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.
- Babu Din vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1460 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- B.T.X Chemicals (P.) Ltd. and others vs Suraj Bhan and another1991 PTD 275 · Gujarat High Court · 1988-10-14Read full judgment →
- Azizur Rehman Khan vs Registrar Co-Operative Society, Sindhh and 2(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 265) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-08-15Read full judgment →
- Azizur Rehman and others vs Muhammad Ishaq and others1991 CLC 723 · Board of Revenue · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
- Azizullah vs Registrar, Sindhh High Court, Karachi(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 142) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
- Azizullah vs Registrar, Sindh High Court, Karachi1991 PLC (C.S.) 767 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
- Azizullah vs Muhammad Rafi1991 MLD 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
- Azizullah vs Mst. Bakht UN Nisa1991 SCMR 1773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld an eviction order against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, a fact contested by the petitioner in the eviction proceedings. The Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the High Court all concurrently found that such a relationship existed, relying on a compromise agreement dated 14-11-1978 where the petitioner explicitly admitted the respondent's status as landlord and agreed to a rent increase. Additionally, the petitioner's own written statement acknowledged a prior suit filed by the respondent's representative regarding the disputed premises. The Supreme Court held that given the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and the petitioner's failure to demonstrate payment of rent, the eviction order was justified. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, affirmed the lower courts' findings, and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a prior compromise agreement admitting a landlord's title establish the relationship of landlord and tenant for the purposes of eviction?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Azizullah Memon vs Government of Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 862 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
- Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs The Inspector-General of Poll_E, Azad1991 PLC (C.S.) 565 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
- Aziz-Ur-Rehman Khan vs Federal Disability Board And 4 OtherPTCL 1991 CL. 68 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-26Read full judgment →
- Aziz-Ud-Din Qureshi vs Rehmatullah Zia and 6 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 135 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
- Aziz-Ud-Din Etc vs The State(K.L.R. 1991 Shariat Cases 7) · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-25Read full judgment →
- Aziz Masih Alias Kuddi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 419 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, Aziz Masih, for the murder of the deceased, Muhammad Abbas, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, or if the appellant’s plea of self-defence and grave and sudden provocation was credible. The trial court had initially sentenced the appellant to death. Upon review, the Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's ocular evidence consistent, corroborated by medical reports and the recovery of incriminating weapons, while rejecting the defence’s version as inconsistent with the physical evidence at the crime scene. However, the Court held that the deceased’s act of publicly insulting and slapping the appellant the previous day constituted a mitigating circumstance. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, applying the principle that provocation, even if not sufficient to fully exonerate, may justify the reduction of a capital sentence. The appellant was granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of related witnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship to the deceased?
- Does the failure to produce independent witnesses invalidate a prosecution case where the ocular evidence is otherwise consistent and reliable?
- Can public insult and slapping of an accused by the deceased on the day preceding the occurrence constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
- Does the recovery of blood-stained weapons and the presence of injuries on prosecution witnesses corroborate the ocular account of an occurrence?
- Aziz Khan, Commander (E) Pakistan Navy vs The Directorgeneral, Ports and Shipping and another1991 CLC 362 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Aziz Din And Another vs Qadir Bakhsh And 2 Other1991 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by defendants against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The underlying dispute involved a suit for declaration regarding title and paternity, which was initially decreed in favor of the respondents. The petitioners' subsequent appeal was dismissed, and their civil revision was later dismissed for non-prosecution. A subsequent application for restoration was also dismissed, leading to a further civil revision, which the High Court rejected on the grounds of laches. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to challenge this dismissal. The Supreme Court examined the delay in filing, applying the principles established in 'Manager, Jammu & Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another' (PLD 1975 SC 678). Finding that the petitioners failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Court held that there was no justification for interference with the High Court's order. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a civil revision dismissed on the ground of laches warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does a failure to explain delay in legal proceedings justify the refusal of leave to appeal?
- Aziz Ahmed vs Ashraf1991 CLC 1261 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order of the Sindh High Court disposed of two applications filed by the defendant in a summary suit instituted under Order XXXVII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a dishonoured cheque: one for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 and the other for grant of leave to defend the suit. The court evaluated whether the summons had been properly served and whether sufficient cause for delay was established, finding the bailiff's un-attested affixation of notice invalid and accepting the defendant's uncontradicted medical evidence of illness. On the merits of the leave application, the defendant raised factual disputes regarding the delivery of the cheque as a surety to a third-party broker, subsequent cash payment, and a discrepancy in the payee's name. The High Court held that the delay stood properly explained and that the defendant raised triable issues requiring evidence. Consequently, delay was condoned, and leave to defend was granted subject to furnishing security.
Questions settled- Whether affixing a summons to a defendant's door without procuring attesting witnesses constitutes valid service in a summary suit?
- Whether uncontradicted medical certificates advising bed rest constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 in filing an application for leave to defend?
- Whether a defence asserting that a disputed cheque was handed over as surety to a broker and subsequently paid in cash raises a triable issue warranting the grant of leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Azhar Zaffar vs The State and 2 others-1991 P Cr. L J 883 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
- Azhar Muhammad Khan And Others vs Deputy1991 SCMR 1374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, displaced persons from India, challenged the cancellation of agricultural land allotted to them in Karak tehsil, District Kohat, which had been re-allotted to the respondents. The Settlement Department maintained that the disputed land had been allotted to the respondents since 1963 and remained in their possession, rendering it unavailable for allotment to the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the respondents' allotment exceeded their entitlement. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' challenge, holding that the determination of whether the respondents' allotment exceeded their entitlement involved a question of fact, which could not be adjudicated within writ jurisdiction, particularly as the competent authority had already verified the allotment. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The Court affirmed that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for re-opening disputed questions of fact, especially where the competent authority has scrutinized the record and found no excess entitlement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that appellate or writ courts should generally refrain from interfering with factual findings established by competent administrative authorities.
Questions settled- Can questions of fact regarding land allotment entitlement be re-opened in writ jurisdiction?
- Is the High Court empowered to interfere with factual findings made by a competent authority in writ proceedings?
- Does the allotment of land to displaced persons remain valid if the land was previously allotted to others and never cancelled?
- Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad vs Sikandar Khan and another1991 CLC 561 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-01-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal was filed by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government against a High Court judgment affirming a decree of Rs. 1,96,847 passed in favor of a government contractor. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal on multiple grounds. First, the Court held that the appeal was procedurally defective because it failed to include certified copies of the judgment and decree of the trial and lower appellate courts, violating the mandatory requirements of Order XII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules. Second, the Court ruled that the appeal was not maintainable under clause (d) of Section 42(11) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, as that provision does not permit appeals against judgments of affirmation, regardless of the monetary value of the dispute. Finally, the Court rejected the appellant's request to convert the appeal into a petition for leave to appeal, noting that such a petition would be time-barred. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the failure to attach certified copies of trial and lower appellate court judgments to a petition of appeal warrant dismissal under the Supreme Court Rules?
- Is an appeal maintainable under clause (d) of Section 42(11) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act against a judgment of affirmation?
- Can a time-barred appeal be converted into a petition for leave to appeal if the limitation period for the latter has already expired?
- Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and another vs Syed Zaman Ali Shah and 3 others1991 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 57 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief1991 MLD 1190 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
- Ayyaz Aslam vs Chairman Arbitration Council Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 104 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
- Ayub And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1535 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-13Read full judgment →
- Ayaz Mahmood vs Station House Officer Gujranwala and 3 others1991 MLD 2077 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
- Ayaz And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2407 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-06Read full judgment →
- Ayaz Ali Memon vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1023 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Auto and Metal Engineer vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 80 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
- Aurangzeb vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 855 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Aurangzeb Khan Etc vs Ghulam Mustafa KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 109 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-06-10Read full judgment →
- Aurangzeb Alias Ranga vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1299 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial, whereby the appellant and his co-accused were convicted and sentenced under sections 365, 377, 395, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. While co-accused had their appeals accepted and were acquitted by the High Court in an earlier judgment, the appellant filed a belated appeal. The core legal question was whether the appellant, facing identical charges and evidence as the acquitted co-accused, was entitled to acquittal under the rule of consistency. The Lahore High Court held that the reasons for acquittal of the co-accused applied equally to the appellant. The court laid down the principle that under the rule of consistency, an appellant whose case is identical to that of acquitted co-accused must be treated at par and granted acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether an appellant is entitled to acquittal on the basis of the rule of consistency when his co-accused facing identical charges and evidence have already been acquitted?
- Can a belated criminal appeal be entertained and the delay condoned by the High Court?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on specific grounds enure to the benefit of a non-appealing or belatedly appealing co-accused whose case is identical?
- Aulad Hussain vs Messrs Pakistan Machine Tool Factory (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi1991 PLC 668 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
- Attaur Rehman vs The State1991 P C r. L J 28 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-12Read full judgment →
- Attaullah Khan vs The State1991 MLD 1786 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Attaullah Khan and others vs Samiullah Khan and others1991 MLD 941 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
- Atta-Ur-Rehman vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and another1991 MLD 210 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-01Read full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad vs Sahibzada Manzoor Ahmad Through Legal Heirs And Other1991 SCMR 1648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which originated from a property dispute concerning the possession of land in the Shamlat Deh. The core legal question involves the evaluation of revenue records, the extent of permissible possession of Shamlat land in accordance with an owner's share or holding, and the legal effect of a mutation attested pursuant to orders of higher authorities under the Land Revenue Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the selective reliance on revenue entries by the courts below and the interpretation of statutory provisions concerning mutations require deeper examination. The principle laid down is that revenue record entries must be considered comprehensively, and mutations implemented pursuant to higher authorities' orders warrant scrutiny regarding the effect of parties' absence during attestation.
Questions settled- Can revenue record entries be selectively relied upon by courts while ignoring entries in favor of the opposing party?
- Whether an owner of Shamlat land can retain possession in excess of their share according to Hasab Rasad-Khewet?
- What is the legal effect of a mutation attested in the absence of a party when such mutation is implemented pursuant to orders of higher authorities?
- Atta Muhammad vs Province of Sindhh, through Chief Secretary, Sindh Sectt, Karachi(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 62) · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 444 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-08-18Read full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad And Others vs Iqrar Ahmad And Another1991 P Cr. L J 274 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges an order entertaining a second criminal complaint after the dismissal of an initial complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question is whether the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203, Cr.P.C. acts as a legal bar to the institution of a second complaint on the same facts. The Court held that such a dismissal does not operate as a bar to a second complaint, as Sections 369 and 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not attracted in such instances. However, the Court established that a second complaint should only be entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as when the previous order was based on an incomplete record, manifest absurdity, or when new evidence is presented. In the present case, because the initial complaint was dismissed without examining the injured party or the medical officer, and the second complaint provided additional evidence, the trial court's decision to entertain the second complaint was upheld as legally sound and not an abuse of process.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 act as a legal bar to the filing of a second complaint on the same facts?
- Under what circumstances can a second criminal complaint be entertained after the dismissal of the first complaint?
- Do Section 369 and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operate as a bar to the entertainment of a second complaint?
- Atta Muhammad And 2 Others vs The State And Other1991 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from two cross-petitions for leave to appeal, one filed by the convicted persons challenging their convictions and sentences for murder, and the other by the complainant seeking leave against the acquittal of two co-accused and the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the presence of eye-witnesses, alleged misreading of evidence by the High Court, the recovery of a blood-stained brick, and whether an accused who threw a stone shared the common intention for murder with those who subsequently fired lethal weapons. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice and issued bailable warrants of arrest against the acquitted respondents. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal will be granted where substantial questions regarding the correct appreciation of evidence, misreading of the record, and common intention under criminal law require detailed examination by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who threw a brick can share the common intention with co-accused who subsequently fired lethal weapons?
- Does the misreading of material evidence by the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a criminal petition?
- Whether the testimony of a natural and independent witness is sufficient to sustain the conviction and implication of co-accused?
- Atta Mohammad vs Assistant Political Agent and 5 OtherK.L.R. 1991, Criminal Cases 313 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-11-14Read full judgment →
- Atlas Autos Limited and anothers vs Registrar, Joint Stock Companies1991 CLC 523 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
- Atiq Ahmad Khan vs Chairman, P.O.F. Wah Cantt. And Another1991 SCMR 1838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner was removed from service on 18-9-1986 for prolonged absence from duty. After his initial removal, he pursued various representations and a mercy petition, the final rejection of which was communicated on 29th October, 1988, before approaching the Service Tribunal in November, 1989. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing mercy petitions and miscellaneous representations extends the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal correctly concluded that the appeal was time-barred, as miscellaneous applications and mercy petitions do not earn condonation of delay in service matters. The key principle laid down is that the pursuit of extra-statutory representations or mercy petitions does not extend the prescribed period of limitation for approaching a service tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the time spent in making mercy petitions or miscellaneous representations extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Is an appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal long after the original removal order maintainable when the intervening delay is only explained by unauthorized representations?
- Ata Muhammad Alias Ataullah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1750 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
- Associated Press of Pakistan vs Khalid Zamir -1991 PLC 63 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
- Associated Manufacturing and Packing Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 352 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
- Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Muzaffargarh and others vs Mst.1991 CLC 275 · Board of Revenue · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
- Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Lahore II And Another vs Shafqat Shah And Other1991 SCMR 2525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arose from judgments of the Lahore High Court allowing constitutional petitions filed by the respondents against the seizure of goods by customs officials. The High Court had held the search and seizure illegal on the ground that the officials conducted the raid without search-warrants as required under Sections 162 and 163 of the Customs Act 1969. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court's premature interference in its constitutional jurisdiction was justified before the factual questions under Sections 162 and 163 could be determined during proceedings. The Supreme Court held that strict legal position did not justify the High Court's interference or the issuance of a writ at that stage, as the application of Sections 162 and 163 involved questions of fact to be decided upon evidence. However, noting that the proceedings against the respondents had already been dropped following the High Court's order, the Supreme Court corrected the legal position but declined to revive the dropped proceedings, disposing of the appeals accordingly.
Questions settled- Is High Court interference in constitutional jurisdiction premature when factual determinations under Sections 162 and 163 of the Customs Act 1969 remain to be decided on evidence?
- Does the absence of a search warrant automatically invalidate a search under Section 163 of the Customs Act 1969 where an exception applies?
- Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs and 21991 PLD Supreme Court 992 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the levy of excise duty on strawboard. The respondent manufactured strawboard at Kotri, paid the requisite excise duty, and subsequently transported it to Karachi for manual pasting and cutting processes. The appellant authorities demanded additional excise duty, contending that these processes constituted 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that the processes did not create a new or different marketable product. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the definition of 'manufacture' in the Act, which includes processes incidental or ancillary to the completion of a product, applied to the respondent's activities. The Court held that while the definition of 'manufacture' is broad and includes processes that enhance quality or utility, it requires that the process be necessary or subsidiary to completing the manufactured goods. Finding that the pasting and cutting of strawboard did not alter its nature, quality, or utility, the Court concluded these activities did not constitute 'manufacture' and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the process of pasting and cutting strawboard constitute 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Does the statutory definition of 'manufacture' require the creation of a new article, or does it include processes that merely enhance the quality or utility of existing goods?
- Is a process that is neither incidental nor ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product subject to excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Assessee vs DepartmentPTCL 1991 CL. 20 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
- Asmatullah vs Haji Syed Abdul Majid And Another1991 SCMR 1969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the possession of a plot of land, specifically questioning whether a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the appellant, an occupant, and the respondents, who were the purchasers of the property. The property had been acquired through a chain of title originating from a public auction of evacuee property. The appellant claimed to occupy the land under a third party, Abdul Wahid, who had previously failed in litigation against the original auction purchaser. The Supreme Court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the respondents and the appellant by operation of law under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the eviction order. However, exercising its powers under the Constitution, the Court directed the respondents to deposit an ex gratia sum of Rs. 200,000 for the benefit of the appellant and his wife, ensuring the appellant's rehabilitation despite the legal eviction.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of evacuee property establish a landlord-tenant relationship with existing occupants under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can the Supreme Court direct an ex gratia payment to an appellant as a condition of an eviction order under its constitutional powers?
- Asmatullah Khan vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
- Aslam Warraich And Others vs Secretary, Planning and Development1991 SCMR 2330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from appeals and petitions concerning a service dispute over seniority and regular promotion dates between direct appointees and promotees in the Planning and Development Division. The core legal question examined whether acting charge appointments under Rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, confer rights to seniority or regular promotion from the date of completing the requisite length of service, and whether departmental authorities properly evaluated such claims. The Supreme Court held that while sub-clauses (6) and (7) of Rule 8-B correctly dictate that acting charge appointments do not confer a vested right to regular promotion or seniority automatically, the departmental authorities erred by failing to independently examine whether the civil servants qualified for regular promotion on merits once they fulfilled the service length requirement and were cleared by the selection board. The Court laid down the principle that the departmental authorities must examine such promotion cases on merits through reasoned orders, and as a procedural guidance, tribunals should ordinarily remand matters to departmental authorities rather than filling procedural lacunae themselves.
Questions settled- Does an appointment on acting charge basis under Rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, confer a vested right for regular promotion or seniority?
- Does the disqualification of an acting charge appointment for automatic regular promotion mean a civil servant loses the right to be considered for regular promotion upon completing the requisite length of service?
- Should the Service Tribunal undertake factual exercises and fill lacunae for the first time, or should it remand the matter to the departmental authority?
- Is it mandatory for departmental authorities to issue reasoned orders when deciding representations regarding promotion and seniority?
- Asif Waheed vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 141 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
- Asif Mehmood vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1754 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Asif Alias Assu Billa vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2311 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
- Asif Ali Zardari vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 595 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court arose from the rejection of pre-trial bail by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) at Karachi, where the applicants stood trial under sections 365-A, 395, and 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question concerned whether the High Court retains jurisdiction under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail to an accused facing trial before a Special Court, notwithstanding the barring of section 498 and other provisions under section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The Court held that while section 498, Cr.P.C. and certain other revisional and appellate powers are excluded by section 7 of the 1975 Act, the High Court's general power to grant bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. at the pre-conviction stage remains intact, subject to the restrictions in section 5-A(8) of the Act. On merits, finding reasonable grounds connecting the accused to the alleged offenses including criminal conspiracy, the bail applications were dismissed with a direction to conclude the trial within two months.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail to an accused facing trial before a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Does section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 completely bar the High Court from exercising all bail powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the High Court invoke section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of proceedings before a Special Court?
- Are the limitations on the grant of bail specified in section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to under-trial prisoners before a Special Court?
- Asif Ali Zardari vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 385 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
- Asif Ali vs Province of Punjab and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 524 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-03Read full judgment →
- Asif Ali Sheikh vs Secretary (Services), Government of the Punjab and AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases196 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ashrafuddin Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant. vs Nemo for Respondent (absent).1991 PTD (Trib.) 1058 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
- Ashrafuddin Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant. vs Ahadullah for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 884 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-06-06Read full judgment →
- Ashraf Ali Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ashique Hussain vs 1ST Additional District Judge and Family Appellate1991 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the Family Court and the Appellate Court awarding maintenance to the respondent-wife. The core legal question concerned the validity of the divorce and the husband's liability for maintenance. The applicant contended that he had divorced the respondent, rendering her ineligible for maintenance beyond the Iddat period. The Court examined whether the husband's statement on oath in court acknowledging the divorce was sufficient to dissolve the marriage and whether the statutory notice requirement under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 was mandatory for the effectiveness of Talaq. The Court held that the husband's categorical statement on oath in court acknowledging the divorce effectively dissolved the marriage from the date of that statement. Furthermore, relying on established precedents, the Court ruled that the effectiveness of Talaq cannot be made contingent upon the service of notice to the Chairman under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, as such a requirement is inconsistent with Islamic Injunctions. Consequently, the wife's entitlement to maintenance was limited to the period ending with the Iddat following the judicial acknowledgment.
Questions settled- Does a husband's statement on oath in court acknowledging a divorce effectively dissolve the marriage for the purpose of maintenance?
- Is the effectiveness of a Talaq contingent upon the service of notice to the Chairman under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Does the failure to provide notice under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 render a Talaq inoperative?
- Ashique Ali Khan vs District Agricultural Supplies Officer and 2 others1991 PLC 291 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-25Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain Shah vs The Stat1991 P Cr. L J 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
- Ashiq And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 324 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Ali And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 681 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Ahmed vs Mst. Sheerin Bai Muhammad Ali1991 SCMR 1497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the High Court's judgment ordering his eviction from a cantonment rent property on the ground of reconstruction. The core legal question addressed is whether section 14 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act bars the eviction of a tenant where a commercial building is sought to be reconstructed into a composite commercial and residential building without prior permission for conversion. The Supreme Court held that the bar under section 14 of the Act is not attracted when the proposed reconstruction results in a composite building comprising both commercial and residential units rather than a purely residential conversion. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that section 14 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act does not operate as a bar to eviction for reconstruction when the new structure constitutes a composite commercial and residential building.
Questions settled- Does section 14 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act bar the eviction of a tenant for reconstruction when a commercial building is proposed to be converted into a composite commercial and residential building?
- Can a landlord seek eviction of a tenant for the purpose of reconstructing a building consisting of multiple units?
- Ashfao Ahmed vs Haroon Abbas and 2 others1991 MLD 1428 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
- Asghari Begum vs Baji Dubash1991 CLC 203 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-19Read full judgment →
- Asghar Shah and 4 others vs Fazal Hussain through Legal Heirs and another1991 MLD 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Asghar Khan vs Abdus Salam and another1991 CLC 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali vs The State1991 SC M R151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a decision of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and minor daughter, for which he was sentenced to death on two counts. The petitioner alleged grave and sudden provocation, claiming he intended to attack a third party found in a compromising position with his wife, who intercepted the assault. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the defense plea of grave and sudden provocation was plausible given the evidence and whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following a general presidential commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the presence of 18 injuries on the wife and 7 on the minor daughter contradicted the petitioner's version, and declined to grant the statutory benefit of period of detention under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. due to the heinous nature of the crime.
Questions settled- Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation be accepted when the medical evidence reveals numerous injuries inflicted upon multiple victims?
- Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be withheld by the Court based on the extreme severity and brutal nature of the offense?
- Does the Supreme Court have discretion to condone delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal in a criminal matter involving the death penalty?
- Asghar Ali vs The State Through Pakistan Coast Guards, Karachi.PTCL 1991 CL. 311 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-08-05Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali vs The State through Pakistan Coast Guards, Karachi1991 MLD 228 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-08-05Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali And 15 Others vs S.C.O. Circle Canal, Bahawalnagar And 61991 SCMR 1890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed petitions that were found to be barred by time and thus liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in a similar prior case regarding an interim order in connection with Warabandi under the Canal and Drainage Act, the Court had issued directions for fair treatment in canal water supply based on an undertaking by the canal authorities. Although no such undertaking existed in the present case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan noted that the right to justice and fair treatment is a recognized basic human right in Islamic dispensation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions as time-barred while observing that the petitioners must be dealt with fairly and in accordance with justice during the pendency of the ongoing litigation. The core legal question concerned the treatment of time-barred petitions seeking interim relief regarding canal water supply, and the holding affirmed the dismissal on limitation grounds while emphasizing fundamental principles of fairness.
Questions settled- Are petitions that are barred by time liable to be dismissed?
- Does Islamic dispensation recognize the right to justice and fair treatment as a basic human right?
- Can directions for fair treatment in canal water supply be issued in the absence of an undertaking by canal authorities?
- Asad Ali Khan vs Muhammad Iqbal 12 others1991 MLD 365 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-08Read full judgment →
- Arshad Saeed vs Messrs Brooke Bond Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.1991 PLC 264 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
- Arshad Malik, D.R. for Appellants (in -86). Muhammad Iqbal Chughtai, Itp1991 PTD (Trib.) 8 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-30Read full judgment →
- Army Welfare Sugar Mills, Badin through General Manager vs Ghulam1991 PLC 869 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Ark Industrial Managements Ltd. vs Joint Registrar, Government of Pakistan Corporate Law Authority Company Registration Office Karachi1991 CLC 1520 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Arif Baig vs Syed Nasir Hussain ZaidiK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 577 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Arif Baig vs Syed Nasir Hussain Zaidi1991 MLD 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Arif Ali Zahid vs Muhammad Yaqoob & 8 OtherK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 50 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-08Read full judgment →
- Arif Ali vs Muhammad Ramzan Alias Janan And 4 Other1991 SCMR 331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case involving the murder of Mukhtar Ali. The trial court had convicted Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Surraya under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting other co-accused. The High Court subsequently acquitted the respondents, rejecting the prosecution's reliance on extra-judicial confessions and delayed recoveries. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's acquittal, based on the rejection of weak evidence, warranted interference. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the extra-judicial confessions were not inspiring and the recoveries were unreliable due to significant delays and accessibility to the public. The Court held that in the absence of strong evidence, the acquittal was based on sound principles of criminal jurisprudence and did not necessitate a reappraisal of evidence. The key principle affirmed is that extra-judicial confessions must be inherently credible and corroborated by reliable evidence to sustain a conviction, and appellate courts will not interfere with acquittals based on sound evidentiary analysis.
Questions settled- Can an extra-judicial confession be relied upon if the circumstances surrounding the confession are not inspiring?
- Does a significant delay in the recovery of incriminating articles render the recovery evidence unreliable?
- Is the Supreme Court required to reappraise evidence in a criminal petition where the High Court's acquittal is based on sound legal reasoning?
- Aqueeluzzaman Khan vs Messrs Daily Mashriq and 3 others1991 PLC 741 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
- Anwar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 732 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
- Anwar Rashid vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1738 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Anwar Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 270 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Anwar Aziz Chaudhry Ma. Suhail Ahmad Ghazali Mian Abdul Rahman1991 SCMR 994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan disposes of eight criminal appeals arising from the dismissal of petitions filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of corruption proceedings pending before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. The core legal question was whether officers and employees of the Punjab Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Development Board qualify as 'public servants' within the meaning of section 21, clause Ninth of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether criminal proceedings against certain appellants ought to be quashed on merits. The Supreme Court held that senior executives and officers of the Board, by virtue of performing duties affecting the pecuniary interests of the government and managing government-funded projects, fall within the definition of public servants under section 21(Ninth) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court affirmed that the absence of a specific deeming provision in the Punjab Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Development Board Act 1974 does not exclude its officers from being public servants if their functions satisfy the criteria of clause Ninth. Consequently, the appeals of contractors whose disputes had been conclusively resolved through civil arbitration without allegations of falsified measurement books were allowed and proceedings against them quashed, while the appeals of the Board officials and other contractors facing prima facie allegations of corruption and misappropriation were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether employees and officers of the Punjab Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Development Board are public servants within the meaning of section 21 clause Ninth of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the absence of a specific provision declaring employees to be public servants in a statutory enactment preclude them from falling under section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can criminal proceedings under anti-corruption laws be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a prima facie case is made out against the accused?
- Whether the settlement of commercial disputes through arbitration and civil court decrees warrants the quashment of pending criminal proceedings regarding overpayments?
- Anwar and others vs Shera and others1991 MLD 1987 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Anwar Ali vs Mrs. Alima Ahmed1991 CLC 1231 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
- Anwar Ali Khan And Others vs Wahid Bux And Other1991 SCMR 1608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court order remanding a private criminal complaint for reconsideration after its initial dismissal by an Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question concerns whether an FIR lodged by an accused can be used as substantive evidence during a preliminary inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. to dismiss a private complaint, and the extent of the court's revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while an FIR is not substantive evidence, it may be referenced for limited purposes, such as identifying parties or examining counter-versions. However, it cannot be used to summarily dismiss a complaint without proper consideration of the complainant's evidence. The Court established that a preliminary inquiry is not a full-dress trial; the burden of proof is significantly lighter for the complainant than at the trial stage. Consequently, minor contradictions in witness statements at the preliminary stage do not justify dismissal. The Court affirmed that while public functionaries require protection from frivolous litigation, the judiciary must ensure that citizens' fundamental rights are not compromised by the premature dismissal of legitimate grievances.
Questions settled- Can an FIR be used as substantive evidence during a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Is the burden of proof for a complainant in a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the same as the burden of proof required at a full criminal trial?
- Can a court dismiss a private complaint based on minor contradictions in witness statements during a preliminary inquiry?
- Does the issuance of notice to an accused person during a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. vitiate the proceedings?
- Anwar Ai-Med vs Muhammad Sharif1991 MLD 701 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defence and directing his ejectment for non-compliance with a rent order issued under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a rent order that fails to specify the exact amount of arrears, instead leaving the calculation to the tenant by permitting adjustments against previously deposited amounts, is legally valid and enforceable. The Court held that such an order is defective and illegal because it fails to perform the mandatory duty of determining the precise amount due. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that provisions authorizing the striking off of a defence are penal in nature and must be strictly construed. While the direction for future rent was held valid and independent, the Court ruled that because the arrears direction was defective, all deposits made by the tenant could be adjusted against the valid future rent obligation. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of ejectment and remanded the case.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a rent order that fails to specify the exact amount of arrears?
- Are the directions for the payment of arrears and future rent in a rent order independent of each other?
- Does a rent order that leaves the calculation of arrears to the tenant satisfy the requirements of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can deposits made by a tenant be adjusted against future rent if the direction regarding arrears in a rent order is found to be defective?
- Anwar Ahmed vs Mohammad SharifK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 598 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Anjuman Mint Mulazmeen and others vs Registrar, Trade Unions and others1991 PLC 823 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →