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.
- Mohammad Akram and Other vs Garison Engineer (Army) Okara Cantt.K.L.R. 1990 Labour and Service Cases 223 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Abu Bakar Alvi vs Govt. of Punjab Etc.K.L.R 1990 Labour & Sendees Cases 280 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mohabbat vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 73 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed before the Sindh High Court against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, convicting the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a passenger inside a bus. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of two police officials stationed at a nearby check post who chased and apprehended the appellant immediately after the shooting, recovering a licensed gun and cartridges. Although the civilian eye-witnesses (the bus driver, cleaner, and conductor) turned hostile, the High Court held that the testimony of police officials is reliable and cannot be discarded solely due to their official status. The Court further held that under Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, the quality of evidence prevails over quantity, and no specific number of witnesses is required to prove a murder charge. Finding the circumstantial evidence, medical reports, and positive ballistic expert report sufficient to establish guilt, the High Court maintained the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials when civilian eye-witnesses turn hostile?
- What are the essential requirements to establish an offence based entirely on circumstantial evidence?
- Is a court bound to accept the opinion of a medical expert if the reasoning behind that opinion is not cogent?
- Does the delay in dispatching a crime weapon and empties to a ballistic expert automatically invalidate the expert's report?
- Mohabat Khan and 77 others vs Road Transport Board and 4 others1990 PLC 794 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-20Read full judgment →
- Moeen Ud Din And Another vs Sibghat Ullah And 3 Other1990 CLC 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mljiiammad Ameer Oasmi vs Ch. H1lthammad Azhar1990 CLC 1514 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
- Mithal vs The State1990 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a jail petition filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the High Court, upholding his conviction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code for committing two murders and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the conviction based on eyewitness testimony from related witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and recovery, in the absence of sudden provocation or enmity. The Supreme Court held that the conviction and sentence were proper and warranted no interference, noting that eyewitnesses were consistent and reliable despite being relatives. The key principle laid down is that related eyewitness testimony, when consistent and corroborated by medical and recovery evidence, is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction where no prior enmity or sudden provocation is established.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without independent corroboration?
- Does suspicion of Siahkari amount to sudden provocation sufficient to mitigate murder?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding a criminal conviction?
- Missri Khan vs Inspector-General of Police and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 772 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
- Miss Razia Sattar and anotherPetitoners vs Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital and 2 others1990 SCMR 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, Staff Nurses serving in Mayo Hospital, Lahore, were removed from service following disciplinary proceedings. Their departmental appeals before the Medical Superintendent and subsequent appeals before the Provincial Service Tribunal were dismissed. They sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the Chief Nursing Superintendent was competent under the Delegation of Powers Rules to direct the removal of the petitioners from service. The Supreme Court held that under the relevant Delegation of Powers Rules relating to the Health Department, the competent authority to remove the petitioners was the officer next below the Head of the Institution, whereas the Chief Nursing Superintendent ranked lower than that position. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the competency of the removing authority.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Nursing Superintendent was competent under the Delegation of Powers Rules to remove Staff Nurses from service?
- Who is the competent authority to remove Staff Nurses from service under the Delegation of Powers Rules relating to the Health Department?
- Miss Mahenau Agha vs United Liner Agencies of Pakistan Limited and 121990 PLD Karachi 198 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
- Miss Karin Scheppei vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 977 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-10Read full judgment →
- Miss Bushra Parveen vs Messrs Evergreen Industries Limited1990 PLC 621 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-02-20Read full judgment →
- Miss Beatrice Ben. vs Government Of PakistanPTCL 1990 CL. 109 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
- Miss Asma Usmani vs University of Karachi and another1990 MLD 2120 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
- Misri Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1023 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-09Read full judgment →
- Miskeen Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 60 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, facing trial under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, sought post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay after a previous bail application was dismissed with directions for an expedited trial within three months. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail as of right due to continuous detention exceeding one year without the trial being concluded, where the delay was not occasioned by the accused. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant had been in continuous custody for over a year for an offence not punishable with death and had not contributed to the delay, he satisfied the requirements of the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that when statutory conditions regarding delay are fulfilled, the concession of bail must be granted as of right rather than as a matter of grace, notwithstanding the gravity of the allegations or the quantity of contraband recovered.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail as of right when continuous detention exceeds one year for an offence not punishable with death?
- Does failure to conclude a trial within the directed timeframe constitute a ground for statutory bail?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of recovery of a huge quantity of contraband when statutory conditions for delay are met?
- Mirza Zamir Baig and another vs Messrs Kohinoor Marble Industries Ltd.1990 PLC 302 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
- Mirza Zafar Ali And 4 Others vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab And 2 Other1990 CLC 1772 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, interfering with an allotment of land made to the petitioners as informers under settlement laws. The core legal questions involved whether the Member (Revenue) possessed the jurisdiction to review, set aside, or interfere with final orders of notified settlement officers after the repeal of evacuee property laws, and whether an informer-claimant entitled to resumed land could be granted alternative land of their choice when the specific resumed land was unavailable. The Lahore High Court held that after the repeal of settlement laws, settlement authorities and revenue boards had no power of review, appeal, or revision, making the orders of notified officers final and immune to executive interference. The court further held that under Section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, if the resumed land identified by an informant-claimant is unavailable, they are lawfully entitled to alternative land of their choice. The impugned order was struck down as being without lawful authority and jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the Member, Board of Revenue has the jurisdiction to review or set aside final orders passed by notified officers under the settlement laws after their repeal?
- Is an informer who is also a claimant entitled to the allotment of alternative land of their choice if the specific resumed land identified through information is unavailable?
- Whether the restoration of a dismissed mukhbari application amounts to an incompetent review after the repeal of evacuee property laws?
- Does a notified settlement officer have the authority to implement an allotment order by examining the availability of land and granting options in accordance with statutory provisions?
- Mirza Muhammad Yousif vs Senior Superintendent of Police and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 66 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
- Mirza Mubarak Ahmed Nusrat vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 1097 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-17Read full judgment →
- Mirza Azam Beg vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mirza Ansar Baig vs The Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others1990 SCMR 1433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal in limine. The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Federal Investigation Agency, sought seniority and consequential promotion benefits, challenging the promotion of respondents who were his juniors. The petitioner argued that his departmental appeal and subsequent appeal to the Tribunal were timely, claiming he only became aware of the respondents' promotions to Inspector after receiving his own pro forma promotion. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's appeal was time-barred due to his failure to challenge the respondents' promotions within the statutory limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly determined the appeal was time-barred. The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to file a departmental appeal against the specific promotion order of the respondents dated 19th November 1987 within the prescribed time. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming that ignorance of an administrative order does not automatically extend limitation periods for challenging departmental promotions.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is maintainable if the underlying departmental appeal was filed beyond the statutory limitation period?
- Does the date of knowledge of a promotion order extend the limitation period for filing a departmental appeal against that promotion?
- Can a civil servant claim seniority and consequential benefits retrospectively if the initial promotion order was not challenged in time?
- Mirza Ali vs Mst. Shahida Parveen And Other1990 CLC 1101 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mirza Abdullah Anwar Beg vs Mahmood Hamid Bhatti And 4 Other1990 CLC 897 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
- Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd. vs District Council, Tharparkar and 21990 MLD 317 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the imposition of export tax and toll by District Councils on goods produced within the province but destined for delivery in other provinces of Pakistan, arguing that such levies violate the freedom of trade and commerce. The core legal question was whether local export taxes imposed by district councils on goods leaving the province contravene the constitutional guarantees of freedom of inter-provincial trade under Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The court held that while general export taxes for local revenues are permissible, imposing taxes or restrictions on goods manufactured or produced in one province and intended to be transported to another province directly violates Article 151(3) of the Constitution. The court laid down the principle that what cannot be done directly by the provincial legislature cannot be done indirectly through delegated powers to local authorities, and inter-provincial trade must remain free from discriminatory provincial or local taxation unless protected by specific constitutional exceptions requiring presidential consent.
Questions settled- Does the imposition of an export tax by a district council on goods destined for another province violate Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Is intra-provincial trade protected under the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed by Article 151(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can a restriction or tax prohibited at the provincial legislative level be validly imposed through delegated powers at a subordinate local level?
- How should the determination of goods leaving a province and the issue of tax refunds be handled when interim constitutional orders have been granted?
- Mirbaz Khan and 2 Other vs Atlas Khan and OtherK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 104 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mirbaz Khan alias Bazi and 2 others vs Atlas Khan and 33 others1990 PLD Peshawar 108 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
- Miraj Ahmiad vs Malik Sadam Khan And 8 Other1990 CLC 1674 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mir Rehman vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Mir Pio Jan And Others vs District Judge, Bannu And Other1990 CLC 1165 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mir Basi Iai vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1225 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-05Read full judgment →
- Mir Ali and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2042 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mir Alam Gul and anothers vs Ismail and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by leave of the Court, challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a revision petition against a pre-emption decree. The core legal question was whether a vendee could claim the benefit of the incidents of a sale (specifically, becoming a co-sharer in the estate) to defeat a pre-emption claim, a matter previously subject to conflicting views between the Lahore and Peshawar High Courts. The Supreme Court observed that this specific legal question had already been authoritatively settled in Ahmad Khan v. Sattar Din (PLD 1981 SC 148) and subsequently reaffirmed in Bashir Hussain Shah v. Maskin (1988 SCMR 1251) and Gulzada v. Muhammad Usman (PLD 1990 SC 465). The Court held that a settled point of law, consistently followed in a chain of judgments, should not be lightly reopened or changed, as continuity and certainty in the law are essential for judicial administration. Finding no merit in the appellant's insistence on re-examining the established precedent, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the legal position remained against the appellants.
Questions settled- Can a vendee claim the benefit of the incidents of a sale to defeat a pre-emption claim?
- Should a settled point of law, consistently followed in a chain of judgments, be lightly reopened or changed?
- Is continuity and certainty in the law essential for good judicial administration?
- Mir Ajab Gul and others vs Noor Nawaz Khan and others1990 MLD 2111 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-23Read full judgment →
- Mir Afzal vs Niamat Khan and others1990 SCMR 1307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondents, Niamat Khan and Abdullah Khan, of charges under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents had originally been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Attock, for the murder of Haleem Gul and sentenced to death. The High Court, in a consolidated judgment, allowed the respondents' appeal, acquitted them, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition against the acquittal of two other co-accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's acquittal of the respondents warranted interference by the apex court. Upon reviewing the submissions and the evidence on record, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner was essentially seeking a re-appraisal of evidence on questions of fact. The Court determined that the case did not meet the threshold for such an exercise. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court generally declines to re-evaluate factual findings in criminal appeals where no legal error is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court undertake a re-appraisal of evidence on questions of fact in a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal?
- Is a case fit for interference by the Supreme Court if the petitioner merely seeks a re-evaluation of factual findings made by the High Court?
- Mir Afzal Khan vs Ejaz Akbar, Principal, Pakistan International Public1990 MLD 2207 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
- Mir Afzal And 2 Others vs Muhammad Raza Khan And 13 Other1990 CLC 1617 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Abbottabad, whereby a suit for possession of urban land was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. The core legal question revolved around whether the plaintiffs established valid title to the suit property through a chain of registered sale deeds tracing back to the original owner, notwithstanding erroneous entries in the revenue record (ownership column) favouring the defendants' predecessor. The Peshawar High Court held that the plaintiffs successfully proved their title and continuous possession through predecessors and tenants, while the rival entries in the name of the defendants' predecessor originated from a settlement mistake and did not confer valid ownership. The Court laid down that erroneous entries in the revenue record during settlement operations do not override a valid chain of registered title deeds, and that tenants who deny the title of their landlords and collude to acquire flawed entries are liable to eviction and dispossession.
Questions settled- Does an erroneous entry in the ownership column of the revenue record during settlement operations override a valid chain of registered sale deeds?
- Whether mere omission to frame an issue vitiates trial proceedings if parties were fully aware of the contest and led evidence thereon?
- Can a tenant who denies the title of the landlord and acquires a transfer from a third party with a flawed revenue entry claim lawful possession against the true owner?
- Mir Abbas Khan vs Gulap Shah1990 SCMR 1725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal by a vendee tenant seeking protection from a pre-emption claim regarding land purchased within a joint holding. The initial question for consideration was whether the appellant is entitled to protection for the entire share of the purchased land, which is less than the total area of his tenanted land in the joint holding, rather than just a portion proportionate to the vendor's share. Additionally, the appellant raised a significant legal contention regarding the respondent's right of pre-emption. The appellant argued that the respondent based his claim on co-sharership derived from inheritance from a father who died after the sale but before the suit was instituted. Relying on recent Supreme Court precedents, the appellant contended that such an inherited right of pre-emption is not permissible under Islamic law. The Court found the request to include this additional point for consideration reasonable, granted leave to appeal on this ground, and ordered the appeal to be heard alongside a pending review application addressing the same legal issue.
Questions settled- Is a vendee tenant entitled to protection from a pre-emption claim for the entire share of purchased land if that share is less than the total area of his tenanted land in a joint holding?
- Is a right of pre-emption based on inheritance from a father who died after the sale but before the institution of the suit permissible under Islamic law?
- Mir Abbas Khan vs Amanullah Kiian And Other1990 CLC 1848 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
- Mian Zafar Iqbal, Advocate vs Ch. Ghulam Sarwar Cheema1990 CLC 2022 · Board of Revenue · 1990-04-08Read full judgment →
- Mian Tajammal Hussain and 7 others vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture Department1990 MLD 570 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-05Read full judgment →
- Mian Saifurrahman vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi1990 SCMR 1410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner, an Assistant Controller of Import and Export in Azad Kashmir, from service following allegations of issuing illegal permits. After being served with a charge sheet, the petitioner failed to appear before the inquiry officer, leading the authority to dismiss him under Rule 8(b) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. His departmental appeal before the Service Tribunal was also dismissed. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's detention constituted a valid ground for his failure to participate in the departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's explanation was untenable because he was released on bail shortly after his arrest and failed to offer any justification for not attending the inquiry thereafter. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that detention does not excuse non-appearance when a petitioner is subsequently released on bail and still fails to join proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether detention under criminal charges justifies a government servant's failure to participate in a departmental inquiry?
- Can an authority proceed to dismiss a civil servant ex parte under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules upon failure to attend proceedings?
- Mian Rauf Hussain vs Sadia Siddiqui1990 SCMR 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court that allowed a transfer application moved by the respondent, transferring a civil suit pending at Depalpur to Lahore primarily on the ground of convenience. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court properly exercised its judicial discretion in transferring the suit. The Supreme Court held that no legal or other infirmity existed in the impugned order and that the discretion was properly exercised by the High Court under the circumstances. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court will not interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court regarding the transfer of a suit from one station to another when such discretion has been exercised properly based on the balance of convenience.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has the power to transfer a civil suit on the ground of convenience?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary transfer order passed by the High Court?
- Mian Muhammad, Subinspector of Police vs Province of Punjab and another1990 SCMR 1473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, challenged an order stopping his increment for one year due to alleged inefficiency and negligence in a theft investigation. After his initial appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was dismissed, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Inspector-General, which was rejected as not maintainable under the relevant rules. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, but his appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the time spent pursuing a non-maintainable second appeal before the Inspector-General could be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Court held that since the order of the Deputy Inspector-General was final under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, no second appeal lay, and the time spent in such proceedings could not be excluded. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, establishing that pursuing a legally non-maintainable remedy does not toll the limitation period for subsequent proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a second appeal lie against an order passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules?
- Can the time spent pursuing a non-maintainable second appeal be excluded from the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Mian Muhammad Unees alias Pir Badshah vs Ghulam Hassan1990 MLD 219 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Nawab vs Rifat Sharif and anothers1990 PLD Lahore 19 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Mansha vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central1990 PTD 244 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-07Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Mansha vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central ZonePTCL 1990 CL. 698 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Ismail vs Manzoor Ahmad And Other1990 CLC 1112 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property. The core legal question was whether the agreement to sell (Ex.P.1) was duly proved and whether the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The trial and appellate courts had dismissed the suit, finding the agreement not proved. The High Court, upon re-evaluating the evidence, held that the plaintiff had successfully discharged the initial onus of proof through the testimony of the scribe and an attesting witness, which remained unrebutted. The Court further held that the subsequent purchaser had constructive and actual notice of the prior contract, as evidenced by his role in drafting the receipt for the remaining consideration and the plaintiff's open possession of the property. Consequently, the Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts and decreed the suit for specific performance. The key principle laid down is that where a plaintiff discharges the initial burden of proof regarding a document's execution, the onus shifts to the defendant, and a subsequent purchaser with notice of a prior contract cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser.
Questions settled- Does the possession of property by a prior purchaser constitute sufficient notice to a subsequent purchaser?
- Can a contract for the sale of immovable property be specifically enforced against a subsequent purchaser who had notice of the prior agreement?
- What is the standard for proving the execution of a document under Section 67 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- When does the burden of proof shift from the plaintiff to the defendant in a civil suit for specific performance?
- Mian Muhammad Aslam vs Mirza Muhammad Anwar, Deputy Director, F.Ia. and another1990 SCMR 987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his appeal regarding adverse remarks in his Confidential Report as time-barred. The petitioner had received adverse remarks for the period of August to December 1984. After his departmental representation was rejected on February 24, 1986, he filed an appeal with the Tribunal on August 19, 1986. The petitioner argued that the delay was justified because he was occupied with challenging a separate removal order issued on February 27, 1986. The Tribunal, through the Chairman's deciding vote, found the explanation unsatisfactory and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the petitioner should have pursued his remedy against the adverse remarks concurrently with his challenge to the removal order. The Court held that the explanation for the delay was insufficient and that no question of law of public importance existed to warrant further examination. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Is the preoccupation with a separate removal order a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal against adverse remarks?
- Does the view of the Chairman of the Federal Service Tribunal prevail over other members in the event of a disagreement regarding the condonation of delay?
- Mian Muhammad Aslam and 3 others vs The Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura and another1990 MLD 1725 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Anwar Monno O and 2 others vs Kotri Textile Mills Ltd.1990 MLD 348 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-07Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Anwar and 2 others vs Mian Muhammad Waqar1990 P Cr. L J 353 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the applicants seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against them under Section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants and the respondent are partners in a business whose premises are the subject of a pending civil suit, wherein a temporary status quo order had already been passed. The respondent subsequently filed a private criminal complaint alleging criminal trespass. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings can be maintained when the dispute is purely of a civil nature and lacks any definite accusation of a criminal character. The Sindh High Court held that initiating criminal proceedings on a complaint that does not disclose a distinct criminal offence, but rather a civil dispute, constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the Court accepted the application and quashed the criminal proceedings, laying down the principle that civil litigation must not be converted into criminal prosecution to harass parties or settle private disputes.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the underlying dispute is purely of a civil nature?
- Whether a private complaint that does not contain any definite accusation of a criminal nature constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?
- What is the duty of a Magistrate under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before issuing process in a private complaint arising from a business or civil dispute?
- Mian Muhammad and 5 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
- Mian Irshadul Haque vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Works and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 232 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Mian Inayat Maula Quraishi vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan1990 SCMR 1550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service. The petitioner, a member of the Provincial Civil Service (E.B.) in the Punjab, was suspended in December 1969 and subsequently dismissed from service by the President on 4 March 1970 following proceedings initiated under Martial Law Regulation No 58. Upon the constitution of the Punjab Service Tribunal, the petitioner challenged his dismissal, but his appeal was dismissed on 3 August 1980. During the pendency of the subsequent petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the Provisional Constitution Order was amended by C.M.L.A's Order No III of 1982, causing the petition to abate. The Supreme Court held that the petition stood abated by virtue of the constitutional amendment. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the contention regarding mala fides was considered, the Tribunal had already found the charges against the petitioner proved on the record, rendering the case unfit for the grant of leave to appeal. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Questions settled- Does a petition for leave to appeal against an order of dismissal passed under Martial Law stand abated by virtue of the amendment made in the Provisional Constitution Order by C.M.L.A's Order No III of 1982?
- Whether an allegation of mala fides can save a petition from abatement under the Provisional Constitution Order when the charges against the civil servant stand proved on record?
- Mian Ijaz Majid vs Zafarullah Khan and 3 others1990 SCMR 450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a tenant's appeal arising from the dismissal of a Rent First Appeal by the High Court in a Cantonment Rent Restriction matter, where the tenant was ordered to be evicted after his defence was struck off for failing to deposit rent arrears on time. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller could validly include a heavily disputed past payment made to an alleged agent in the approximate arrears of rent without first determining the controversy regarding the agency, and subsequently penalise the tenant for non-compliance. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller erred by leaving a serious bona fide dispute over past payments unresolved and forcing the tenant to deposit the disputed sum under penal consequences. The Court laid down the principle that because rent restriction provisions resulting in the striking off of a defence have penal consequences, a Rent Controller must determine approximate arrears properly rather than leaving complex factual controversies to the parties' own good-will, and cannot treat an ambiguous or defective deposit order as a valid ground for eviction without deciding underlying disputes of default.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller include a heavily disputed past payment in approximate rent arrears without determining the underlying controversy?
- Whether an order for the deposit of rent arrears that leaves serious factual disputes to the parties' good-will can form the basis for striking off a tenant's defence?
- Does a defective rent deposit order vitiate subsequent eviction proceedings based on the striking off of a defence?
- Mian Aziz A. Sheikh. vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Investigation, LahorePTCL 1990 CL. 290 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the inclusion of dividend income from shares transferred by an assessee to his wife in lieu of increased dower into the assessee's total income. The Income Tax authorities and the High Court held that the increase in dower was not proven because no contemporaneous documentary evidence existed, thus failing the "adequate consideration" test under Section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reversed this decision, holding that the lower authorities erred by imposing a requirement for contemporaneous documentary evidence. The Court ruled that under Islamic Law, a husband’s declaration or acknowledgement of an increase in dower is sufficient evidence of the transaction. The Court emphasized that rules of evidence regarding dower are substantive Islamic Law, not merely procedural. Consequently, state functionaries cannot apply rules repugnant to Islamic Injunctions, and the High Court’s affirmation of the restrictive evidentiary requirement was set aside. The Court concluded that the dividend income was improperly included in the assessee's income, thereby allowing the appeal.
Questions settled- Is contemporaneous documentary evidence required to prove an increase in dower under Islamic Law?
- Does a husband's declaration of an increase in dower constitute sufficient evidence of the transaction?
- Can state functionaries apply rules of evidence that are repugnant to Islamic Injunctions?
- Is the rule of evidence regarding the proof of dower increase a matter of substantive Islamic Law?
- Mian Abdul Waheed vs Khawaja Muhammad Saeed and another1990 MLD 823 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mian Abdul Majid vs Govt. of Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Labour and Service Cases 290 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mian Abdul Majid vs Govt. of Punjab EtcK.L.R.1990 Labour & Services 327 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mian Abdul Majid vs Government of Punjab and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 655 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs.' Basco Enterprisers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Muhammad Siddique and 21990 MLD 211 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs. F. Rahimtoola Ltd. through its Directors and others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Ministry of Excise and Taxation, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and others1990 MLD 2226 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Zor Engineers Ltd. vs The State Bank of Pakistan and others1990 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute between a contractor and the State Bank of Pakistan regarding a construction contract. Following the contractor's failure to complete the project, the State Bank filed a suit for recovery of damages and sought an interim injunction to restrain the contractor from selling their tools, plants, and machinery. The trial court granted the injunction, preventing the disposal of this property without court permission, despite the property not being the direct subject matter of the suit. The High Court dismissed the contractor's appeal in limine. The Supreme Court addressed whether a court can restrain the disposal of property not directly involved in the suit to secure potential future damages. The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its inherent powers to affirm the trial court's order. The ratio established is that a court may, under its inherent powers, impose restraints on a party's assets to ensure the satisfaction of a potential decree, even if those specific assets are not the subject matter of the litigation.
Questions settled- Can a court restrain the disposal of property that is not the subject matter of the suit to secure a potential decree?
- Does a court have the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to issue an interim injunction to protect the recovery of damages in a pending suit?
- Messrs Zain Packaging Industry Ltd. vs Commisioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi1990 PTD 407 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs Muhammad1990 PLC 49 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited vs Sindh Labour1990 PLC 268 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Usman Textile Mills Ltd. vs Assistant Collector of Central1990 PLD Karachi 324 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs United Paint House vs The Executive Engineer And 2 Other1990 CLC 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Iftikhar and Company and 6 others1990 PLD Lahore 111 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a suit filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 by United Bank Limited for the recovery of Rs. 10,13,374.00 against a partnership firm, its partners, and a private limited company. The defendants sought leave to appear and defend the suit, raising contentions that the suit was barred by limitation, that the partnership firm stood dissolved upon the death of a partner under Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932, and that the private limited company did not assume the liabilities of the partnership. The Lahore High Court held that the suit was within time due to continuous acknowledgments of debt and because it was governed by the twelve-year limitation period for mortgage suits under Article 132 of the Limitation Act. The Court further held that the dissolution of a partnership upon a partner's death is subject to a contract between the partners or their conduct indicating an intention to continue the business, which was evident here. Finally, the Court found that the private limited company had assumed the liabilities of the firm. Consequently, the petition for leave to defend was dismissed and a preliminary decree was passed in favor of the plaintiff.
Questions settled- Whether the death of a partner automatically dissolves a partnership firm under Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932?
- What is the period of limitation for filing a recovery suit based on a mortgage of immovable property?
- Does a continuous acknowledgment of debt extend the period of limitation in a banking recovery suit?
- Whether a private limited company formed from a partnership firm inherits the liabilities of the said firm upon conversion?
- Messrs United Bank Limited vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central1990 PTD 257 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs TM Oil Industries Limited vs Messrs Bengal Oil Mills Ltd.1990 MLD 877 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a suit for damages following the defendants' failure to deliver rape-seed oil-cake under two contracts. The defendants contended that the contracts were frustrated because their mill was nationalized and taken over by the government under the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Industry (Control and Development) Ordinance 1973, rendering performance impossible. The court addressed whether the defendants remained liable despite the government takeover. Holding in favor of the defendants, the court ruled that the contracts were frustrated by operation of law. Since the government had assumed control of the mill before the delivery deadline and the plaintiffs' exercise of their option, the defendants were effectively prevented from performing their obligations. Consequently, the defendants were absolved of liability. The court further noted that the plaintiffs failed to adequately prove the quantum of damages, as they relied on hearsay evidence and suppressed relevant documentation. The judgment affirms that the doctrine of frustration applies when an unforeseen event, such as government intervention, renders contract performance impossible, automatically terminating the agreement without fault. The suit was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of frustration apply when a contract becomes impossible to perform due to government nationalization of a business?
- Is a defendant liable for breach of contract if the government takes over their business, rendering performance impossible?
- Does the burden of proof lie with the plaintiff to establish the quantum of damages in a breach of contract suit?
- Can a contract be considered frustrated if the impossibility of performance occurs due to an unforeseen government order?
- Messrs Sultan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone `A'1990 PTD 241 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses Income Tax Cases relating to an assessee engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The core legal question revolved around whether there was sufficient evidence or material on record to support the Income Tax Officer's rejection of trading results and the Tribunal's estimation of sales and gross profit rates of 17.5% and 20.5% respectively. The Court held that the Tribunal fixed the gross profit rates merely on presumptions rather than on the basis of definite material or cogent evidence on record. The key principle laid down is that tax authorities and Tribunals cannot estimate sales and apply gross profit rates based on mere presumptions without supporting evidence or cogent material on the record.
Questions settled- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case was there any basis for applying 17-1/2% and 20-1/2% as the rate of profit on the estimated sales for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 respectively?
- Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in estimating sales and directing the application of a specific rate of gross profit on estimated sales without supporting evidence?
- Can the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal fix gross profit rates merely on presumptions rather than on definite material or cogent evidence on record?
- Messrs Sultan Chemical Industries vs Government of Pakistan and 31990 MLD 313 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sterling Plywood Industries vs Collector Of CustomsPTCL1990 CL. 859 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Shifa Medico vs The Metropolitan Corporation of Lahore and another1990 SCMR 639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging Octroi charges levied by a lower functionary of the Metropolitan Corporation of Lahore's lessee/agent. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust statutory remedies and approach higher authorities within the local government structure before filing the writ petition. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, refusing leave to appeal. The Court affirmed the principle that constitutional jurisdiction should generally not be exercised unless the view of the subordinate tribunal or authority, before whom the grievance was agitated under the relevant statute, is known. It was also held that there is no bar for a higher functionary to seek assistance, such as a report or opinion, from a lower co-ordinate functionary when addressing a grievance.
Questions settled- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked without first exhausting statutory remedies?
- Is it necessary to approach higher authorities within a statutory framework before filing a writ petition?
- Can a higher functionary seek a report or opinion from a lower functionary when addressing a grievance?
- Should a High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction without knowing the view of the subordinate authority where the grievance originated?
- Messrs Shamim Brothers Limited vs The C.I.T. Central, Karachi1990 PTD 885 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shado BROTHERSs vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1990 SCMR 1604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the dismissal of a Constitutional petition concerning an urban settlement dispute. The appellants, claiming status as old tenants of evacuee property, sought transfer of the property, while the respondent held a valid allotment. The core legal question was whether the appellants could be legally considered in possession of the property, thereby establishing eligibility for transfer under settlement laws, given that the actual occupant had attorned to the respondent/allottee. The Supreme Court held that the mere declaration of old tenancy did not grant the appellants a preferential right to transfer, especially where the allotment was made due to the appellants' default. The Court determined that because the occupant had disowned the appellants and accepted the respondent as the source of occupation, the respondent was more capable of obtaining physical possession. Consequently, the respondent was deemed to be in possession. The Court affirmed that the respondent's right to transfer was superior, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing that the occupant's attornment to the allottee effectively negated the appellants' claim to constructive possession.
Questions settled- Does a declaration of old tenancy automatically entitle a claimant to the transfer of evacuee property under settlement laws?
- Can an allottee be deemed in possession of a property when the actual occupant has attorned to them, despite a prior declaration of tenancy in favor of another party?
- Does the fact that an occupant was originally a licensee of a claimant give the claimant a superior right to transfer if the occupant has subsequently disowned that relationship and sided with an allottee?
- Messrs Sallos (Private) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 907 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rufi Builders vs Karachi Development Authority, through its1990 SCMR 1681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an appellate bench order of the High Court of Sindh upholding the refusal of an ad-interim injunction in a pending civil suit regarding the auction of a plot of land. The core legal questions involve determining the competent authority for approving an auction bid and whether the governing body that supposedly rejected the bid was legally in existence at the relevant time. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and accepted it, holding that where serious triable issues regarding a prima facie case exist, an interim arrangement protecting the subject matter should operate while the High Court examines the merits. The Court laid down that pending the resolution of complex issues concerning authority and corporate governance in a suit, interim relief may be regulated by allowing conditional administrative acts subject to final judicial outcomes.
Questions settled- Whether the Auction Committee or the governing body is the competent authority for approving a bid given at an auction?
- Whether an interim injunction should be granted when serious issues regarding the competence and existence of a governing body require further inquiry?
- Can the confirmation of a re-auction be made subject to the final orders of the court in pending proceedings?
- Messrs Rizwan Cooperative Society Ltd. vs Lahore Development1990 SCMR 1660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition and subsequent Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which challenged land acquisition notifications issued by the Lahore Development Authority. The appellant-Society, having previously purchased land from the Custodian of Evacuee Property, sought to contest the acquisition on the grounds that the specific land in dispute was not included in the original development scheme formulated by the Lahore Improvement Trust. The core legal question was whether the appellant could re-agitate the issue of the land's inclusion in the development scheme, given that this matter had been previously raised and adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court in earlier review petitions. The Supreme Court held that the issue had already been conclusively decided against the appellant, as they had failed to produce the necessary notification to substantiate their claim during the review proceedings. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition, establishing the principle that a party cannot re-litigate a question of fact that has been previously considered and determined by the Court.
Questions settled- Can a party re-agitate a question of fact that has already been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in previous review proceedings?
- Does a society whose sale deed has been invalidated by the Supreme Court have the locus standi to challenge subsequent land acquisition notifications regarding the same property?
- Is it possible to challenge the inclusion of specific land in a development scheme without producing the relevant notification to prove its exclusion?
- Messrs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs Karachi1990 PLD Karachi 186 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Limited against the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and another, challenging the demand of Octroi on rice and allied articles brought within municipal limits. The core legal question is whether the petitioner Corporation, being wholly owned by the Federal Government, is entitled to tax immunity under Article 165 of the Constitution of Pakistan in respect of its property and assets, and whether regulatory Octroi rules apply to such movement. The Sindh High Court held that by lifting the veil of incorporation, the assets and property of the petitioner Corporation in substance belong to and vest in the Federal Government, thereby qualifying for constitutional tax exemption under Article 165. However, the Court ruled that such exemption does not grant absolute and unbridled freedom from regulatory procedures, and the Corporation must still comply with procedural safeguards, warehousing provisions, and certification rules under the Municipal Committees Octroi Rules 1964 to prevent tax evasion.
Questions settled- Whether a wholly owned federal corporation can claim tax exemption under Article 165 of the Constitution of Pakistan in respect of its property?
- Does lifting the veil of incorporation reveal that the assets of the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan vest in the Federal Government?
- Are the properties of the Federal Government exempt from municipal taxation such as Octroi under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked directly when an impugned action is manifestly without jurisdiction, bypassing alternative remedies?
- Messrs Ramzan Ice and Cold Storage vs Karachi Elect_____ Ric1990 MLD 999 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs R.C.D. Ball Bearings Limited vs The Sindh Labour Appellate1990 PLC 3 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Punjab Feeds Ltd. vs Abdul Ghafoor and 2 others1990 SCMR 439 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in a taxation dispute. The core legal question concerned the validity of a Commissioner's order which had set aside a District Council's levy of export tax, purportedly based on the Commissioner's belief that no government direction for such a levy existed. The High Court, upon receiving clarification from the Secretary of the Provincial Local Government Department, found that the Government had indeed issued a mandatory direction to the District Council to impose the export tax. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the Commissioner lacked the authority to suspend or reconsider a tax levy mandated by the Provincial Government. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, rejecting the petitioner's arguments regarding a lack of opportunity for hearing and the alleged falsity of the government's position. The Court affirmed that the Commissioner could not disregard valid government directions, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal based on the clear statutory framework governing local government taxation.
Questions settled- Can a Commissioner set aside a tax levy imposed by a District Council when that levy was directed by the Provincial Government?
- Does a statement by a government secretary regarding the existence of a mandatory direction to a local body carry legal weight in writ proceedings?
- Is a High Court judgment allowing a writ petition sustainable when the underlying factual premise regarding government direction is confirmed by the relevant department?
- Messrs Pakistan Oxygen Ltd vs Inayat Ali1990 PLC 41 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan National Produce Company Ltd., Shikarpur vs Nawab1990 PLC 585 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pak Cement Company Limited, Iskandarabad vs Punjab Labour1990 PLC 233 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had reinstated a probationer whose services were terminated by the petitioner company. The core legal question was whether a probationer is entitled to the protection of Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether the termination order, citing unsuitability for the job, satisfied the requirement of explicitly stating reasons for termination. The Court held that a probationer is a 'workman' under the Ordinance and is entitled to the protections of Standing Order 12(3). However, the Court ruled that the termination order, which stated the employee was assessed and found unsuitable for the job, constituted a valid 'termination simpliciter' and satisfied the requirement of explicitly stating reasons, provided no stigma was attached. The key principle laid down is that while a probationer's services cannot be terminated without a written order explicitly stating reasons, a reference to the probationer's unsuitability for the assigned job constitutes a sufficient reason for termination, absent evidence of mala fides or colorable exercise of power.
Questions settled- Is a probationer considered a 'workman' entitled to the protections of Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Can a probationer file a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Does a termination order citing 'unsuitability for the job' satisfy the requirement of explicitly stating reasons under Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Messrs Omar Associates Ltd. vs Imtiaz Ali1990 PLC 570 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Noon Sugar Mills Limited vs The Commissioner of Incometax, Rawalpindi1990 PLD Supreme Court 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding tax liability under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The appellant company purchased heavy machinery from a non-resident foreign supplier and was notified by the Income-tax Officer under section 43 of the Act as the statutory agent of the supplier. The core legal question was whether a statutory agent appointed under section 43 falls within the exception 'unless he is himself liable to pay any income-tax and super-tax thereon as an agent' under subsection (3-B) of section 18 of the Act, thereby relieving them from the duty to deduct tax at source upon payments to the non-resident, even before a formal assessment is framed against them. The Supreme Court held that liability to pay tax is distinct from assessment and quantification; once a person is declared or treated as an agent under section 43, they are 'liable' in the sense of being responsible at law. Consequently, the appellant was not under an obligation to deduct tax at source under section 18(3-B), and the Income-tax Officer's order treating the appellant as a defaulter under section 18(7) was without lawful authority. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the appointment of a person as a statutory agent under section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 makes such agent 'liable to pay tax' for the purposes of the exemption under subsection (3-B) of section 18 prior to the framing of a formal assessment order?
- Does the expression 'liable' in section 18(3-B) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 mean that liability must already have been determined by a completed assessment order, or does it refer to being legally responsible or answerable?
- Can an agent who is treated as responsible for the tax dues of a non-resident principal be penalized as an assessee in default under section 18(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 for failing to deduct tax at source under section 18(3-B)?
- Is liability to pay tax dependent upon assessment under the scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Messrs Noon Sugar Mills Limited vs The Commissioner of Incometax, Rawalpindi (Copy)1990 MLD 1977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court answering a reference in favor of the revenue under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the expression "unless he is himself liable to pay any income-tax and super-tax thereon as an agent" in subsection (3-B) of section 18 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, specifically whether an agent's personal liability to pay tax arises only after a formal assessment is completed in their name, or upon appointment as a statutory agent. The Supreme Court held that the liability to pay tax is distinct from assessment and quantification; once a person is duly notified and appointed as a statutory agent under section 43, they are "liable" in the sense of being legally responsible or answerable, and thus fall within the exception of subsection (3-B) of section 18. Consequently, such an agent is not under a legal obligation to deduct tax at source from payments made to a non-resident, and cannot be treated as an assessee in default under subsection (7) of section 18 for failing to make such deductions. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the liability of a statutory agent to pay income-tax for a non-resident arises only after an assessment has been completed in the agent's name?
- Does a person appointed as a statutory agent under section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, fall within the exception of being 'liable to pay tax as an agent' under section 18(3-B)?
- Can a statutory agent who fails to deduct tax at source be treated as an assessee in default under section 18(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, when they are already liable as an agent?
- Does tax liability under the Income-tax Act, 1922, depend upon assessment or does assessment merely particularize the sum to be paid?
- Messrs Noon Sugar Mills Limited vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi1990 PTD 768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning tax liability and deduction obligations under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The appellant company purchased heavy machinery from a non-resident foreign supplier under an agreement requiring the supplier to provide supervisory engineers, with the appellant undertaking tax liability. Notices were served on the appellant under section 43 to treat it as an agent of the non-resident. However, the Income Tax Officer completed the assessment directly against the foreign supplier and subsequently held the appellant to be an assessee in default under section 18(7) read with section 18(3-B) for failing to deduct tax at source, imposing a heavy penal interest. The Appellate Tribunal set aside this order, but the High Court answered a reference in favor of the Revenue. The core legal question was whether an agent's personal liability to pay tax under section 18(3-B) arises only after a formal assessment is completed in the agent's name. The Supreme Court held that liability does not depend on assessment, and since the appellant was already a declared statutory agent, it fell within the exception of section 18(3-B) ('unless he is himself liable to pay... as an agent') and was not under an obligation to deduct tax at source. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Tribunal's order.
Questions settled- Whether the personal liability of a statutory agent to pay tax under Section 18(3-B) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, arises only after an assessment is completed in the agent's name?
- Does liability to pay tax under the Income-tax Act, 1922, depend upon the completion of a formal assessment, or does assessment merely quantify the sum due?
- Is a person who has been notified as a statutory agent under Section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, obligated to deduct tax at source under Section 18(3-B) when making payments to a non-resident?
- Whether an Income-tax Officer can treat a statutory agent as an assessee in default under Section 18(7) for failing to deduct tax at source when the agent is already liable to pay the tax as an agent?
- Messrs Nizam Impex and anothers vs Government of Pakistan and others1990 SCMR 1187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the dismissal of Constitution petitions by the High Court regarding the assessment of customs and regulatory duties on imported goods. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of customs duty exemptions and imposition of regulatory duties after the opening of letters of credit or execution of sales contracts could be applied to such imports under Section 30 of the Customs Act 1969. The appellants relied on Supreme Court precedent holding that executive notifications cannot operate retrospectively to affect accrued contractual rights. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, observing that the legislature subsequently enacted Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 via Ordinance II of 1988, which was given retrospective effect. The Court held that under Section 31-A, the effective rate of duty includes any duty imposed or exemption withdrawn, notwithstanding prior court decisions, concluded contracts, or opened letters of credit. Consequently, the legal position created by Section 31-A rendered the appellants' claims unmeritorious.
Questions settled- Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 retrospectively apply withdrawn duty exemptions and regulatory duties to goods imported under letters of credit opened prior to such withdrawal?
- Can statutory amendments expressly override judicial precedent regarding vested contractual rights arising from opened letters of credit?
- How is the effective rate of import duty determined under Sections 30, 31, and 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 when exemptions are altered post-contract?
- Messrs Nirala & Company vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 24 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Nazir Muhammad & Brothers And Others vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan1990 CLC 729 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court decreeing the respondent's suit for recovery of outstanding rent arising from a lease agreement for an airport restaurant. The appellants challenged the closure of their evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, argued that the liability was unproven, claimed entitlement to a rent rebate due to business downturn, and moved applications for additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 and amendment of their written statement under Order VI, Rule 17. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and applications, holding that closure of evidence was justified as the appellants had neglected multiple opportunities. The court ruled that contractual rent cannot be unilaterally reduced without mutual consent, and the debt was established on admitted lease possession and default. Furthermore, additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill lacunae where documents were intentionally withheld, and an amendment changing the basic nature of the defence with inconsistent pleas is impermissible.
Questions settled- Can a trial court close a party's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when multiple opportunities have been granted and no sufficient cause is shown for further adjournment?
- Can a lessee unilaterally claim a reduction or rebate in agreed lease rent without a contractual provision or mutual consent?
- Can an appellate court allow production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to fill gaps where documents were in the party's possession and not produced before the trial court?
- Whether the principles governing amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply equally to written statements so as to prohibit a complete change in the nature of defence?
- Messrs National Security Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Messrs Hoechst1990 PLD Supreme Court 709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a recovery suit where the trial court granted the defendants unconditional leave to defend. The High Court subsequently modified this order, making the leave conditional upon the deposit of the disputed amount. The core legal question was whether this High Court order constituted a "final order" under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby permitting an appeal as of right, or whether it fell under Article 185(3), requiring a petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order was not a "final order" because it did not dispose of the rights of the parties or resolve the cardinal issues of the suit. The Court established that the test for finality is whether the order puts an end to the litigation; if the suit remains a "live suit" where rights are yet to be determined, the order is not final. Consequently, the Court determined that a petition for leave to appeal is the competent procedure under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Does an order granting conditional leave to defend constitute a 'final order' under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- What is the legal test to determine if an order is a 'final order' for the purpose of an appeal?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal the competent procedure for challenging a High Court order that does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties?
- Messrs National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs Arshad Ali Khalid Qureshi1990 PLD Karachi 436 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on behalf of defendant No. 2 to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree passed against him. The core legal questions involved whether the failure of a counsel to notice a case in the cause list constitutes sufficient cause for absence, and whether an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable when a judgment is passed on merits in the absence of a party. The court held that the omission of the counsel's name from the weekly cause list, leading to a failure to note the hearing date, constituted a sufficient cause for absence, and that a judgment passed in the absence of a party is ex parte notwithstanding that it was considered on merits. The key principle laid down is that minor lapses and human errors by a counsel in noting cause lists can be condoned as sufficient cause under Order IX Rule 13, and a judgment delivered in the absence of the defendant is considered ex parte even if the court proceeded to decide the issues on merits.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a counsel to notice a case in the cause list constitutes sufficient cause for absence under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable when a judgment has been passed on merits in the absence of the defendant?
- Does a judgment passed in the absence of a party qualify as an ex parte judgment notwithstanding the fact that the court considered the issues on merits?
- Messrs Nagaria Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs Zar Jamil1990 PLC 128 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Nadir Brothers vs Haji Muhammad and another1990 MLD 1720 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-15Read full judgment →