintendent, had been caught accepting a bribe during a Magistrate-supervised raid but avoided criminal prosecution. The core legal question was whether the conversion of departmental proceedings from the Efficiency and Discipline Rules to Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, rendered the retirement order illegal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that such a procedural shift does not vitiate the proceedings, provided substantial justice is served. The Court affirmed that modern administrative justice favors shorter inquiry procedures, meaning the petitioner suffered no prejudice. Furthermore, the Court expressed grave concern regarding the failure to prosecute the petitioner for the criminal offence of bribery, emphasizing that departmental proceedings should not shield public servants from criminal accountability, and directed relevant authorities to investigate the abandonment of the criminal case.
Questions settled- Does the conversion of disciplinary proceedings from Efficiency and Discipline Rules to Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 vitiate the final order?
- Does the initiation of departmental proceedings preclude the criminal prosecution of a public servant for bribery?
- Is there a limitation period for the criminal prosecution of criminal cases?
- Bashir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 333 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-10Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 640 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs State1991 MLD 1156 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Plastic Bag Packaging Limited and others1991 PLD Lahore 386 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for the winding up of a company, Plastic Bag Packaging Limited. During the evidence stage, the petitioner proposed settling the dispute through a special oath on the Holy Qur'an, which the respondents initially accepted. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application seeking permission to revoke their acceptance before the oath was administered. The core legal question was whether the respondents could resile from their agreement to settle the dispute via a special oath. The Court held that the respondents were entitled to withdraw their acceptance. Relying on Section 12 of the Oaths Act 1873, the Court determined that the statute explicitly permits a party who has accepted an offer of a special oath to resile from that commitment. Consequently, the Court ruled that the respondents could not be legally compelled to abide by the oath once they decided to withdraw. The principle laid down is that under Section 12 of the Oaths Act 1873, the party accepting an offer to settle a dispute by special oath cannot be forced to honor that agreement if they choose to resile from it.
Questions settled- Can a party who has accepted an offer to settle a dispute via a special oath be compelled to abide by that oath if they wish to resile?
- Does Section 12 of the Oaths Act 1873 allow a party to withdraw their acceptance of an offer to settle a dispute by special oath?
- Bashir Ahmad vs Mst. Nasreen and another1991 CLC 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges the judgment and decree of the Family Court dissolving the marriage of the parties on the sole ground of Khula. The core legal question was whether a marriage can be dissolved on the ground of Khula alone when all other issues framed in the suit were decided against the wife. The Lahore High Court held that Khula is an independent ground for the dissolution of marriage, provided the court's conscience is satisfied that the spouses cannot live within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah. The Court ruled that where reconciliation efforts have failed, parties have lived separately for years, and serious allegations have been exchanged, forcing them to remain in a hateful union is impermissible. Furthermore, the wife's refusal to return benefits was held immaterial where the Family Court found that no benefits worth naming were bestowed upon her. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a marriage be dissolved on the ground of Khula alone when other grounds or issues are decided against the wife?
- Whether the refusal of a wife to return benefits defeats her right to Khula when no substantial benefits were bestowed upon her?
- Does the High Court interfere with the decision of a Family Court granting Khula when the conclusion is based on the wife's aversion and failed reconciliation?
- Bashir Ahmad vs Mirza Muhammad Ya000b and 10 others1991 MLD 579 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest and post-arrest bail granted to the respondents in a case registered under sections 307, 448, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Yazman. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant the cancellation of bail already granted to the accused persons by the lower courts. The Lahore High Court held that no case was made out for the cancellation of bail, noting that twelve persons were implicated for twelve injuries, no firearm or grievous injuries were attributed to the respondents, and the counsel did not press for the cancellation of bail for the post-arrest respondents. The court laid down the principle that once bail has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation, and no useful purpose would be served by sending the respondents to jail when they would ultimately be released.
Questions settled- Are strong and exceptional grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Whether bail should be cancelled when the accused persons are not attributed any firearm or grievous injuries and the number of accused matches the number of injuries?
- Bashir Ahmad vs General Manager, Shahyar Textile Mills Ltd, Kotri , .1991 PLC 873 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Deputy Inspector General of Police And Another1991 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a former Sub-Inspector of Police against the departmental reduction in rank for disobedience and avoidance of superior orders, which was upheld by the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions involved the condonation of a 23-day delay in filing the appeal and the propriety of interfering with a concurrent finding of fact regarding disciplinary action within a disciplined force. The Court held that the petition was barred by time with no sufficient cause shown for condonation, and further held on merits that findings of fact concerning disobedience of orders in a disciplined force do not warrant interference. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, establishing that unexplained delays in service appeals will not be condoned and factual determinations in departmental disciplinary matters of disciplined forces are final.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained delay of 23 days in filing an appeal before the Supreme Court can be condoned without sufficient cause?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding of fact regarding disciplinary action against a member of a disciplined force?
- Does the punishment of reduction in rank for disobedience of superior orders in a disciplined force call for review by the apex court?
- Bashir Ahmad vs Civil Judge, Jhang and others1991 CLC 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Bashir Ahmad And 3 Other1991 SCMR 1938 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court in a suit for permanent injunction concerning land allotted under the Thal Development Law. The petitioner claimed rights to the land based on an alienation by his father, acting under a power of attorney from the allottees, while the respondents relied on an earlier agreement to sell executed by the same allottees. The core legal question was whether the respondents' prior agreement to sell took precedence over the petitioner's subsequent claim. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, affirming that the earlier agreement to sell in favour of the respondents must be given preference over the petitioner's later agreement. Furthermore, the Court held that the restoration of an allotment, following a cancellation, relates back to the date of the original cancellation, thereby validating the agreement made during the interim period. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does an earlier agreement to sell land take precedence over a subsequent agreement to sell the same land?
- Does the restoration of a cancelled land allotment have the effect of validating transactions made during the period of cancellation?
- Can a party raise new legal arguments in a petition for leave to appeal that were not pressed before the High Court?
- Bashir Ahmad vs (Mst). Zubaida Bibi Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 103 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Nizamani vs Chief Secretary and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1122 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-07-10Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Khan vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Muzaffarabad1991 MLD 2093 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-06-30Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad And Others vs Punjab University Academic Staff1991 SCMR 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of land previously allocated to displaced persons, which was subsequently cancelled and re-allotted to informants via a mukhbari application. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner possessed the legal competence to allot this specific land to the informants after it had been declared a 'building site' under a notification dated 16th May 1973, and after it had been sold to the University authorities under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Punjab University Academic Staff Association, setting aside the allotment to the informants. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal. The ratio of the judgment establishes that once urban land is officially declared a 'building site' via notification, it is removed from the pool of land available for allotment based on claimant units, whether urban or rural. Consequently, any subsequent allotment of such land based on claimant units is legally invalid and void, regardless of prior mukhbari proceedings.
Questions settled- Can land declared as a 'building site' by notification be allotted on the basis of claimant units?
- Does a notification declaring land as a 'building site' preclude the Settlement Commissioner from making further allotments of that land?
- Is an allotment of land made after it has been sold to a third party under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, legally valid?
- Bashir Ahmad and others vs Lal Khan and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad And Others vs Ghulam Ali And Other1991 SCMR 1656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order dismissing an application by the petitioners to be impleaded as parties in a pending Regular Second Appeal (RSA 84 of 1975). The petitioners, who had purchased a portion of the disputed property during the pendency of the litigation, sought to join the proceedings, arguing that their claim was supported by official mutation attestations. They expressed apprehension that their vendors might not pursue the appeal diligently or might collude with the opposing party, thereby prejudicing the petitioners' interests. The lower court had previously denied the application, invoking the doctrine of lis pendens. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by the petitioners warranted further consideration. The Court granted leave to appeal, emphasizing that for the effective administration of justice, it is generally conducive to allow parties with a genuine interest in the subject property to be heard and to defend their rights, notwithstanding the potential application of the doctrine of lis pendens at the conclusion of the litigation.
Questions settled- Can a purchaser of property during pending litigation be impleaded as a party to the proceedings?
- Does the doctrine of lis pendens automatically bar a purchaser from being impleaded in a pending appeal?
- Is it conducive to the administration of justice to allow parties with an interest in the subject property to be heard even if they purchased the property pendente lite?
- Bashir Ahmad and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 211 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
- Basharat Hussain vs Ijaz Bibi and others1991 CLC 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner to assail the judgment and decree of the Family Court whereby a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by respondent No. 1 was decreed on the basis of Khula. The core legal question raised was whether the Family Court acted illegally in not determining the benefits to be restored in lieu of Khula despite oral assertions. The Lahore High Court held that in the absence of any specific plea regarding the restoration of benefits in the written statement, the Family Court was justified in disregarding oral evidence on the matter. Furthermore, the Court held that the decision of the Family Court on the question of Zar-e-Khula is subject to appeal under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and since the petitioner failed to avail of this adequate alternate remedy of appeal, the constitutional petition was not competent. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a Family Court is justified in ignoring oral evidence regarding the restoration of benefits in a Khula case when no plea was raised in the written statement?
- Can a decision of the Family Court on the question of Zar-e-Khula be subjected to appeal under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 competent when the aggrieved party fails to avail the alternate remedy of appeal?
- Basharat Aziz vs District Magistrate Sialkot EtcK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
- Basharat Ali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
- Barkat vs Shahab Din And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the High Court, which had originated from a dispute over land surrendered under land reforms. The petitioner challenged an order of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner remanding the case for fresh decision by filing a writ petition directly in the High Court, bypassing the hierarchical review mechanism available under the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that an adequate alternative remedy was available under Section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, enabling the Federal Government or Federal Land Commission to review the case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioner failed to avail the adequate alternative remedy provided by law and that the remand order ought to have been scrutinized through the statutory hierarchy before invoking constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 be maintained when an adequate statutory remedy is available under the Land Reforms Act, 1977?
- Whether the availability of a revisional remedy under the land reforms hierarchy bars the invocation of the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
- Is a remand order passed by a land commissioner required to be challenged through the available departmental hierarchy before seeking constitutional remedies?
- Barkat Ali vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan and 8 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant's Constitutional (Writ) Petition by the High Court regarding the transfer of an evacuee urban house. The dispute involved two occupants—a claimant occupying the upper floor and a non-claimant occupying the lower floor—seeking transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner had issued an order declaring the house indivisible and transferring the entire house to the claimant, despite a prior order from the Assistant Settlement Commissioner transferring respective portions based on physical possession. The core legal questions pertained to whether a finding of indivisibility under Section 2(4) proviso of the Act without considering factual physical division constitutes a failure to apply judicial mind, rendering the order unlawful. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that declaring a physically divided house indivisible without giving reasons or applying a judicial mind is an illegal exercise of power. The Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to set aside the High Court's judgment and ordered the transfer of respective portions to the occupants based on possession.
Questions settled- Is a finding of indivisibility under Section 2(4) proviso of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 invalid if passed without application of judicial mind to existing physical division?
- Can the Settlement Authorities contradict an admitted factual physical division of evacuee property without recording proper reasons?
- Can the High Court or Supreme Court directly grant final relief in Constitutional jurisdiction to avoid prolonging litigation in concluded settlement matters?
- Barkat Ali vs Province of Punjab and others1991 CLC 865 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali vs Mst. Barkat Bibi and another1991 MLD 2707 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a declaratory suit filed by a daughter against her brother and sister challenging a gift mutation made by their deceased father in favor of the brother, claiming her share of inheritance. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the gift was vitiated by undue influence, lacked the essentials of a gift under Muhammadan Law, and that the best evidence (registered gift deed) was withheld. The lower appellate court affirmed the decree, ruling that the suit filed within one year of the father's death was within time, as the cause of action only accrued upon the father's death, and that technical objections regarding limitation and prior withdrawal of a suit during the father's lifetime were meritless. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding undue influence and the invalidity of the gift contained no jurisdictional error. The Court further affirmed that a co-sharer is not required to sue for possession and that the limitation period for challenging such a transaction begins upon the death of the donor. Key principles relate to the invalidity of gifts intended to disinherit legal heirs and the accrual of cause of action for inheritance.
Questions settled- When does the cause of action accrue for a legal heir to challenge a gift made by a father during his lifetime?
- Does a co-sharer need to sue for physical possession when challenging a gift affecting their inheritance?
- Can a gift made with the primary object of disinheriting legal heirs be sustained under Muhammadan Law?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding undue influence in executing a gift can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.
- Hyder Khan And Another vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1841 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali vs Allah Ditta and another1991 CLC 112 · Board of Revenue · 1990-07-16Read full judgment →
- Bari Doab Bank Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 257 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
- Banqu E Indozuez vs Jet Travels Limited and 4 otherss1991 CLC 534 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-02Read full judgment →
- Banqu E Indosuez vs Jet Travels Limited and 4 otherss1991 CLC 446 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Sindh High Court arises from a suit for recovery of a loan and enforcement of securities filed by Banque Indosucz against Jet Travels Limited and four others under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions involved the validity of the plaint's institution by authorized attorneys, the legality of an equitable mortgage where title deeds and housing authority permissions were allegedly misused, whether a pronote executed for an outstanding balance lacked consideration, and the proof required for bank interest rates. The Court held that defects in filing authorities can be cured, a mortgagor cannot rely on their own fraud or deviation from housing authority permissions to invalidate a mortgage, a pronote given as security for an existing balance is supported by valid consideration, and conceded minimum interest rates require no further proof. The Court refused leave to defend to the defendants and decreed the suit jointly and severally.
Questions settled- Can a defect in the filing of a plaint due to an omitted power of attorney be cured subsequently?
- Is a mortgage rendered invalid if a mortgagor utilizes housing authority permission contrary to the stated purpose?
- Whether a promissory note executed as security for an existing outstanding balance is deemed without consideration?
- Does a plaintiff bank need to lead separate evidence to prove the bank rate of interest when the minimum rate is conceded?
- Banaras Masih vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2287 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
- Balunda through Legal Heirs and others vs Bashir Ahmad1991 MLD 682 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
- Balquees Zaman Khan and others vs Tahir Mahmood Butt1991 CLC 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses proceedings concerning statutory compliance under pre-emption law, specifically evaluating whether a bank certificate furnished by a pre-emptor meets the legal criteria of a bank guarantee. The core legal question was whether a certificate issued by a bank satisfies the mandatory requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee under subsection (1) of Section 24 of the Act. The High Court observed the necessary format and covenants required for a valid bank guarantee tendered to a court, holding that the certificate submitted by the National Bank of Pakistan failed to meet the statutory standard contemplated by law. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders of the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge as illegal and without lawful authority, and dismissed the respondent's pre-emption suit pursuant to subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act.
Questions settled- Does a mere bank certificate fulfill the statutory requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee under Section 24(1) of the Act?
- What are the consequences under Section 24(2) of the Act if a pre-emptor fails to furnish a valid bank guarantee as required by law?
- Balochistan Bar Association throughPresident Balochistan Bar1991 PLD Quetta 7 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated batch of constitutional petitions before the Balochistan High Court challenged the vires of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968, alleging that its provisions relating to trial by executive officers through a Council of Elders were repugnant to the fundamental rights of equality and non-discrimination, the Objectives Resolution, and the constitutional mandate for the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The core legal questions revolved around whether the special trial procedure and the application/withdrawal of the Ordinance across different regions violated Articles 2-A, 4, 25, and 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that the Ordinance was inconsistent with Articles 2-A, 25, and 175(3) of the Constitution, as it lacked any rational classification and completely vested judicial powers in executive officers, frustrating the constitutional goal of judicial independence. Consequently, the Court declared the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 void, quashed pending proceedings, set aside convictions, and ordered cases to be transferred to courts of competent jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 is void for being inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of separation of the judiciary from the executive under Article 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the application and selective withdrawal of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 violate the principle of equal protection of law under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the provisions of a statute be tested on the touchstone of the Objectives Resolution after its incorporation as a substantive part of the Constitution via Article 2-A?
- Whether the administration of criminal justice by executive officers under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 violates the concept of the supremacy and independence of the judiciary?
- Balam Naz And Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
- Bakhtiar Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 280 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-15Read full judgment →
- Bakhtiar Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2398 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants by a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, for offences relating to the possession of .32 and .30 bore automatic Mauser pistols under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question was whether such weapons fell within the category of automatic or semi-automatic weapons enumerated in section 13-A and the Schedule of the 1975 Act, thereby making them exclusively triable by Special Courts. The Lahore High Court held that applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the phrase 'such as Klashnikov, a G-III rifle or any other type of assault rifle' restricts the scope of automatic or semi-automatic weapons to assault weapons of that gravity, and that Mauser pistols do not fall within that category or schedule. Consequently, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction (coram non judice), leading the court to set aside the convictions and sentences, and direct that challans be submitted before competent courts of magistrates.
Questions settled- Whether possession of .30 or .32 bore Mauser pistols falls within the category of automatic or semi-automatic assault weapons under section 13-A of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965?
- Are offences under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 involving pistols other than assault rifles exclusively triable by Special Courts under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Does the principle of ejusdem generis apply to the interpretation of specific weapon categories listed alongside general terms in section 13-A of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965?
- Bakhtiar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 118 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
- Bakhsha vs The State and others-1991 P Cr. L J 2314 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Bahadur Khan And Others vs CH. Muhammad Hussain And Other1991 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' constitutional petitions arising from concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge. The core legal questions concern whether the deposit of rent in the name of a person other than the admitted landlord constitutes a valid tender and whether non-compliance with the Rent Controller's direction to deposit rent under section 13(6) amounts to a default. The Supreme Court held that remitting or depositing rent in the name of an unauthorized person or someone other than the true landlord does not absolve the tenant of liability, and depositing rent in favor of a wrong person constitutes a clear violation of the Rent Controller's order. The Court laid down the principle that a deposit of rent in the name of a person other than the landlord is not in conformity with the law, and inordinate delay in seeking action against a tenant does not amount to a waiver of the landlord's rights. The petitions were consequently dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does the deposit of rent in the name of a person other than the landlord constitute a valid tender?
- Does depositing rent in favor of a wrong person amount to a violation of the Rent Controller's order to deposit rent?
- Does an inordinate delay by a landlord in requesting the striking off of a tenant's defense amount to a waiver of the landlord's right?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide requirement of re-construction be re-examined by the Supreme Court?
- Bahadur Khan And 5 Others vs The State1991 SCMR 1589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court concerning multiple petitioners convicted in a criminal case. The core legal question involves the appropriateness of maintaining sentences of fine for petitioners who played a comparatively minor role in the transaction and whose substantive sentences of imprisonment were already reduced to the period undergone. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the imposition of the sentence of fine upon the petitioners with minor roles was unjustified under the circumstances and warranted interference. The Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the sentence of fine qua the minor petitioners while dismissing the petition regarding the principal offenders.
Questions settled- Whether the sentence of fine can be set aside for co-accused who played a minor role in the criminal transaction?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Bahadar Khan vs The State1991 MLD 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Baghpatee (Pvt.) Ltd. And Others vs Messrs Pak Libya Holding Company1991 SCMR 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of a loan against the petitioners, who were granted conditional leave to defend the suit upon furnishing security. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Court, arguing that the loan agreement predated the notification designating the respondent as a banking company under the Ordinance, and that applying the Ordinance would constitute retrospective application. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the relevant factor is the forum available at the time of filing the legal proceeding, not the date of the underlying contract. Consequently, the filing of the suit after the notification was valid. However, the Court modified the impugned order, directing the Special Court to determine the approximate value of the mortgaged property and adjust that value against the security amount required from the principal debtor, as the initial security fixation failed to account for the existing mortgage security.
Questions settled- Can a banking company file a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, for a loan agreement entered into before the company was notified as a banking company?
- Does the filing of a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, after the issuance of a notification constitute retrospective application of the law?
- Is a court required to consider the value of mortgaged property when fixing the amount of security for granting leave to defend a banking recovery suit?
- Baghapurana Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 156 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Badshah Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2299 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Badruddin vs Muhammad Yousuf1991 CLC 949 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
- Badar Munir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2080 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
- Badar Din Etc vs Javid Ahmad Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 51) · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- Babulal & Bros. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 258 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →