Latest 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.

• Habib Fatima and others vs Mohammad Shaft1990 MLD 483 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-09-22Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi and 2 others vs Muhammad Aslam1990 PLC 737 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd., Jatalan Branch, Mirpur through Manager, Habib Bank1990 MLD 804 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-01-20Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Abid Nazir and others1990 PLC 215 · Punjab Labour Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Abdul Latif Nasir and 3 others1990 PLD Karachi 212 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited, Circle Office, Multan vs Alqaim Traders and another1990 SCMR 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-01
  leave to defendbanking companiesrecovery of loansdiscretionary powerbank guaranteespecial courtconditional leave
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order passed by the Lahore High Court, acting as a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, granting a banking company conditional leave to defend a recovery suit of Rs. 21 crores filed against it by a borrower firm. The core legal questions involved whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages against a bank, and whether the imposition of onerous conditions requiring the bank to deposit cash and furnish a large bank guarantee was justified given the bank's high liquidity and financial standing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, holding that while the imposition of conditions for leave to defend is a matter of judicial discretion, such discretion must be exercised reasonably and fairly rather than oppressively, and modified the conditions by reducing the cash deposit requirement while directing expedited disposal of the suit. The key principle laid down is that the exercise of discretion in imposing conditions for leave to defend under summary procedures must be balanced, taking into account the financial credibility and liquidity of a banking institution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for damages filed by a borrower against a banking company falls within the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can the high liquidity and financial status of a banking company be considered a relevant factor when deciding whether to impose conditions for granting leave to defend?
  • Whether the imposition of onerous conditions for granting leave to defend to a banking company can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • What are the governing principles for exercising discretion under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding conditional versus unconditional leave to defend?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Raza Muhammad1990 PLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Dr. Munawar Ali Siddiqui1990 MLD 792 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
• H.C. Pandey vs G.C. Paul1990 MLD 938 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-04-28Read full judgment →
• H. Sheikh Nooruddin & Sons Ltd. through its Director vs Additional1990 MLD 797 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-26Read full judgment →
• H. Sheikh Noor-Ud-Din & Sons Ltd. Through Its Director vs AdditionalPTCL 1990 CL. 806 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• H. Graribullah vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum And Other1990 CLC 1609 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-21
  admission by defendantjudgment on admissioncivil revisionwithdrawal of suitoccupancy tenantfresh suit permissionjurisdictional error
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration or alternative possession based on gift, inam, and adverse possession. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, holding a one-half share, admitted the plaintiff's claim via a written statement and statement on oath by their special attorney. However, the trial court dismissed the suit in its entirety, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal while omitting to consider the plaintiff's application to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one based on occupancy tenancy rights under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act 1950. The core legal questions were whether the court was bound to pass a judgment on the admissions made by certain defendants, and whether failure to consider an application for withdrawal of a suit constituted a jurisdictional error justifying revisional interference. The High Court held that under Order VIII Rule 5, Order XII Rule 6, and Order XV Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, courts must pronounce judgment against admitting defendants. The High Court set aside the lower decisions, decreed the suit regarding the half-share of the admitting defendants, and permitted the withdrawal of the suit regarding the remaining half-share with leave to file a fresh suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court bound to pass a judgment against defendants who unequivocally confess and admit the plaintiff's claim in their written statement?
  • Does the failure of an appellate court to consider a party's application to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one constitute a jurisdictional error under Section 115 CPC?
  • Can an alternative plea of ownership based on statutory conversion of occupancy rights under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act 1950 be raised by a party previously claiming title via gift?
  Read full judgment →
• Gwalior Sugar Co. (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 1112 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1987-10-01Read full judgment →
• Gulzar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1168 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-04Read full judgment →
• Gulzar and another vs The State1990 SCMR 1395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-26
  self-defenceprivate defenceculpable homicideappraisal of evidenceleave to appealocular evidencemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their convictions for murder. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner Gulzar acted in self-defence and whether the actions of the accused warranted a conviction under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than for murder. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence was unsubstantiated, noting the deceased was unarmed and the accused sustained no injuries. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the offence fell under Section 304, as the medical evidence confirmed a fatal injury caused by a heavy sharp-edged weapon to the head, coupled with multiple other injuries, demonstrating the accused's intent and knowledge of the consequences. The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts, noting that the ocular evidence was corroborated by medical reports and the dying declaration/report lodged by the deceased. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the Court found no grounds for re-appraisal of evidence or interference with the sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of private self-defence be sustained where the accused suffered no injuries and the deceased was unarmed?
  • Does causing a fatal head injury with a heavy sharp-edged weapon, accompanied by multiple other injuries, exclude the application of Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to re-appraise evidence in a criminal petition where the lower courts have concurrently relied on consistent ocular and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar alias Bhutto vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 191 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1203 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmed vs The State1990 SCMR 587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-28
  criminal appealmurderleave to appealocular testimonycorroborationidentificationsuicide motive
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his father-in-law, committed in retaliation for the deceased successfully prosecuting a case for the dissolution of marriage of his daughter, who was married to the petitioner. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency and reliability of ocular testimony and corroborative evidence to sustain the murder conviction. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of natural witnesses, coupled with corroborating recovery evidence and identification facilitated by electric light and prior acquaintance, established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and the lesser sentence already awarded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of natural and related witnesses residing in the same house is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating material provide adequate corroboration for an eyewitness account in a murder trial?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the conviction is supported by reliable identification and concurrent appraisal of evidence by lower forums?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs The State and another1990 MLD 2322 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-30Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Ferozewala and1990 PLC (C.S.) 823 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector CollectorK.L.R. 1990 Labour and Service Cases 311 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gulzada vs Muhammad Usman through Legal Heirs and 6 others1990 PLD Supreme Court 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-20
  pre-emptioncontiguityco-sharerkhatakhasra numbersbinding precedentlarger benchpartial pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave was filed by a vendee challenging the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which allowed a pre-emption suit regarding four contiguous khasra numbers while dismissing it for one non-contiguous khasra number. The trial and first appellate courts had dismissed the pre-emptor's suit in its entirety, reasoning that the vendee, retaining the non-contiguous khasra number, would become a co-sharer in the joint khata and thus defeat the pre-emptor's claim of contiguity based on superior status. The Supreme Court considered whether a vendee retaining non-contiguous land within the same khata can defeat a pre-emptor's contiguity claim by assuming the status of a co-sharer, and whether prior binding precedents of the Court could be reopened. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a pre-emptor is entitled to a decree for contiguous khasra numbers and the vendee cannot defeat this claim by asserting retained co-sharership in the khata. The Court reaffirmed that decisions rendered by its Benches constitute binding declarations of law that cannot be treated as sitting in appeal over coordinate or earlier benches.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vendee defeat a pre-emptor's claim of pre-emption over contiguous khasra numbers on the ground that the vendee remains a co-sharer in the same khata by retaining the non-contiguous khasra numbers?
  • Is a pre-emptor entitled to obtain a decree for only those khasra numbers in a joint sale that are contiguous to their land when other purchased khasra numbers in the same khata lack contiguity?
  • Can a subsequent Bench of the Supreme Court sit in appeal over or re-examine a binding declaration of law rendered by another Bench of the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Gullan vs The State1990 MLD 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
• Gulistan Khan and another vs The State1990 SCMR 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-17
  criminal leave to appealculpable homicidereduction of sentenceextenuating circumstancescommon intentionmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Gulistan Khan and another against the order of the High Court maintaining their conviction under Section 304 Part II and Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and their sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder in connection with the killing of Sardar Khan, alongside sentences for causing injuries. The core legal question raised is whether the petitioners, who acted under the influence of their uncle and co-accused Sher Zaman, are entitled to a reduction in their sentence as an extenuating circumstance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no case was made out to interfere with the conviction of the petitioners, maintaining the same. However, upon considering the argument that the petitioners acted under the influence of the main accused, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically to consider the question of whether the petitioners are entitled to a reduction in their sentence of imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that the subordinate role or influence of co-accused under a main offender may serve as an extenuating circumstance warranting a re-examination of the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained when the petitioners fail to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the findings of the lower courts?
  • Does acting under the influence of a main co-accused uncle constitute an extenuating circumstance warranting the grant of leave to appeal for reduction of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulfam and 2 others vs The State and others1990 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-14
  leave to appealrobberyhouse-trespasscriminal convictionenhancement of sentenceFirst Information Reportrecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for robbery and house-trespass. The petitioners were convicted by the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, following an incident at a jewellery shop where the complainant was robbed at gunpoint. The petitioners challenged their conviction, arguing that the complainant deliberately omitted their names from the First Information Report despite prior acquaintance, and contested the validity of the recovery and identification evidence. The complainant filed a cross-petition seeking enhancement of the sentences. Upon hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the criminal petition filed by the accused. Consequently, the Court also granted leave in the complainant's petition regarding the enhancement of the sentence. The judgment primarily addresses the procedural threshold for granting leave to appeal in criminal matters where questions of evidence, identification, and sentencing are raised, effectively allowing the case to proceed for a full hearing on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of the names of known accused persons in the First Information Report cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Under what circumstances is leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court in criminal cases involving robbery and house-trespass?
  • Can a complainant maintain a petition for the enhancement of a sentence imposed by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulan alias Gul Muhammad vs The State1990 MLD 1122 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-03Read full judgment →
• Gulam Mustafa vs The State1990 MLD 1575 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
• Gul Saleem Shah and another Shah Muhammad vs The State1990 SCMR 321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-17
  narcoticsheroin recoveryappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubthostile witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Federal Shariat Court, which maintained the conviction and sentences of the petitioners for the possession of 110 kilograms of heroin. The petitioners were apprehended in a vehicle containing the narcotics. The core legal question was whether the contradictions between the testimony of the prosecution's Group Leader and the Mashirs (witnesses) rendered the prosecution's case doubtful, thereby entitling the petitioners to the benefit of doubt. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence, finding that the testimony of the Group Leader was sufficient to establish guilt, particularly as the Mashirs appeared to have been won over by the smugglers. The Court affirmed that minor procedural irregularities, such as the handling of the narcotic samples between laboratories, did not undermine the essential facts of the recovery. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, establishing that the testimony of a credible witness can sustain a conviction even if other witnesses are inconsistent or hostile.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a Group Leader when the Mashirs provide contradictory statements?
  • Does the potential winning over of prosecution witnesses by the accused entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Does the transfer of narcotic samples between different laboratories for chemical examination invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Munir and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1878 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-07-08
  retracted judicial confessionabetment of murderzina liable to tazircorroborative evidenceabscondenceadverse inferencemurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Federal Shariat Court addresses criminal appeals and a murder reference arising from the conviction of Gul Munir and Mst. Razia for murder, abetment, and Zina. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions, the sustainability of a murder abetment charge based primarily on a co-accused's confession, and the proof required for offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The court held that a retracted judicial confession, when voluntary, can be used against the maker and as circumstantial evidence against a co-accused if corroborated by other material evidence, such as medical testimony, abscondence, and adverse inferences drawn from failure to testify under oath. Consequently, the court maintained the male appellant's conviction and death sentence for murder along with his conviction for Zina, while acquitting the female appellant of murder abetment due to insufficient corroborative evidence of active participation, though upholding her conviction for Zina with a modified sentence. The key principle laid down is that retracted judicial confessions, if found voluntary, require material corroboration to sustain convictions, and a co-accused's confession alone is insufficient to prove abetment without independent supporting evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession can be made the basis of a conviction without corroboration?
  • Can a co-accused's judicial confession be used as circumstantial evidence against another co-accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an accused's failure to give evidence on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a confession recorded during investigation under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can impose Hadd punishments for offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad and another vs The Superintendent of Police, Nawabshah and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 318 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
• Gul Khan vs The State and others1990 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20
  leave to appealacquittalappreciation of evidenceocular testimonyinterested witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant Gul Khan against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19-9-1987, which acquitted respondents Nos. 2 to 4 of murder and related charges. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was legally justified in rejecting the ocular testimony and setting aside the convictions. The Supreme Court held that the appreciation of evidence is primarily the function of the High Court, and where the High Court has properly evaluated the evidence and concluded that the interested and inimical eye-witnesses were unreliable or not present at the spot, no ground is made out for interference unless misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice is established. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when the appreciation of evidence has been properly done?
  • Can related and inimical eye-witnesses be relied upon without corroboration when their presence at the spot is found doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Jehan vs The State And Another1990 CLC 1967 · Board of Revenue · 1990-01-01Read full judgment →
• Gul Janan vs The State and 5 others1990 P Cr. L J 1699 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan Shah vs The State1990 MLD 1542 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan and others vs Danish Raza, Election Commissioner and others1990 PLC 249 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-06-09Read full judgment →
• Gul Faraz Khan vs Director-General, Registration and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 128 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-09-28Read full judgment →
• Gul Dost vs Usman Ali Khan And 9 Other1990 CLC 1636 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
• Gul Badshah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2031 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-17Read full judgment →
• Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd. vs Karachi Metropolitan Corpn. and 21990 MLD 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
• Gujarat Electricity Board and another vs Atmaram Sungomal1990 MLD 957 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-03-31
  transferunauthorised absencesummary dischargeservice regulationwarningpresumption of serviceregistered postpublic undertaking
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which had allowed the respondent employee's writ petition, quashed his discharge from service under Service Regulation No. 113 of the Gujarat Electricity Board, and directed his reinstatement with back wages. The respondent, a Deputy Engineer, was transferred from Surat to Ukai and failed to join his new posting, remaining absent while pursuing a representation against his transfer. The employer discharged him summarily under Service Regulation No. 113 after issuing warnings and show-cause notices. The core legal question was whether the order of discharge was illegal for want of warning and an opportunity to show cause, and whether unauthorised absence pending a transfer representation justified summary discharge. The Supreme Court held that transfer is an incident of service, that an employee has no legal right to remain posted at a particular place, and that pending representations do not justify unauthorised absence. The Court further held that sufficient warnings and opportunities were given in compliance with Service Regulation No. 113, and that a presumption of service arises when a registered letter is returned with a postal endorsement of refusal. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court judgments and dismissing the writ petition, while ordering that the salary already paid under interim orders should not be recovered.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee has a legal right to avoid a transfer order merely on the ground of a pending representation?
  • What are the mandatory preconditions for exercising powers of summary discharge under Service Regulation No. 113 of the Gujarat Electricity Board?
  • Does a warning issued prior to termination need to be in any particular form to satisfy the requirements of Service Regulation No. 113?
  • How is the presumption of service rebutted when a registered letter is returned with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept it?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Secretary vs Dr. (Mrs.) Shamim Raza1990 PLD Supreme Court 731 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-01
  service appeallimitationcondonation of delaysenioritypromotionPunjab Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan examined whether the service appeal filed before the Punjab Service Tribunal was competent and within time under section 4 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974. The core legal questions involved the computation of limitation in service matters, the permissibility of condoning delay caused by pursuing non-statutory administrative remedies before Martial Law Authorities, and the validity of a promotion against eligibility rules. The Supreme Court held that the appeal before the Service Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred, as time is of the essence in service matters and pursuing extra-legal remedies such as representations to Martial Law Administrators does not constitute a valid ground for condoning delay. The Court ruled that repeated approaches to wrong forums do not justify extending limitation periods. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Service Tribunal setting aside the departmental orders was reversed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pursuing remedies before Martial Law Authorities constitutes sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Is an appeal filed before the Punjab Service Tribunal after a delay spent on extra-legal administrative representations maintainable?
  • Whether subsequent amendments or clarifications in eligibility rules have retrospective effect on earlier promotions?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Services1990 SCMR 1431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-23
  Annual Confidential Reportexpungement of adverse remarksPunjab Service Tribunalservice lawgeneral reputationmagistrate performanceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Government of the Punjab under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal expunging adverse remarks recorded in an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) by a countersigning officer. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in expunging adverse remarks that were based merely on the general reputation of a Magistrate rather than on an assessment of actual performance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal. The Court held that the performance of a Magistrate must be evaluated through an expert assessment by a superior based on record and performance in individual cases, rather than mere general reputation. The Court laid down the principle that while detailed reasons are not required when recording ACR remarks, conclusions must be grounded in facts, and when challenged, the concerned reporting or countersigning officer must offer a plausible explanation to justify the adverse assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Can adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report be justified solely on the basis of an officer's general reputation?
  • Is the Punjab Service Tribunal empowered to review and expunge adverse remarks recorded in an Annual Confidential Report?
  • What standard of proof or justification is required from a reporting officer when adverse remarks recorded in an ACR are contested by a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh through the Secretary, Excise & Taxation, Karachi1990 MLD 1672 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-09Read full judgment →
• Government of Sind and anothers vs Sharaf Faridi and 3 others1990 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-09
  separation of judiciary from executiveconstitutional mandatejudicial independenceadministrative controlconstitutional petitionimplementation committeeArticle 175(3)
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a Sindh High Court judgment mandating the separation of the judiciary from the executive within specified timelines. The core legal question concerned the practical implementation of the constitutional requirement under Article 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court, acknowledging the federal and provincial governments' commitment to this constitutional mandate, held that while the objective of separation was mandatory, a structured, uniform, and practical approach was required. Consequently, the Court ordered the formation of a high-level committee, comprising representatives from the federal and provincial governments, the judiciary, and the bar, to oversee the implementation process. To facilitate this committee's work, the Court suspended the specific time-bound directions previously issued by the High Court, while clarifying that this suspension did not halt ongoing administrative efforts toward separation. The judgment establishes that the Court may utilize specialized committees to ensure the effective, phased, and practical realization of constitutional mandates, balancing judicial oversight with administrative feasibility in complex structural reforms.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court suspend the time-bound directions of a High Court to facilitate the implementation of a constitutional mandate through a committee?
  • Does the separation of the judiciary from the executive require a uniform, phased implementation scheme across all provinces?
  • Is the establishment of a committee comprising government, judicial, and bar representatives a valid judicial mechanism for overseeing the implementation of constitutional provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab, through Secretary, Home Department, Lahore vs Zia Ullah Khan and others1990 SCMR 824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-30
  leave to appealspecial courts for speedy trialsdiscriminatory legislationconstitutional petitionpublic importance
  Summary & questions settled

  The Government of the Punjab sought leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court that examined the establishment and continuance of Special Courts for Speedy Trials under Act XV of 1987 as amended by Ordinance No. XIX of 1988. The core legal questions involved whether the impugned legislation was discriminatory, violated Articles 10 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and whether the Ordinance had expired, rendering the courts incompetent to continue proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised involved the interpretation of constitutional provisions of general effect and public importance. Consequently, the Supreme Court suspended the effect of the impugned judgment so as not to affect proceedings taken by the Special Courts after 13th February 1989 until the date of the impugned judgment. The key principle laid down is that matters concerning the constitutional validity and interpretation of special trial legislation of public importance warrant a full appeal before the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the establishment of Special Courts for Speedy Trials under Act XV of 1987 violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the impugned legislation afford adequate protection to the accused as required by Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • What is the effect of the expiration of Ordinance No. XIX of 1988 on the continuance of proceedings before the Special Courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy1990 SCMR 995 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-26
  leave to appealservice tribunalcompulsory retirementdepartmental enquiryback benefitsmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The Government of the Punjab sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan against a judgment of the Service Tribunal that set aside the compulsory retirement of the respondent, an Assistant Research Officer, and directed his reinstatement with back benefits. The respondent had been proceeded against departmentally for overstaying his leave ex-Pakistan. Although the Enquiry Officer and the Authorised Officer exonerated him, the competent authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement without recording reasons for differing with their recommendations. The Service Tribunal set aside the retirement order on the ground that the authority failed to provide reasons for disagreeing with the exoneration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan evaluated the matter and found that the factual aspects had been thoroughly examined by the lower forums and that no substantial question of law of public importance arose under the constitutional provision to warrant interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the decision of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the competent authority can differ from the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and Authorised Officer without providing reasons?
  • Does an order of compulsory retirement passed without assigning reasons for rejecting exoneration sustain scrutiny before the Service Tribunal?
  • When will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab through Secretary, Education, Lahore and others1990 SCMR 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-26
  rent restrictionevictionstriking off defencerent depositnon-compliancelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi. The petitioners, the Government of Punjab, had failed to comply with a Rent Controller's order directing the deposit of rent arrears and future monthly rent. Consequently, their defence to the eviction application was struck off under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller possesses the discretion to condone delays in rent deposits and prevent eviction when a tenant fails to comply with a deposit order. The Supreme Court held that failure to comply with the Rent Controller's direction regarding rent deposits mandates the striking off of the defence and subsequent eviction. The court affirmed that the Rent Controller lacks the power to ignore such non-compliance or condone delays, emphasizing that the statutory consequence of non-compliance is mandatory and not subject to compassionate grounds, even when the tenant is a government entity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to comply with a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent mandate the striking off of the tenant's defence?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the discretion to condone delays in the deposit of rent by a tenant?
  • Can a tenant avoid eviction under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on compassionate grounds when they have failed to comply with a rent deposit order?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab through Secretary Health, Lahore and 2 others vs Zahid Beg1990 SCMR 1170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-23
  deputationtermination of serviceoverstay of deputationservice tribunalleave to appealmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The Government of the Punjab sought leave to appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment which set aside the termination of the respondent, a Physiotherapy Aid who had remained on deputation in Libya beyond the initial period without explicit extension or recall. The core legal question was whether the Government could validly terminate the respondent for overstaying deputation without authority when the Government itself failed to recall him or provide an opportunity to rejoin in accordance with the deputation terms. The Supreme Court held that the Government could not take advantage of its own omission, as its failure to recall the respondent created a justifiable impression that he could remain on deputation until informed otherwise, and that the Service Tribunal rightly reinstated him. The key principle laid down is that an employer cannot penalize an employee for an overstay on deputation resulting from the employer's own failure to exercise its stipulated right of recall.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Government can terminate an employee for overstaying a deputation without first recalling him as per the deputation terms?
  • Can the Government take the benefit of its own omission in failing to recall an official from deputation?
  • Whether a service tribunal is justified in setting aside a termination order passed in haste and without due application of mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural1990 MLD 1947 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and anothers vs Sajjad Haider Syed1990 PLD Supreme Court 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-25
  termination of servicetemporary civil servantcompetent authoritysecurity of Pakistanservice tribunalpresidential approvalultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a Service Tribunal decision setting aside the termination of the respondent, an Intelligence Officer, on the grounds that Rule 17(2) of the Defence Intelligence Service (Civilian Class I) Rules, 1972, was ultra vires the 1972 Constitution and the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court examined whether the termination was validly executed. The Court found that the Service Tribunal had overlooked crucial evidence showing the President of Pakistan had personally approved the termination of the respondent’s services. As the respondent was a temporary employee, he did not enjoy the constitutional protections afforded to permanent civil servants. The Court held that since the competent authority—the President—had authorized the action, the termination was lawful, rendering it unnecessary to determine the vires of Rule 17(2). Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment, holding that the termination of a temporary civil servant, when approved by the competent authority, is valid and not subject to the same procedural requirements as permanent employees, save for potential claims regarding notice pay.

  Questions settled

  • Does the termination of a temporary civil servant require the same procedural protections as a permanent civil servant?
  • Can an administrative action be upheld if approved by the competent authority, even if the specific rule invoked is challenged as ultra vires?
  • Is a temporary civil servant entitled to constitutional protection against termination of service?
  • Does the President of Pakistan have the authority to approve the termination of a temporary civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Government Of Pakistan Etc. vs Hashwani Hotel Limited [M/s.]PTCL 1990 CL. 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-11
  central excise dutyhotel room chargesconcessional ratetaxing statute interpretationcategorisation of customersshow cause noticeconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Government of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a Constitution petition filed by Messrs Hashwani Hotel Limited challenging show cause notices and a Central Board of Revenue order demanding additional central excise duty. The core legal question concerned whether the charging provision under Section 4(3)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applied to a legitimate categorisation of customers with varying rates or constituted an impermissible concessional rate. The Supreme Court held that the hotel management was legally authorized to establish different categories of customers for operational considerations and that such differential pricing did not amount to a 'concession' under the Act. The Court laid down the key principles that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly according to their plain and natural meaning without intendment or equity, and that in the absence of an express legal bar, a business management retains the privilege to fix varying rates for different classes of customers without triggering penal excise liability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 4(3)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applies to a hotel's bona fide categorisation of customers charged at different rates?
  • Does the creation of different customer categories by a hotel management amount to a 'concession' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  • Can provisions be imported into a taxing statute to support an assumed deficiency or intendment?
  • Are tax authorities empowered to dictate the fixation of different charges for different categories of hotel customers under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan and others vs Messrs Hashwani Hotel Ltd.1990 PLD Supreme Court 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-11
  central excise dutyconcessional ratetaxing statute interpretationhotel management ratescategorisation of customersshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave was filed by the Government of Pakistan against the Lahore High Court's judgment setting aside show-cause notices issued under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Central Excise authorities demanded additional excise duty from Hashwani Hotel Ltd., alleging that lower room rates charged to specific customer categories (such as airlines, travel agents, and diplomatic personnel) amounted to rendering services at a 'concessional rate' under Section 4(3)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal question was whether establishing distinct rate categories for various customer groups constitutes a 'concession' requiring duty to be calculated on the highest general rate. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision, holding that categorisation of customers is a lawful management practice and different rates fixed for defined classes do not constitute a concession. Applying settled principles of literal interpretation of taxing statutes, the Court affirmed that excise duty is payable on the actual charges received unless a genuine favour or reduction from an established class rate is granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does fixing different room rates for distinct categories of hotel customers constitute providing services at a concessional rate under Section 4(3)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  • How is a taxing statute to be interpreted when the statutory language is plain and unambiguous?
  • Does Section 13 of the General Clauses Act apply to convert rate categorisation into a concessional rate for the purpose of levying excise duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P., Health and Social Welfare Department1990 SCMR 1321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-30
  vested rightpromotionconstitutional petitionservice tribunalterms and conditions of servicemedical and dental council regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether a civil servant holding the post of Associate Professor has a vested right to be promoted as Professor under the rules in force prior to the notification dated 12th January 1984, which altered the eligibility criteria by excluding holders of minor diplomas. The core legal question concerns whether promotion criteria for a higher post constitute a term and condition of service in which a civil servant can claim a vested right, and whether a constitutional petition is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a civil servant has no vested right in promotion or in the terms and conditions of a higher post to which they have yet to be appointed, and that the constitutional petition was barred under Article 212. The key principles laid down are that terms and conditions of service relate only to the post currently held, the government may enhance qualifications for higher posts to maintain efficiency, and rules governing promotion to a higher post do not operate retrospectively merely because they affect future promotion prospects of existing employees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant has a vested right to promotion or eligibility for a higher post?
  • Does a constitutional petition challenging the amendment of promotion rules for a higher post lie before the High Court or is it barred under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can the rules and qualifications for recruitment and promotion to a higher post be amended by the Government to enhance service standards?
  • Whether the terms and conditions of a higher post constitute the terms and conditions of service of an employee holding a lower post?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P., Health & Social Welfare Department vs Dr.1990 SCMR 1524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-30
  vested rightpromotioncivil servantretrospective operationconstitutional petitionservice tribunalterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns whether a civil servant possesses a vested right to be promoted under the rules in force at the time they became eligible, or if the government may alter qualification criteria for higher posts. The respondent, an Associate Professor, challenged a 1984 government notification that rendered him ineligible for promotion to Professor by changing the required qualifications. The High Court initially ruled in his favor, holding the notification could not apply retrospectively. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that a civil servant has no vested right to promotion or to the terms and conditions of a higher post they do not yet occupy. The Court affirmed that the government retains the authority to enhance qualifications and standards for recruitment and promotion to maintain service efficiency. Furthermore, the Court noted that constitutional petitions regarding terms and conditions of service are barred under Article 212 of the Constitution, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court concluded that the respondent could not claim protection under prior rules for a higher post.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to be promoted under the rules in force at the time they became eligible for a higher post?
  • Can a civil servant challenge the amendment of promotion criteria for a higher post through a constitutional petition in the High Court?
  • Does the government have the authority to enhance qualifications for promotion to maintain efficiency in service?
  • Are terms and conditions of service for a higher post considered vested rights for a civil servant currently holding a lower post?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Deputy Commissioner, Bannu and 31990 PLD Peshawar 125 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. Through Deputy Commissioner, Bannu And 21990 CLC 1898 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-24
  encroachmentadverse possessionlocal commissioner reportdemarcation of landownership of treescivil revisionprescriptive title
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for possession filed by the respondent against the Government of N.W.F.P., alleging encroachment upon his land. The core legal questions were whether the defendants had encroached upon the plaintiff's land, as determined by a court-appointed Local Commissioner, and whether the defendants had acquired title through adverse possession. The trial court, relying on the Local Commissioner's demarcation report—which was verified by the defendants' own nominee—decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The District Judge upheld this decision on appeal. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the encroachment were based on sound evidence and lacked jurisdictional error. Furthermore, the Court held that possession held under a mistaken belief of ownership does not constitute adverse possession, as it lacks the requisite 'hostile' intent. Additionally, the Court affirmed that trees growing on land are presumed to belong to the landowner, and a trespasser cannot claim ownership of such growth without positive proof of independent cultivation.

  Questions settled

  • Does possession held under a mistaken belief of ownership satisfy the requirement of 'hostile' possession for a claim of adverse possession?
  • Is a landowner legally entitled to trees growing on their land in the absence of proof that a trespasser planted and maintained them?
  • Can a court rely on a Local Commissioner's demarcation report if it was conducted in the presence of the parties and their nominees?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. And Others vs Mohibullah1990 CLC 1703 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P and Other vs Malik Said Kamal Shah and OtherK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 43 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Secretary, S&Gad, Quetta and others vs Marjan Khan and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26
  service senioritydirect recruits vs promoteesprospective operation of rulesquota systemcivil service rulesretrospective effectregular appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees within the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) of Balochistan. The core legal question was whether the 50:50 recruitment quota prescribed by the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964, applied to the entire cadre strength retrospectively or only to vacancies arising after the Rules' enforcement. The Service Tribunal had accepted the respondents' contention that the quota applied to the total cadre strength, resulting in an adjustment of seniority. The Supreme Court set aside this decision, holding that the 1964 Rules operate prospectively and cannot be applied to pre-integration posts or retrospectively to disturb established seniority. The Court affirmed that departmental circulars interpreting rules cannot amend the rules themselves. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, seniority is determined by the date of regular appointment, and promotees retain seniority regardless of whether the post is permanent or temporary, provided the appointment is regular. The seniority list prepared by the Government was thus upheld as legally valid.

  Questions settled

  • Do the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964 apply retrospectively to determine seniority for pre-integration posts?
  • Can departmental circulars or instructions amend or override statutory service rules?
  • Does a promotee's seniority depend on whether the post held is permanent or temporary under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Should recruitment quotas be applied to the total cadre strength or only to vacancies arising after the enforcement of the relevant service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Quetta and 2 others vs Shabir Ahmad and another1990 SCMR 1233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-17
  service tribunal jurisdictiondepartmental punishmentminor penaltyquantum of punishmentdisciplinary proceedingsterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the Service Tribunal's decisions regarding the competence of appeals against departmental punishments other than dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement. The core legal question was whether the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act excludes the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction over minor departmental penalties. The Court held that the Service Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to examine the determination of guilt or innocence in disciplinary proceedings, even when the resulting punishment is minor. The Court clarified that the statutory bar on appeals to the Service Tribunal, as framed by the word 'quantum' in the relevant provision, applies only to the assessment or amount of the punishment itself, not to the underlying finding of guilt or the validity of the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the Service Tribunal is competent to adjudicate appeals challenging the finding of guilt, even if the penalty imposed is minor. The principle established is that the exclusion of jurisdiction regarding 'quantum' of punishment does not preclude the Tribunal from reviewing the merits of the disciplinary action, including the determination of guilt or innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a departmental punishment that is not dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement?
  • Does the statutory exclusion of appeals regarding the 'quantum' of punishment prevent the Service Tribunal from reviewing the finding of guilt in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can the Service Tribunal examine the merits of a disciplinary action if the penalty imposed is a minor one?
  Read full judgment →
• Gopaldas vs Riaz Ahmed Qureshi1990 MLD 2212 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
• Gojra Samundri Sugar Mills Limited, Gojra vs Punjab Labour1990 PLC 506 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gojra Sammundri Sugar Mills Limited vs Punjab Labour AppellateK.L.R.1990 Labour & Service Cases 249 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gohram vs The State1990 MLD 1580 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-02Read full judgment →
• Glaxo Laboratories. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1990 CL. 364 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
• Glaxo Laboratories vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 54 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
• Girdharilal vs The State1990 MLD 1568 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Zakria vs Sher Bahadur Khan1990 SCMR 1719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-28
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionco-sharertenant-at-willremand of caserevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by the appellant Ghulam Zakria against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had accepted a revision petition filed by the respondent Sher Bahadur Khan, setting aside the District Judge's judgment and restoring the trial court's dismissal of the pre-emption suit. The core legal question involves the determination of superior rights of pre-emption concerning agricultural land, specifically regarding tenancy status and co-sharer rights. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the decisions of the trial court on material issues lacked proper alignment with the oral and documentary evidence, and that the District Judge was justified in remanding the case for fresh evidence and determination. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the order of the District Judge directing a fresh trial with opportunities for both parties to lead further evidence. The key principle laid down is that where crucial issues regarding pre-emption and tenancy lack adequate factual findings on record, remand for fresh evidence is appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a remand of a pre-emption suit is justified when material issues lack proper findings and evidentiary support?
  • Can a vendee claim a superior right of pre-emption as a tenant-at-will against a co-sharer pre-emptor?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere in revision with findings of fact when material issues require proper legal and factual appraisal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Waris vs Riaz Ahmad, Advocate1990 MLD 2300 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-29
  ejectmentdefault in rentchange in ownershippersonal bona fide needservice of noticecommercial premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the appellant-tenant from commercial premises on the grounds of default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide personal need for an advocate's office. The core legal questions involved whether the service of notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was duly proved and whether the landlord's personal need was established despite a prior ejectment order against another tenant. The Sindh High Court held that the service of notice was sufficiently proved by examining the postman, rendering a handwriting expert unnecessary, and that the tenant remained a defaulter in any event. The Court further held that the landlord's personal need was genuine and he was not required to disclose every rented property in his ejectment application. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether examination of the postman is sufficient to prove service of notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 without referring the disputed A.D. receipt to a handwriting expert?
  • Does an ejectment application itself serve as sufficient notice of a change in ownership under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is a landlord required to disclose in an ejectment application all other properties rented out to different tenants when claiming personal bona fide need?
  • Does the mere obtaining of a favourable ejectment order against another tenant extinguish a landlord's right to seek eviction of the current tenant when possession has not yet been delivered?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs The Secretary, Labour Department, Lahore and 21990 PLC (C.S.) 806 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs The Secretary, Labour Department and OtherK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases, 337 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir and anothers vs Additional Commissioner, D.I. Khan1990 MLD 2294 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir and 6 others vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10
  quashment of proceedingsforged documentjudicial proceedingsprivate complaintbar of jurisdictionpower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners arising out of FIR No. 377 of 1985 registered at Police Station Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur, under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether a criminal court can take cognizance of an offence regarding a forged document allegedly used in a judicial proceeding upon a private complaint, without a complaint from the concerned civil court. The Court held that under the provisions of section 195 and section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a private complaint in respect of a forged document used in judicial proceedings is not competent, and criminal proceedings initiated otherwise than through the bar of section 195(1)(c) are barred. The petition was consequently accepted and the pending proceedings were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal court take cognizance of a private complaint regarding a forged document used in judicial proceedings without a complaint from the concerned court?
  • Whether the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a private complaint for offences relating to documents produced in a court?
  • Is a complaint by the concerned civil court a condition precedent for launching prosecution in respect of a forged document used in judicial proceedings under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Allah Ditta and 3 others1990 MLD 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Chaudhry vs Chairman Central Board of Revenue1990 SCMR 1443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18
  service tribunalleave to appealupgradationAssistant Income-tax OfficersIncome-tax Officerspay scalediscriminationservice structure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, promoted Assistant Income-tax Officers (AITOs) from Inspectors, sought leave to appeal against the Service Tribunal's dismissal of their appeals. Their core grievance was that upon the enforcement of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, their separate identity was merged into the definition of Income-tax Officers (ITOs), and since they performed similar duties, they were entitled to the same pay scale and grade (upgradation from BPS 16 to BPS 17), failing which they faced unconstitutional discrimination. The core legal question was whether AITOs are entitled to the same pay, scale, and grade as ITOs merely because they are included in the inclusive definition of ITOs under the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court held that the statutory background and the inclusive definition recognized rather than erased the distinctive identity and categorization of AITOs, and that inclusion in the definition does not equate their service structure, pay, or grade to that of ITOs. The Court refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that the inclusion of a lower post within the definition of a higher post under a fiscal statute does not automatically entitle the holders of the lower post to the same pay, scale, and grade, provided the classification is based on permissible criteria in the service structure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Assistant Income-tax Officers are entitled to the same pay, scale, and grade as Income-tax Officers under the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the inclusion of Assistant Income-tax Officers in the definition of Income-tax Officers abolish their separate identity and service structure?
  • Does the refusal to grant identical pay scales to Assistant Income-tax Officers and Income-tax Officers amount to unconstitutional discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar and 2 others vs Karim Bakhsh and anothers1990 PLD Revenue 1 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1989-07-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Razzaq vs The State1990 SCMR 1314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-18
  petition for leave to appealdismissal of petitionsupreme court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question involves the challenge against a lower judicial order or decision. The court considered the arguments presented and the record of the case. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the petition. The key principle laid down is that where no sufficient grounds or infirmities are shown in the impugned judgment, the petition for leave to appeal stands dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be dismissed when no sufficient grounds are made out?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation1990 PLC 309 · Labour Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs Bashir Ahmad and others1990 SCMR 749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-30
  civil revisionconcurrent findings of factabatement of suitland ownershipspecial leave to appealprescription
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision against concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding land ownership, claiming rights through prescription and challenging inheritance mutations in favor of the respondents. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court upheld this decision. The High Court dismissed the subsequent civil revision, noting that the suit had abated under the Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983 and that an appeal against the trial court's decree was not maintainable. The Supreme Court examined the arguments and the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that since the findings were concurrent and based on facts, and because the suit had abated under the relevant ordinance, there was no ground to interfere with the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the finality of the concurrent findings and the legal effect of the abatement provision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit abate under the Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a civil revision?
  • Is an appeal maintainable against a trial court's decree if the suit has abated under the Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul And Others vs Karim Bakhsh And Other1990C L C 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and 5 others vs Janna T Bibi and 11 others1990 SCMR 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-30
  civil revisionsettlement authoritiesjurisdiction of civil courtstransfer of propertyfinality of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision and upheld the appellate judgment of the District Judge setting aside the trial court's decree in favour of the petitioners regarding the disputed property. The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of civil courts to challenge or correct orders passed by Settlement Authorities which have attained finality under special laws governing property transfers. The Supreme Court held that the civil suit was barred by the provisions of the special law, as the property was transferred and P.T.O. and P.T.D. were issued, rendering the final orders of the Settlement Authorities unchallengeable in civil courts pursuant to section 25 of the relevant Act. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the ground that the suit was incompetent and the lower appellate and high court orders were correct.

  Questions settled

  • Do civil courts have jurisdiction to correct orders passed by Settlement Authorities that have attained finality?
  • Is a civil suit barred by provisions of a special law governing the transfer of property after the issuance of P.T.O. and P.T.D.?
  • Whether the High Court correctly upheld the appellate court's dismissal of an incompetent suit regarding settled property?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State1990 SCMR 1401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-19
  criminal petitionleave to appealdismissal of petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal in the case of Ghulam Rasool versus The State, reported in 1990 SCMR 1401. The core legal question concerned the validity of the petitioner's conviction or the legality of the lower court proceedings as challenged in the petition. The Supreme Court considered the arguments and the record, and ultimately held that the petition was devoid of merit. The court's decision was to dismiss the petition. The judgment establishes no extensive new legal principles due to its summary nature, affirming the dismissal of the proceedings at the leave stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction can be dismissed when found without merit?
  • Did the Supreme Court dismiss the petition filed by Ghulam Rasool against the State?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Said Rasool and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 457 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-23
  constitutional petitionRent Controllerstriking off defencedetermination of rentarrears of rentexecution of ordercivil court decreeejectment proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an order of the Rent Controller, upheld on appeal, which dismissed the petitioner tenant's objections to the execution of an order directing payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 62,490. The tenant's defence had been struck off for non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller possesses jurisdiction to finally determine and direct the payment of rent due to the landlord, and whether such a direction is executable under Section 17 of the Ordinance as a civil court decree. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that post-1960 amendment, Section 13(6) expressly empowers the Rent Controller to finally determine rent due and order its payment, sparing landlords separate recovery suits. Furthermore, under Section 17, such a final order is executable as a civil decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Rent Controller have jurisdiction under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to finally determine the amount of rent due from a tenant and direct its payment to the landlord?
  • Is an order passed by the Rent Controller determining rent and directing its payment to the landlord executable as a decree of the Civil Court under Section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does the Rent Controller become functus officio regarding the final determination and recovery of rent after passing an order striking off the tenant's defence or ordering eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Director of Education, Sukkur Region, Sukkur EtcK.L.R. 1990, Labour & Service Cases 118 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Mir vs Irfan Ashraf and 7 others1990 MLD 1637 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-04-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and others vs Faiz Bakhsh1990 SCMR 956 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-28
  pre-emptionex parte decreeleave to appealremandco-owners
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, real brothers, filed a pre-emption suit claiming superior rights as co-owners, which was decreed ex parte on 17-7-1982. The trial court later set aside the ex parte decree, tried the suit on merits, and dismissed it. On appeal, the District Judge remanded the matter, after which the trial court decreed the suit on 14-7-1988, a decision upheld by the District Judge. However, the High Court accepted the respondent's revision petition and set aside the judgments of the subordinate courts, holding that no decree could be passed after 31-7-1986 pursuant to the rule laid down in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that an ex parte decree had already been passed prior to the target date. The core legal question concerns whether the existence of an initial ex parte decree passed before 31-7-1986 exempts a pre-emption suit from abatement upon subsequent remand and retrial. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter, particularly noting conflicting views taken by the Lahore High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the passing of an ex parte decree in a pre-emption suit prior to 31-7-1986 save the suit from abatement where the decree was subsequently set aside and a fresh decree is passed after the target date?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be decreed after 31-7-1986 in light of the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and another vs Mst. Sardar Begum and another1990 MLD 1887 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and another vs Director of Education and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 712 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-03-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and 3 others vs Muhammad Rafioue and 2 others1990 MLD 112 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rahullah Khan vs Amir Sher Bahadar Khan And 142 Other1990 CLC 1883 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rabbani vs Abdul Qayum and 2 others1990 MLD 1871 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim vs Sohna and others1990 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-21
  ocular testimonyacquittalcapital chargereappraisal of evidenceunwitnessed crimecriminal appealprobative value
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal matter where the respondents were initially convicted by a Sessions Judge for murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with one respondent sentenced to death and another to life imprisonment. The Lahore High Court, in appeal, set aside these convictions and acquitted all respondents, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The complainant challenged this acquittal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the ocular testimony and concluding that the occurrence was an unwitnessed crime. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the reasons for rejecting the eye-witnesses—specifically doubts regarding their presence at the crime scene and the timing of the occurrence—were sound and valid. The Court held that the ocular testimony lacked the necessary quality and probative value to sustain a conviction on a capital charge. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that there were no sufficient grounds for a reappraisal of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on ocular testimony if the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene is found to be doubtful?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to reappraise evidence in a criminal petition for leave to appeal if the High Court's rejection of ocular testimony is based on sound and valid reasoning?
  • Does the failure of eye-witnesses to be present at the crime scene upon the arrival of the police undermine the credibility of their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Haji Khuda Bakhsh and 6 others1990 SCMR 675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13
  leave to appealcivil revisionstriking off defencememo of addressprocedural lawdiscretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the High Court's judgment accepting the respondents' civil revision. The trial court had struck off the defendants' defence for failing to submit a memo of address under Order VIII, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court set aside the trial court's order, noting that complete addresses were already available on the record and the trial court exercised its discretion illegally, especially when counsel was bed-ridden. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the striking off of defence and how the word 'liable' in Order VIII, Rule 12 should be interpreted. The Supreme Court held that the provision makes a party 'liable to have his defence... struck out', which must be construed as creating only a possibility rather than a mandatory mandate. Finding no error in the High Court's judgment and distinguishing the cited precedent, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the revisional jurisdiction was rightly exercised to correct an illegal exercise of discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the word 'liable' in Order VIII Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 creates a mandatory mandate or only a possibility for striking out a defence?
  • Can the High Court interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with an illegal exercise of discretion by the trial court regarding the striking off of a defence?
  • Is the striking of a defence justified under Order VIII Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the complete addresses of the defendants are already available on the judicial record?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Ahmad Yar and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 1049 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-15
  adverse possessionalternative pleasinconsistent pleascivil revisionsuit for possessionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld a decree of possession in favor of the plaintiff. The core legal question concerns whether a party asserting ownership through a valid title by purchase and inheritance can simultaneously maintain an alternative plea of adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that pleading a valid title is mutually destructive to and incompatible with claiming adverse possession, as a party cannot assert lawful ownership while simultaneously claiming possession that is open, hostile, and against the true owner to mature title through efflux of time. The Court established the principle that when a party claims a valid title through purchase or inheritance, it becomes impossible to succeed in the alternative on the plea of adverse possession. Finding no merit in the petition or technical contentions raised, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party pleading a valid title through purchase and inheritance simultaneously maintain an alternative plea of adverse possession?
  • Does reliance on a valid source of title debar a party from pleading adverse possession?
  • Whether inconsistency between alternative pleas of lawful ownership and adverse possession renders them impermissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir Butt vs Finance Division (Military), Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi and another1990 SCMR 1411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-14
  service tribunalsurplus employeeretrenchmentlimitationjurisdictionpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal. The petitioner, formerly a U.D.C. in the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, was declared surplus due to retrenchment under an order dated 26-1-1966. The core legal question was whether the Federal Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order or decision made prior to 1st July, 1969. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal as not entertainable. The key principle laid down is that under Section 4(1)(c) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, no appeal lies to the Federal Service Tribunal against any order or decision made before 1st July, 1969.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie to the Federal Service Tribunal against an order or decision made prior to 1st July, 1969?
  • Can a service appeal challenging a pre-1969 retrenchment order be entertained by the Federal Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Muhammad Siddique1990 CLC 268 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Brig. Muhammad Akram And Other1990 CLC 664 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28
  rebuttal evidenceonus probandispecific performanceconstitutional petitionburden of proofbona fide purchasertrial procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition challenges the orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court, which denied the petitioner the opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal in a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having explicitly reserved the right to produce rebuttal evidence, could be denied that opportunity by the lower courts. The Lahore High Court held that the lower courts erred in refusing this request. The Court reasoned that where the burden of proof (onus probandi) for a specific issue—in this case, whether the defendants were bona fide purchasers for consideration—lies on the respondents, the plaintiff is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal to counter the evidence produced by the defendants. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had formally reserved this right on the record, and denying it obstructed the interests of justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the trial court was directed to allow the petitioner to produce evidence in rebuttal within a specified timeframe, ensuring the trial concludes expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Is a plaintiff entitled to produce evidence in rebuttal when the burden of proof for an issue lies on the defendant?
  • Can a court deny a party the right to produce rebuttal evidence if that right was explicitly reserved on the record?
  • Does the denial of an opportunity to produce rebuttal evidence constitute a valid ground for setting aside trial court orders in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Unar vs Secretary to Govt.of Sindh and AnotherK.L.R 1990 Labour & Service Cases 130 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Unar vs Secretary Agriculture, Government of Sindh1990 PLC (C.S.) 706 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →