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.
- Leslie Sequeira vs Income-Tax Officer, Circle v, Zone C and another1990 PTD 58 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
- Latif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-06Read full judgment →
- Land Acquisition Collector, WAPDA Scarpvi, Rahimyar Khan and another vs Quresh Muhammad and 17 others1990 MLD 2133 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Lalji and others vs State of U.P.1990 MLD 1371 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Lalit Kumar Sharma and others vs Superintendent and Remembrancer1990 MLD 477 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-08-31Read full judgment →
- Lal vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Lal Muhammad vs The State1990 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's request for post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 17(4) of the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner, accused of murder and robbery, sought bail primarily on the grounds that his name was absent from the First Information Report and that the prosecution's case relied solely on the confessional statements of co-accused persons. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary material available during the investigation. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record and investigation papers, held that the High Court had not violated any legal provisions or principles governing bail in such serious offenses. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the lower courts correctly determined that a prima facie case existed against the petitioner, thereby disentitling him to the grant of bail at this stage of the proceedings.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail solely because their name is omitted from the First Information Report?
- Can the confessional statement of a co-accused constitute sufficient material to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of refusing bail?
- Does the existence of a prima facie case disentitle an accused from the grant of bail in non-bailable offenses?
- Lal Khokhar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
- Lal Hussain and others vs Pakistan and 6 others1990 MLD 223 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
- Lal Din vs Muhammad Arif and others1990 SCMR 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption claim initiated by a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation, following the sale of land. The central dispute involved the correction of Khasra Girdawari entries, which had been altered to reflect the vendee as the tenant, thereby defeating the plaintiff's pre-emption suit. After the Board of Revenue remanded the case for reconsideration, the High Court upheld the Collector's authority to correct revenue entries despite pending litigation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the implications of its earlier judgment in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with the impugned judgments as the specific ground for appeal was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and was not available during the earlier proceedings. The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the legal questions raised, instead dismissing the appeal and directing the relevant statutory authority to consider the case on remand in light of the principles established in the Sardar Ali precedent.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a pre-emption suit legally prohibit a Collector from exercising statutory powers to correct Khasra Girdawari entries?
- Should the Supreme Court adjudicate on new grounds of appeal not raised before the lower forums or the High Court?
- Is it the appropriate role of the Supreme Court to enforce legal precedents in individual cases without first affording the statutory authorities an opportunity to apply them?
- Lal (Deceased) Through L.R.S vs Muhammad Bibi And 3 Other1990 CLC 919 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
- Laiq Shah vs The State1990 MLD 581 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
- Lahore Stock Exchange Limited vs Fredrick J. Whyte Group (Pakistan)1990 PLD Supreme Court 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing an appeal against the trial court's order directing the filing of an arbitration agreement and referring the dispute to arbitration under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The core legal question was whether disputes concerning the validity, voidability, and existence of a contract induced by alleged misrepresentation or lack of authorization fall within the scope of a broadly worded arbitration clause, or whether such matters must be exclusively decided by a court of law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where an arbitration clause is of wide amplitude—covering any dispute concerning the interpretation, rights, liabilities, or duties under the agreement—questions regarding the validity of the contract, misrepresentation, authority of agents, and repudiation fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The Court laid down that a voidable contract under section 19 of the Contract Act does not render the arbitration clause inoperative ab initio, and an arbitrator appointed under a broadly worded clause is competent to determine issues relating to the contract's existence, scope, and effect.
Questions settled- Does a broadly worded arbitration clause cover disputes concerning the validity, existence, or voidability of the underlying contract?
- Can questions regarding whether a contract was induced by misrepresentation or lack of authority be determined by an arbitrator?
- Does the repudiation or termination of a contract automatically nullify the arbitration agreement contained within it?
- Whether an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act can be refused on the ground that the dispute involves challenges to the original contract?
- Lahore Municipal Corporation vs Muhammad Sarwar1990 CLC 379 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
- Lahore High Court] Ghulam Rasool and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1990 PLD Lahore 497 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Kuwait Flour Mills Co. Sak vs m.v. "Kashmir" and others1990 MLD 2196 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-12Read full judgment →
- Koyana Suryanarayana Reddy vs C. Chellayyamma1990 MLD 443 · Allahabad High Court · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
- Khushrangzeb vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2026 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Zonal Manager (Punjab), Civil Aviation1990 PLC (C.S.) 304 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad And 4 Others vs Khairat Hussain And. 6 Other1990 CLC 813 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Khushal Khan vs The State1990 MLD 46 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Begum vs Munawar Bibi And 6 Other1990 CLC 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-09Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Begum vs Muhammad Sharif and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 772 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-02Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ali and others vs Abdur Rauf and others1990 PLD Lahore 211 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, which reversed the trial court's dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a shop. The appellants contested the suit, arguing that the respondents lacked locus standi and that the agreement had been materially altered. The High Court found that the agreement was indeed interpolated after execution, specifically regarding the area of the property, without the appellants' consent. This alteration was deemed material as it encroached upon land the appellants intended to retain for a staircase. The Court held that specific performance is an equitable remedy requiring the plaintiff to approach the court with clean hands. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that any unilateral material alteration to a deed renders it void and incapable of enforcement. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate decree and restored the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit, concluding that the respondents' conduct precluded them from seeking the equitable relief of specific performance.
Questions settled- Does a unilateral material alteration of an agreement to sell render the contract unenforceable?
- Is a plaintiff who has interpolated a document entitled to the equitable remedy of specific performance?
- What is the effect of a material alteration in a contract on a suit for specific performance?
- Khurshid Alam, ExSBA vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence and 2 others1990 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner, employed as a Switch Board Attendant, was charge-sheeted for misconduct due to unauthorized absence from duty and was subsequently removed from service after ex parte proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The core legal question concerned the validity of the petitioner's removal from service and whether any substantial question of law arose regarding the unauthorized absence and the proceedings conducted against him. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate that he had applied for leave or that he was present on duty, and noted that no question of law was involved in the petition. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized absence from duty, coupled with a failure to substantiate leave applications or participate in disciplinary proceedings, justifies removal from service under the relevant disciplinary rules.
Questions settled- Whether unauthorized absence from duty without sanctioned leave constitutes misconduct warranting removal from service?
- Does a service tribunal's dismissal of an appeal raise a question of law when the employee fails to substantiate leave applications?
- Is leave to appeal maintainable against a service tribunal order where no substantial question of law is involved?
- Khurshid Alam vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Guiranwala and others1990 P Cr. L J 2059 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad vs Attiya Nigar And 2Other1990 CLC 297 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court challenged the concurrent findings and decrees of the Judge, Family Court, and the Additional District Judge, D.I. Khan. The lower courts had decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1 for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower amount, and maintenance allowance. The petitioner contested the decrees, contending lack of evidence regarding cruelty, claiming prior payment of dower, asserting that separate living disentitled the wife to maintenance, and arguing the dissolution was effectively on the ground of Khula requiring return of benefits. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that unsubstantiated allegations of misappropriation and immorality leveled against the wife constituted cruelty of conduct under Section 2(viii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving dower payment, and the wife was justified in living separately for sufficient reasons, preserving her right to maintenance. The concurrent findings showed no jurisdictional defect or misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether false or unproven allegations of misappropriation and immorality against a wife amount to cruelty of conduct under Section 2(viii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a husband pleads that the stipulated dower amount has already been paid?
- Does a wife forfeit her right to maintenance allowance if she lives separately from her husband for sufficient reasons?
- Can a dissolution of marriage granted under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 be treated as a decree of Khula requiring the return of benefits?
- Khursheed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 409 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal revision applications filed under Section 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging orders of bail bond forfeiture passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) in cases registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court retains revisional jurisdiction over interlocutory or ancillary orders passed by subordinate courts in cases governed by Hudood laws, or if such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the revision applications were incompetent before the High Court. It ruled that the term 'case decided' in Article 203-DD is sufficiently broad to encompass interlocutory and ancillary orders arising from Hudood proceedings. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain revisions in such matters, as Article 203-G of the Constitution expressly bars the jurisdiction of other courts in matters falling within the purview of the Federal Shariat Court's revisional authority. The applications were ordered to be returned to the applicants for presentation before the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by subordinate courts in cases under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does the term 'case decided' in Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include interlocutory or ancillary orders?
- Is the jurisdiction of the High Court barred by Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in matters subject to the revisional power of the Federal Shariat Court?
- Khudija Khanam and others vs Border Area Committee and others1990 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of agricultural land in village Nathuki, Lahore, by the Border Area Committee. The respondents were initially allotted the land in 1964, but the Committee subsequently cancelled these allotments in 1970, citing them as fictitious and bogus, and re-allotted the land to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Brigadier Zafar Ali. The respondents challenged the cancellation through writ petitions. Following a remand by the High Court, the Committee reaffirmed its decision that the respondents' original allotment was illegal and that the allotment to the petitioners' predecessor was valid. A Single Judge of the High Court upheld this decision. However, an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) filed by the respondents was subsequently accepted by the High Court. The petitioners, as successors-in-interest to Brigadier Zafar Ali, sought leave to appeal against the ICA judgment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the original allotment in favour of the respondents was in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether the original allotment of agricultural land by the Border Area Committee in favour of the respondents was in accordance with the law?
- Khuda Yar and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-11Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bux Baluch vs M. Atiqullah and others1990 PLC 599 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two constitutional petitions arising from an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) regarding the dismissal of a trade union official, Khuda Bakhsh, for alleged unfair labour practices. The core legal question was whether the Commission, under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, possessed the authority to order the reinstatement of a worker and grant back benefits when the underlying conviction for unfair labour practices had been set aside. The Sindh High Court held that the power to direct reinstatement is not an independent, ancillary, or incidental power, but is strictly consequential to a finding of guilt under Section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Commission lacked the legal authority to maintain an order for reinstatement and back benefits once the conviction had been quashed. The principle laid down is that the Commission's power to order reinstatement is conditional upon the accused being found guilty of the offence charged.
Questions settled- Can the National Industrial Relations Commission order the reinstatement of a worker if the conviction for unfair labour practice is set aside?
- Is the power of the National Industrial Relations Commission to direct reinstatement independent of a finding of guilt under Section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 allow for the grant of reinstatement as an interim relief during the trial of a complaint?
- Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1990 MLD 152 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh and anothers vs Federal Land Commission and others1990 SCMR 711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-17Read 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 dismissing the appellants' writ petition against an order of the Federal Land Commission. The core legal questions involved whether a High Court judgment setting aside a Federal Land Commission order without an explicit remand divests the Commission of jurisdiction to proceed, and whether the Federal Land Commission is competent to examine the legal completeness of a gift despite restrictions on inquiring into its bona fides under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Supreme Court held that setting aside the prior administrative order restored the status quo ante, enabling the Commission to resume proceedings from the stage prior to the vitiated order. Furthermore, while the Commission cannot inquire into the bona fides of certain gifts, it retains jurisdiction to examine whether a transaction is complete in law, including the requirement of delivery of possession for major donees. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Questions settled- Does the setting aside of a Federal Land Commission order by a High Court without an explicit order of remand divest the Commission of its jurisdiction to resume proceedings from the stage of the vitiated order?
- Whether the Federal Land Commission is competent to examine the legal completeness and validity of a gift under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, notwithstanding the bar on inquiring into its bona fides?
- Can a father accept a gift and delivery of possession on behalf of his major sons in respect of undivided agricultural land?
- Khizar Mahmood Qureshi vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government1990 PLC (C.S.) 334 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1989-11-16Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Ahmad Tariq Rahim vs Federation of Pakistan and others1990 PLD Lahore 505 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-14Read full judgment →
- Khawaja (International) Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Swabi vs Assistant1990 PLD Peshawar 169 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the interpretation of a Federal Government Notification granting customs and sales tax exemptions for raw materials imported for the 'exclusive manufacture of goods' within the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate. The petitioner, an industrialist, imported 'Acrylic Tow' to manufacture 'Acrylic Tops' but was denied the exemption by the respondents, who argued that the conversion process did not constitute 'exclusive manufacture' under the Notification. The core legal question was whether the transformation of Acrylic Tow into Acrylic Tops qualifies as a manufacturing process entitled to the tax exemption. The Peshawar High Court held that the process of converting raw material into a distinct, marketable product through skilled labor and machinery constitutes 'manufacture.' The Court rejected the respondents' narrow interpretation of 'exclusive,' clarifying that it refers to the use of raw materials specifically for manufacturing within the designated estate, rather than restricting the exemption to only 'ultimate' goods. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the tax exemptions provided by the Notification.
Questions settled- Does the conversion of raw material into a distinct, marketable product through skilled labor and machinery constitute 'manufacture'?
- Does the term 'exclusive manufacture' in a tax exemption notification limit the benefit to only the production of 'ultimate' goods?
- Can the definition of 'manufacture' from the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 be used to interpret the scope of manufacturing processes in tax exemption notifications?
- Khan Muhammad vs The State1990 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by Khan Muhammad against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing his sentence from death to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the petitioner's conviction based on the testimony of related and allegedly interested eye-witnesses, and whether the corroborative evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon was reliable given the acquittal of his co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the case requires a detailed examination to determine if the conviction was founded on a proper appraisal of evidence and legal principles. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the evidentiary value of interested witnesses and weapon recoveries.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and interested eye-witnesses can solely form the basis of a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused due to doubtful weapon recovery render the recovery of the weapon from the remaining petitioner equally doubtful?
- Whether the lower courts properly appraised the evidence and legal principles governing criminal liability in capital cases?
- Khan Muhammad Niazi vs The Secretary, Cooperation, Government of Punjab1990 SCMR 1416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, challenged the withholding of 50% of his pension following disciplinary proceedings initiated after his retirement. The proceedings were conducted under the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1963, regarding allegations of misconduct, including inefficiency, registration of fictitious societies, and misappropriation of crop loans. After the departmental inquiry established five out of six charges, the petitioner's departmental appeal was rejected, and his subsequent appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal was also dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the evidence did not support the findings of misconduct. The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings leading to the withholding of pension are permissible against a civil servant even after retirement. Regarding the evidentiary challenge, the Court determined that the sufficiency of evidence to support the charges was a question of fact, not law. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the charges were not without foundation.
Questions settled- Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a civil servant after their retirement?
- Does the withholding of pension based on findings of misconduct constitute a substantial question of law if the petitioner disputes the sufficiency of evidence?
- Khan Gul vs District Judge, Attock and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 263 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a judgment by the District Judge, Attock, which reversed a trial court's order recalling an ex parte decree in a maintenance suit. The petitioner argued that the limitation rule applied by the appellate court was ultra vires and that courts should favor adjudication on merits over technicalities. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed within a reasonable time, given the evidence of his prior knowledge of the proceedings and deliberate avoidance of service. The High Court held that the petitioner had consistently avoided service and possessed knowledge of the proceedings, rendering his belated application for recall of the decree unjustified. The Court affirmed that while adjudication on merits is preferred, this principle cannot be exploited by litigants using dilatory tactics. It held that the application was barred by laches and failed to meet the 'reasonable time' requirement under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Does the principle of adjudication on merits apply to a litigant who has employed dilatory tactics to avoid court proceedings?
- Can an application to set aside an ex parte decree be dismissed if it is not filed within a reasonable time?
- Is a finding by a lower appellate court regarding the reasonableness of time for filing an application subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Khan Bahadur vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police Pakistan1990 SCMR 1241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a departmental inquiry against an Assistant Sub-Inspector who was reduced in rank for failing to report for mandatory training and unauthorized travel. The core legal question was whether the departmental inquiry was vitiated because the appellant was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report or informed of the specific charges proved against him prior to the issuance of the final show-cause notice. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Service Tribunal, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the failure to supply an inquiry report does not automatically vitiate disciplinary proceedings in every instance. The governing principle established is that such proceedings are only vitiated if the procedural omission causes actual prejudice to the civil servant's defense. In this case, given the factual nature of the charges and the opportunity for a personal hearing provided to the appellant, the Court found no prejudice had occurred, thereby affirming the disciplinary action taken by the departmental authorities.
Questions settled- Does the failure to supply a copy of an inquiry report to a civil servant automatically vitiate departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- What is the test for determining whether procedural irregularities in a departmental inquiry warrant the setting aside of a penalty?
- Is a personal hearing sufficient to cure the failure to provide a copy of an inquiry report in a disciplinary case?
- Khalilurrehman vs Town Committee, Rabwah through Chairman1990 PLD Supreme Court 792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant challenging his compulsory retirement by the Town Committee, Rabwah. The suit was instituted before the Civil Judge, 1st Class, Chiniot, and was decreed in the appellant's favor. However, on revision, the High Court set aside the decree as null and void, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, because the Town Committee was sued through its Administrator, who was a public officer. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 could cure this jurisdictional defect. The Court held that the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 is a special law based on public policy, containing peremptory and prohibitive provisions that displace the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be invoked to validate proceedings conducted in violation of Section 24 of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, as a special law, override the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding territorial jurisdiction?
- Can Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cure a defect of jurisdiction arising from non-compliance with the peremptory provisions of Section 24 of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962?
- Does a suit against a Town Committee through its Administrator, who is a public officer, attract the jurisdictional bar under Section 24 of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962?
- Khalilur Rehman vs The Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad and anothers1990 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-05Read full judgment →
- Khalilur Rehman vs Said Hussain Shah And 3 Other1990 CLC 187 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-06-29Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmed and another vs District and Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi1990 P Cr. L J 1744 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmad vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner And Other1990 CLC 388 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-19Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmad and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1849 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-06-28Read full judgment →
- Khalid vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 459 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
- Khalid Nazir alias Khalid Aziz and anothers vs The State1990 SCMR 502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals challenged the convictions of the appellants under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, as upheld by the Federal Shariat Court. The primary legal questions were whether a Chemical Examiner's report is legally insufficient if it lacks detailed procedural explanations, and whether the absence of public witnesses to a recovery vitiates a conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a Chemical Examiner is not required to provide exhaustive procedural details in the report itself; such details are only necessary if the examiner is summoned and examined by the court upon request. The Court clarified that a brief report containing a definite opinion is sufficient unless challenged through proper application. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument regarding the necessity of public witnesses for recovery, noting that established jurisprudence does not mandate public witnesses for such recoveries. The judgment affirms the sufficiency of concise expert reports and reiterates that the absence of public witnesses does not automatically invalidate a recovery.
Questions settled- Is a Chemical Examiner's report legally defective merely because it lacks detailed procedural explanations?
- Under what circumstances must a Chemical Examiner provide details of the procedures used for analysis?
- Does the absence of public witnesses to a recovery automatically invalidate a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Khalid Agencies vs Collector Of Customs And AnotherPTCL 1990 CL. 748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing to stay the suspension of a private bonded warehouse license for alcoholic liquor. The Collector of Customs had suspended the license, citing the prohibition of alcoholic liquor under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner challenged the suspension, arguing it was issued without a show-cause notice and lacked statutory authority under the Customs Act, 1969, as the goods were intended for privileged consignees like foreign diplomats. The Supreme Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the underlying Constitutional petition or fully stay the suspension, as doing so would allow the continued business in potentially prohibited goods. However, the Court held that to prevent irreparable financial loss and injury, the suspension should not apply to stocks already imported and in-bonded for release to foreign diplomats and privileged persons. The Court modified the High Court's order to allow the release of these existing stocks, subject to standard legal compliance, while maintaining the suspension for future operations.
Questions settled- Can a court grant interim relief in a constitutional petition to allow the release of already imported goods from a suspended bonded warehouse?
- Does the suspension of a bonded warehouse license for alcoholic liquor apply to goods already in-bonded for privileged consignees?
- Khalid Agencies vs Collector of Customs and another1990 SCMR 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Sind High Court refusing to stay the suspension of the petitioner's private bonded warehouse licence for liquor. The Collector of Customs suspended the licence relying on a judgment regarding the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, which prohibits Muslims from dealing in alcoholic liquor. The High Court admitted the petitioner's constitutional petition for regular hearing but declined interim relief, prompting the present appeal. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and partly allowed it. The Court held that while interim suspension of the entire business should not be interfered with to prevent offending trade, relief ought to be granted regarding goods already imported and in-bonded for foreign diplomats to prevent irreparable loss and demurrage. The appeal was disposed of by modifying the High Court's order so that the suspension would not operate against the release of already in-bonded stocks subject to legal requirements.
Questions settled- Whether interim relief staying the suspension of a bonded warehouse licence should be granted when the underlying constitutional petition challenges the authority of the Customs Collector?
- Can a licence for a private bonded warehouse for liquor be suspended on the ground that the licensee is a partnership of Muslims in view of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Whether relief can be granted regarding already imported and in-bonded stocks of alcoholic liquor to prevent irreparable loss while main proceedings are pending?
- Khalid Abbas Dar vs Nawa-I-Waqt, Daily Urdu Newspaper of Nadai1990 PLC 504 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
- Khajoo Mal D. Bhuptani vs Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh1990 PLC (C.S.) 477 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
- Khair Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Aslam and 5 others1990 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 10-3-1986. The first petition, filed by the first informant, challenges the High Court's decision to commute the death sentences of four respondents to imprisonment for life and to acquit a fifth respondent. The second petition, filed by the convicts, seeks their acquittal. The underlying case involves a violent incident resulting in the deaths of three individuals from the complainant's side and one individual from the accused's side. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the arguments from both sides, determined that the case warrants a re-appraisal of the evidence to ascertain whether the High Court's reasoning aligns with established principles governing the administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions. Additionally, the Court issued non-bailable warrants for the respondent who had been acquitted and directed that the remaining respondents must not be released upon the expiry of their sentences pending the final disposal of the appeals.
Questions settled- Does a case involving cross-versions of a murder incident where multiple deaths occurred warrant a re-appraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
- Can the Supreme Court issue non-bailable warrants for an acquitted respondent while granting leave to appeal against that acquittal?
- Khair Afzal vs The State1990 PLD Peshawar 155 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
- Khadim Nadim Malik, Advocate vs Federation of Pakistan through President of Pakistan and 2 others1990 MLD 1931 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1296 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-23Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain and others vs Government of Pakistan and others1990 SCMR 1240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, concerning a service dispute where the respondents conceded to the stand taken by the petitioners in a written application. Acting upon this concession, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order. Subsequently, third parties filed civil miscellaneous petitions seeking to be impleaded as parties, asserting that their rights would be adversely affected by the respondents' concession. The Court held that since these applicants were not parties in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal, they lacked the requisite locus standi to challenge the concession at this appellate stage. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions for impleadment were rejected, establishing the principle that third parties not involved in the original tribunal proceedings cannot intervene to challenge a concession made between the primary litigants before the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether third parties who were not litigants before the Service Tribunal have the locus standi to challenge a concession made by respondents in the Supreme Court?
- Can a petition be converted into an appeal upon hearing the petitioner?
- Are parties who lack locus standi entitled to be impleaded in a main petition or appeal?
- Khadim Hussain and anothers vs The Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the procedural question of whether appeals arising from judgments or orders passed by a Single Judge of the High Court—specifically those outside appellate or revisional jurisdiction, such as writ jurisdiction—must be heard by a Bench of three Judges or if a Bench of two Judges suffices under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The Court examined the first proviso to Order XI, which lists categories of cases for a two-judge bench, connected by the conjunction 'and'. The Court held that the conjunction 'and' in this context must be construed disjunctively as 'or' to effectuate the legislative intent and maintain consistency with the Court's long-standing practice. The Court reasoned that if appeals from appellate or revisional orders of a Single Judge are heard by two judges, there is no logical basis to exclude other jurisdictions, such as writ jurisdiction, from this same procedural treatment. Consequently, the Court affirmed that appeals arising from orders or judgments passed by a Single Judge in any jurisdiction may be heard by a Bench of two Judges.
Questions settled- Can the word 'and' in a statute or rule be construed as 'or' to effectuate legislative intent?
- Is a Bench of two Judges competent to hear appeals arising from orders passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction?
- Does the long-standing practice of a Court regarding bench composition constitute a valid basis for interpreting procedural rules?
- Kh. Zubair Ahmad and others vs Collector and others1990 MLD 1941 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated by a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The core legal question was whether the failure to issue a notification under Section 5 of the Act within one year of the preliminary notification, as mandated by Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, caused the acquisition proceedings to lapse. The Court held that the proceedings had indeed lapsed. It determined that Rule 7 is mandatory, not directory, and that the failure to issue the Section 5 notification within the prescribed timeframe, absent an extension from the Board of Revenue, legally terminated the acquisition process. The Court further held that a corrigendum does not serve as an independent, fresh notification under Section 4, and that the government, as the framer of the rules, cannot challenge their vires. Consequently, once the Section 4 notification lapses, subsequent actions under Section 5 or Section 17 are legally impossible, as those provisions presuppose a valid, subsisting notification. The petition was accepted, and the acquisition proceedings were declared terminated.
Questions settled- Does the failure to issue a notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act within one year of the Section 4 notification cause acquisition proceedings to lapse?
- Is Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, mandatory or directory?
- Does a corrigendum to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act constitute a fresh, independent notification?
- Can the government challenge the vires of rules it has itself framed?
- Kh. Noorulamin, Advocate vs Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Naqi Khan1990 PLD Azad J&K 42 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
- Kh. Muhammad Kumail vs Gani and Tayab Ltd.1990 MLD 1177 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-02Read full judgment →
- Kh. Ghulam Mohi-Din vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 18 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1989-09-20Read full judgment →
- Kazi Abdul Quddus vs The District Magistrate, Hyderabad and another1990 P Cr. L J 2016 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-24Read full judgment →
- Kausar Ali and 3 others vs Muhammad Sabir and 6 others1990 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are cross-petitions for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-2-1988, which altered the convictions of the accused to Section 302/34 and Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, confirming one death sentence and altering others to imprisonment for life, while also maintaining certain acquittals. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency and proper legal standard of corroboration required for sustaining convictions where prosecution witnesses are deemed inimical and unreliable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the convicts to examine whether required corroboration qua each individual accused was properly forthcoming, but dismissed the complainant's petition seeking enhancement of sentences—noting that beneficiaries of a general amnesty now undergoing life imprisonment made the reimposition of death sentences incongruous—and declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion regarding the acquittals. The key principle laid down is that the sufficiency of corroborative factors and individual culpability require rigorous examination in cases where prosecution witnesses are found to be inimical and unreliable.
Questions settled- Whether corroboration of testimony qua each individual accused is necessary when prosecution witnesses are considered inimical and unreliable?
- Does the number of injuries alone serve as a sufficient criterion for determining the aggressor and the victim in a criminal cross-version case?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the acquittal of respondents when the High Court has exercised its discretion on grounds recognized as proper and plausible?
- Kasturi & Sons Ltd.' vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 1010 · Madras High Court · 1964-07-08Read full judgment →
- Kassim vs Budha Soomar and another1990 MLD 2217 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Kassim and another vs S. Rahim Shah1990 SCMR 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against concurrent orders of the High Court and Rent Controller directing the ejectment of tenants for non-payment of rent. The petitioners contested the ejectment, arguing that the respondent’s title was disputed due to pending civil litigation and a prior unregistered agreement to sell in their favor. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller should stay ejectment proceedings when the landlord's title is challenged by the tenant. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller correctly ordered eviction, as the respondent held a registered sale deed, which established prima facie title and the right to collect rent. The Court affirmed that a registered sale deed takes precedence over a prior unregistered agreement to sell under Section 50 of the Registration Act. Consequently, until a competent Civil Court decrees the cancellation of the registered deed, the Rent Controller is entitled to recognize the registered owner as the landlord for the purpose of rent recovery. The petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a pending civil suit regarding property title automatically oust the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller to order ejectment?
- Does a registered sale deed take precedence over a prior unregistered agreement to sell for the purpose of establishing a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Can a Rent Controller proceed with an eviction application when the ownership of the property is contested in a separate civil suit?
- Karim Nawaz vs Border Area Committee, Lahore And Other1990 CLC 1423 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
- Karim Bux and 16 others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department and 3 others1990 PLC 441 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 808 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-04Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh vs Haji Ghulam Dastgir And 5 Other1990 CLC 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh vs Gul Rehman1990 CLC 1200 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for possession by partition of a house. The defendant-petitioner claimed ownership based on unregistered sale-deeds executed by the plaintiff-respondent’s father while the respondent was a minor. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a father’s alienation of a minor's property without judicial permission and the permissibility of amending pleadings at the revisional stage to introduce new defenses like 'Benami' and 'bona fide purchaser'. The Court held that under Section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872, a minor is incompetent to contract, and a father cannot alienate a minor's immovable property without prior permission under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Consequently, the purported sale was void. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the application to amend the written statement, ruling that introducing new pleas at the revisional stage would violate the principle of 'secundum allegata et probata' and unfairly alter the suit's complexion. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the defendant could not rely on void transactions to defeat the plaintiff's title.
Questions settled- Is a contract entered into by a minor void under the Contract Act, 1872?
- Can a father alienate a minor's immovable property without prior permission from the Guardian Court?
- Can a party amend their written statement to introduce new pleas such as 'Benami' at the revisional stage?
- Does the principle of 'secundum allegata et probata' prevent a court from considering evidence on facts not pleaded in the written statement?
- Karim Bakhsh and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 814 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
- Karamat vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 503 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
- Karam Elahi through Legal Heirs vs Feroz Mining Limited, Abbottabad1990 PLD Peshawar 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
- Karachi Sind Development Corporation, Karachi [M/s.]. vs CommissionerPTCL 1990 CL. 210 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Karachi Properties Investment Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Revenue, Islamabad And AnotherPTCL 1990 CL. 1088 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs Amir Khan1990 PLC 631 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-21Read full judgment →
- Karachi Dock Labour Board vs Karachi Stevedores Conference and others1990 PLC 343 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-30Read full judgment →
- Karachi Dock Labour Board vs Income-Tax Officer and others1990 PTD 580 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
- Karachi Cooperative Housing Societies Union Ltd. vs Government of Sindh and 6 others1990 MLD 389 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a registered union of co-operative societies, approached the Sindh High Court challenging orders passed by an Advisor to the Chief Minister directing an inquiry against it under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, while a revision petition was pending. The core legal questions involved whether an Advisor to the Chief Minister could exercise revisional powers on behalf of the Provincial Government under Section 64-A of the Act, and whether such powers or functions could be delegated under the Sindh Government Rules of Business. The court held that prior to the relevant amendments to the Rules of Business, an Advisor did not possess the authority to exercise revisional powers for a department to which they were not attached, and that the Registrar's inquiry order, having been issued mechanically at the behest of the Advisor without independent application of mind, was without lawful authority. The court established that while the Provincial Government may exercise administrative or supervisory powers through designated functionaries under the Rules of Business, statutory powers must be exercised by authorized functionaries strictly in accordance with law and applicable rules.
Questions settled- Can an Advisor to the Chief Minister exercise revisional powers under Section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 on behalf of the Provincial Government?
- Whether rules framed under Article 139(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 can be treated as an integral part of the Constitution?
- Is an inquiry ordered by a Registrar solely at the behest of an unauthorized functionary legally sustainable?
- Can a statutory power conferred upon a government functionary be delegated in the absence of express authorization or necessary implication?
- Kando Khaskheli vs The State1990 MLD 613 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Kamran Co. and others vs Messrs Modern Motors and another1990 PLD Supreme Court 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an ex parte decree passed against the appellants after the Presiding Officer of the trial court was on leave and the Reader adjourned the case without complying with Order XVII, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by failing to hand over a date slip. The appellants had already filed their written statement denying liability, and issues had been framed. The trial court decreed the suit ex parte without recording any evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that when a defendant has filed a written statement and issues are framed, the court must decide the case on the merits. The court ruled that the discretion to pass an ex parte decree without recording evidence under the CPC must be exercised judicially and is not mandatory. Since the plaintiff produced no evidence and the procedural requirements of Order XVII, Rule 5 of the CPC were violated, the ex parte decree was unsustainable. Ultimately, the respondent withdrew the suit against the appellants, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court can pass an ex parte decree without recording evidence when the defendant has already filed a written statement and issues have been framed?
- Is the provision of handing over a date slip by the Reader under Order XVII, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code mandatory when the Presiding Officer is on leave?
- Does the word 'may' in the context of passing an ex parte decree without recording evidence import absolute discretion or must it be exercised judicially?
- Kameen Khan and 15 others vs Ghazi Marjan and 9 others1990 MLD 1865 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration filed by respondents against petitioners, challenging revenue record entries concerning the ownership of suit land. The respondents claimed ownership of half the land, arguing that a 1954 mutation only transferred half, while the revenue record erroneously reflected the petitioners as owners of the entire area. The petitioners contested the claim, asserting full ownership through purchase and, alternatively, adverse possession. The trial court and the appellate court both decreed in favor of the respondents, finding the revenue entries incorrect. The High Court upheld these concurrent findings, ruling that the mutation clearly evidenced a sale of only half the land. Regarding adverse possession, the Court held that the land was under mortgage during the relevant period, and the parties were joint owners (Hissadars), precluding any claim of adverse possession. Furthermore, the Court rejected arguments regarding the suit's maintainability under the Specific Relief Act and the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, noting that the suit was for declaration of title, not mere record correction, and that the minor defendant's interests were sufficiently protected by counsel.
Questions settled- Can a party claim adverse possession against a co-owner while the property is under mortgage?
- Is a suit for declaration of title maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 if the plaintiff does not seek consequential relief of possession?
- Does the failure to appoint a guardian-ad-litem for a minor defendant automatically vitiate the proceedings if the minor's interests were otherwise represented and safeguarded?
- Do Civil Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit for declaration of title despite the existence of conflicting revenue record entries?
- Kalo vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Kakku alias Sheeda vs The State1990 SCMR 1310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Kakku alias Sheeda against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which maintained his conviction and sentence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order for possessing opium, while setting aside his conviction under Article 3. The core legal question involves the propriety of convictions based solely on the testimony of police witnesses without independent corroboration from public witnesses, a matter under examination by the Supreme Court in other cases. The Supreme Court did not finally decide the merits of the case but ordered that the sentence of the petitioner be suspended and he be released on bail pending the hearing of similar matters.
Questions settled- Are convictions based solely on the testimony of police witnesses proper in criminal cases?
- Can the sentence of a convict be suspended pending the examination of related legal questions by the Supreme Court?
- Kadirullah vs Rahim Gul alias Abdur Rahim and another1990 P Cr. L J 1791 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
- K.S. Sulemanji Esmailii & Sons Limited vs Pakistan through Member, Central Board of Revenue, and 2 others1990 MLD 2291 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
- K.M. Hussain and 3 others vs Fayyazullah Shareef and another1990 P Cr. L J 1094 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
- K.E.S.C. Ltd. Mazdoor Union vs N.I.R.C. and others1990 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent (C.B.A.) for the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited. The core legal question was identifying the relevant date for calculating whether a trade union has secured the support of at least one-third of the total workmen employed, as required by Section 22(9)(e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The National Industrial Relations Commission and the High Court had held that the relevant date was the date of the poll. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, holding that the relevant date is the date on which the voters' list is finalized under Section 22(5) of the Ordinance. The Court reasoned that tying the threshold to the date of the poll would allow employers to manipulate the workforce size by hiring or firing employees immediately before the election, thereby subverting the will of the voters. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower orders, restored the certificate issued to the appellant union, and established that the statutory scheme relies on the finalized voters' list for determining the one-third threshold.
Questions settled- What is the relevant date for determining whether a trade union has secured the support of one-third of the total workmen under Section 22(9)(e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the date of the poll constitute the relevant date for calculating the one-third membership threshold required for certification as a Collective Bargaining Agent?
- Can the list of voters prepared under Section 22(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, be used to determine the total number of workmen for the purpose of the one-third threshold?
- K. Saraswathy alias K. Kalpana (dead) by L.Rs, vs P.S.S. Somasundaram1990 MLD 413 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-05-01Read full judgment →
- Juvenile Jail, Landhi, Karachi in Re: (Suo motu notice) vs Not1990 P Cr. L J 1231 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a suo motu notice by the Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court following an inspection of the Juvenile Jail, Landhi, which raised significant questions regarding the treatment of juvenile offenders, the legality of jail conditions, and the use of bar-fetters. The core legal question was whether the High Court could initiate judicial proceedings on its own motion under Article 199 of the Constitution or Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to address these issues. The Court held that while Article 199 requires an aggrieved party and thus does not permit suo motu initiation, Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants the High Court broad powers to ensure prisoners are treated in accordance with the law, allowing the Court to act without a formal application in matters of public interest. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an inspecting judge is not disqualified from hearing a matter they initiated unless personal bias or interest is demonstrated. The judgment affirms the Court's activist role in protecting constitutional rights and ensuring humane treatment of prisoners.
Questions settled- Can the High Court initiate proceedings suo motu under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the High Court have the power under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to initiate proceedings regarding prisoner treatment without a formal application?
- Is a judge disqualified from hearing a matter simply because they initiated the proceedings based on their own inspection note?
- Does Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow the High Court to initiate proceedings suo motu for the protection of prisoner rights?
- Juma Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 56 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-22Read full judgment →
- Jhanda vs The State1990 PLD Peshawar 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
- Jehandar and anothers vs Bazir Khan and others1990 MLD 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-28Read full judgment →
- Jehan Shah and 2 others vs Haji Qalandar Khan and another1990 P Cr. L J 638 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
- Jeeyand alias Jeena vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 46 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Javed Zaman vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1672 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
- Javed Shaikh and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1689 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
- Javed Rehman vs Pakistan National Shipping Corporation1990 PLC 635 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →