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.
- Union of India And Another vs Messrs L. K. Ahuja & Co.1989 MLD 1199 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-05Read full judgment →
- Union Council, Darya Khan Sooho, Mirpur vs Messrs Dewan Sugar1989 MLD 385 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Union Carbide India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 256 · Calcutta High Court · 1986-07-14Read full judgment →
- Umerzad and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1275 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Umer Hayat vs The State1989 MLD 882 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Umer Din vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-10Read full judgment →
- Umer Din vs Muhammad and others1989 P Cr. L J 1559 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
- Umarzad and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 645 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
- Umar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1950 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-15Read full judgment →
- Umar Khattab vs Messrs H. Nizamuddin & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi1989 PLC 103 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-15Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat vs The State1989 MLD 4457 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 689 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat vs The State1989 MLD 4958 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-12Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat vs Ghafoor1989 MLD 463 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Lahore 427 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- Umar Gul 1Chattak vs Inspector-General of Police and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 556 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
- Umar Draz vs Rahim Bux and others1989 SCMR 1280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a habeas corpus proceeding filed by Rahim Bux in the Lahore High Court seeking the recovery of his daughter from the alleged illegal detention of Umar Draz and another person. During the High Court hearing, one of the respondents stated that he was unaware of the detenu's whereabouts. Consequently, the High Court directed the relevant Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a criminal case under Sections 364 and 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the petitioner's statement and to report back on the investigation's progress, thereby disposing of the habeas petition. Umar Draz sought leave to appeal against this direction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the matter and held that the High Court had taken all appropriate and possible measures given the circumstances. Finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in a habeas corpus petition can direct the police to register a criminal case under Sections 364 and 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the whereabouts of an alleged detenu are unknown?
- Umar Draz vs Muhammad Siddique And Another1989 MLD 698 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-17Read full judgment →
- Umar Din vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 1250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court's Intra-Court Appeal Bench. The core legal questions involve the necessity of impleading an affected party who was the original informer, the retrospective effect of legislation conferring vested rights on informers, and the application of statutory provisions governing settlement and rehabilitation lands. The Court held that the petition merits leave to appeal, noting that the respondent failed to implead the petitioner Umar Din in the High Court proceedings despite objections, that Act XXXVI of 1974 operates with retrospective effect to vest rights in informers, and that Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act prima facie govern the matter without leaving scope for discretionary interference by the Appeal Bench. The key principle laid down is that necessary parties must be impleaded in constitutional proceedings and that statutory provisions governing land settlement must be strictly applied according to their retrospective and substantive import.
Questions settled- Whether an informer possessing vested rights under Act XXXVI of 1974 is a necessary party in constitutional proceedings?
- Does Act XXXVI of 1974 possess retrospective effect to clothe an informer with vested rights?
- Whether Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act leave scope for discretionary exercise by the Appeal Bench?
- Umar Din vs Masood Akhtar and another1989 SCMR 1234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent of murder charges. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidentiary inconsistencies. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution's case was fatally flawed. Specifically, the Court noted that the sole eye-witness was a highly interested witness whose testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries. Furthermore, the Court highlighted significant contradictions between the ocular account and the testimony of other prosecution witnesses regarding the time of death and the sequence of events. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on a sole interested witness whose testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and other prosecution witnesses, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, rendering the acquittal justified.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of an interested witness when it contradicts medical evidence?
- Does a significant discrepancy between the time of death established by prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- Is an acquittal justified when the prosecution fails to explain the absence of key eye-witnesses at trial?
- Umar Din vs Ghulam Nabi and others1989 SCMR 980 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal original contempt petition filed against the respondents for initiating a civil suit to re-agitate a matter that had already been conclusively decided up to the Supreme Court through the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns whether filing a civil suit to re-agitate a matter concluded by higher judicial forums constitutes contempt of court. The Supreme Court held that while the respondents were given the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding mens rea for filing the initial suit due to certain ambiguous observations in a High Court review order, their continued pursuit of the appeal after the legal position was clarified would constitute contempt. Consequently, the Court dismissed the contempt petition while ordering that the pending appeal could not proceed any further. The key principle laid down is that re-agitating a concluded matter through a fresh civil suit after the dismissal of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court is legally barred, and pursuing an appeal in such matters after authoritative clarification amounts to contempt.
Questions settled- Does filing a civil suit to re-agitate a matter already concluded by the Supreme Court constitute contempt of court?
- Can a party be given the benefit of doubt regarding mens rea in contempt proceedings when ambiguous observations exist in a prior judicial order?
- Whether an appeal against the rejection of a plaint can proceed further once the Supreme Court clarifies that the underlying matter is a closed and concluded transaction?
- Umar Din vs Ali Muhammad1989 MLD 3479 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Umar Din and others vs Ali Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 1014 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the High Court's order in Writ Petition No. 241-R of 1971 regarding the division of disputed property remanded to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The core legal question concerns the propriety and correct mode of dividing disputed property under the relevant settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's division directing specific portions of the property to be transferred directly to occupants was not the correct mode of division in terms of the governing statute. Consequently, with the consent of the respondents' counsel, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the High Court's remand order. The Court laid down the principle that an open-ended remand order should be passed directing the Notified Authority to examine afresh the question of divisibility of the property and subsequently determine the entitlement of the claimants thereto.
Questions settled- What is the correct mode of division of disputed property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition into an appeal and pass an open-ended remand order for fresh examination by the Notified Authority?
- Umar Daraz Khan vs The State1989 MLD 890 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Umar Bakhsh vs Government of Sind And 13 Other1989 MLD 1585 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- Umar Ayaz and others vs Beharamand and another1989 SCMR 1618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil dispute where respondent No.1 filed a suit seeking a declaration that a previous pre-emption decree was ineffective and obtained through collusion and fraud. The trial court proceedings involved claims regarding pre-emption and subsequent property exchange transactions entered into by the son of respondent No.1. The appellate court held that the pre-emption decree was not collusive as petitioner No.1 had admitted its correctness, but found that the subsequent exchange deed executed by respondent No.1's son was ineffective due to lack of authority, modifying the decree to restore certain property possession upon payment. The High Court affirmed this modification in revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the finding on the exchange transaction was one of fact and that petitioner No.1, having taken no steps to set aside the original decree, was bound to surrender possession of the property to respondent No.1.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption decree can be declared ineffective on the ground of collusion when a party has admitted its correctness before the trial court?
- Does a son have the authority to exchange his father's property without proper authorization?
- Is a finding of fact regarding property transactions affirmed by the High Court open to interference in the Supreme Court?
- udge Labour Court Umar Zada vs Messrs Pakistan Steels1989 PLC 244 · Labour Court · 1988-02-13Read full judgment →
- Ubedullah vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 245 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-05Read full judgment →
- Ubedullah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 626 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-05Read full judgment →
- Tufail Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 106 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
- Tufail Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- Tsering Dolkar. (M/s.) vs The Administrator Union Territory Of Delhi AndPTCL 1989 FC. 72 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Central Board of Revenue and another1989 PTD 1048 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court arose from a reference to a third Judge following a division of opinion between Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J. and Mamoon Kazi, J. on the interpretation of Section 50(7A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Income Tax authorities raised an advance tax demand against the Trustees of the Port of Karachi for sales of surplus goods by public auction, asserting that the petitioner as principal was liable for the default of its auctioneers. The petitioner contended that statutory responsibility to collect advance tax rested entirely upon the person conducting the public auction. Saleem Akhtar, J. held that under Section 50(7A) read with Section 52, the obligation to collect advance tax from buyers is specifically imposed on the person making the sale by public auction. Consequently, where an independent professional auctioneer conducts the auction, the auctioneer, and not the owner of the goods, is responsible for collecting the tax; conversely, if the owner's own officers or employees conduct the auction or public tender, the owner remains liable. The impugned demand was declared without lawful authority, and the department was directed to conduct an inquiry into how the sales were executed.
Questions settled- Whether under Section 50(7A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 the statutory liability to collect advance tax rests upon an independent auctioneer or upon the owner whose goods are sold?
- Whether the owner of auctioned property can be treated as an assessee in default under Section 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 if an independent auctioneer fails to collect advance tax?
- Does the responsibility to collect advance tax fall on an entity where the sale of property is conducted directly through its own employees or officers rather than via an independent professional auctioneer?
- Town Committee, Sujawal vs Hakim Murtaza Khan And Other1989 MLD 1955 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
- Total and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 615 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
- TM Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Tikka Khan and 5 others vs Abdullah Khan and another1989 SCMR 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a pre-emption suit. The dispute arose over the sale of land measuring 32 kanals 13 marlas, which was purchased by the petitioners and subsequently challenged by two separate pre-emptors: the vendor's sister and a residuary of the vendor. The core legal question was whether the respondent, Abdullah Khan, possessed a superior right of pre-emption compared to the vendees. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly determined the matter based on the evidence presented. The Court affirmed that the respondent, being a residuary of the vendor, held a nearer degree of relationship to the vendor than the vendees, thereby establishing a superior right of pre-emption. The Court found no question of law requiring further consideration and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-emption rights are determined by the proximity of the relationship to the vendor in accordance with established law.
Questions settled- Does a residuary of a vendor possess a superior right of pre-emption compared to a vendee?
- Are concurrent findings of lower courts in a pre-emption suit subject to interference by the Supreme Court where no question of law is raised?
- Thomas Wong and another vs Qazi Abdul Majeed through Legal Heirs1989 SCMR 1195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an ejectment order passed by a Cantonment Rent Controller, which was upheld by the High Court. The petitioners, tenants of commercial property in a Cantonment Area, challenged their eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and personal requirement. The core legal question was whether the statutory bar against eviction for personal requirement, applicable to restaurants under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, applied in this case, and whether the landlords had provided the requisite 'consent in writing' for the conversion of the premises into a restaurant. The Supreme Court held that the proviso requiring 'consent in writing' for converting premises into a restaurant is a stringent condition. It determined that the premises were not originally let for a restaurant and that the landlords' conduct or documents signed by them did not constitute the mandatory 'consent in writing' required by the statute. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the eviction order while granting the tenants four months to vacate.
Questions settled- Does the 'consent in writing' requirement for converting premises into a restaurant under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 allow for implied consent through conduct or documents?
- Does the third proviso to section 17(4) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 bar eviction for personal requirement if the premises are used as a restaurant?
- Is the requirement of 'consent in writing' for property conversion under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 a mandatory, stringent condition?
- Thiraj and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 760 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
- Thiraj and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 32 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
- The Water and Power Development Authority vs Mumtaz Hussain1989 SCMR 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against a Service Tribunal decision that reinstated a respondent who had been retired from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the Authority's power to remove an employee under Section 17(1-A) was exercised lawfully when the action contradicted the Authority's own established policy guidelines. The Service Tribunal had found that the respondent did not fall into any of the categories specified in the Authority's Office Memorandum for such drastic action, rendering the removal improper. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the impugned action was not a rational or balanced exercise of the Authority's powers. The Court established the principle that while the powers under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, are broad, they must be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the Authority's own internal instructions, which serve to ensure fairness and prevent the arbitrary use of such vast administrative discretion.
Questions settled- Can the Water and Power Development Authority exercise its powers under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 in contravention of its own internal policy guidelines?
- Is the exercise of unfettered administrative power under the WAPDA Act 1958 subject to the requirement of reasonableness?
- The STATERespondent vs Mian Muhammad and 4 others1989 SCMR 1812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular testimony and the necessity of independent corroboration in criminal cases where a large number of accused persons are implicated and the medical evidence contradicts the extent of the alleged firing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the convictions and sentences, noting that twelve persons were stated to have opened fire while the deceased bore marks of only two gunshots, indicating the involvement of a large number of innocent persons. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is found unreliable regarding a significant portion of the accused and contradicts medical evidence, it is unsafe to rely upon it against remaining accused without independent corroboration.
Questions settled- Is independent corroboration required when ocular testimony implicates a large number of persons but medical evidence shows fewer injuries than alleged?
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside convictions and sentences when the testimony of eyewitnesses is found unreliable regarding several co-accused?
- The State vs Zahoor Ahmad and others1989 P Cr. L J 1210 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
- The State vs Wazir Ali Etc.K.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 682 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- The State vs Wazir Ali And Other1989 MLD 4649 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- The State vs Tahir Shah1989 MLD 2810 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
- The State vs Sultan Muhammad and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 2038 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
- The State vs Station House Officer1989 MLD 320 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- The State vs Sikander Hayat and others1989 P Cr. L J 1179 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-01Read full judgment →
- The State vs Shaukat Ali And 4 Other1989 MLD 883 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- The State vs Shabbir HussainK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 1(2) · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- The State vs Qaisar Abbas1989 P Cr. L J 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- The State vs Nayar Mirza and others1989 P Cr. L J 1005 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-23Read full judgment →
- The State vs Nawab Khan1989 P Cr. L J 1659 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
- The State vs Napa And Other1989 MLD 3460 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- The State vs Mushtaq Ahmad and another1989 P Cr. L J 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
- The State vs Munir Ahmad1989 MLD 2839 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
- The State vs Munir Ahmad1989 P Cr. L J 1791 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Zubair and another1989 P Cr. L J 2116 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Younis And Another1989 MLD 3258 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Sachal and another1988 P Cr. L J 254 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Rafiq and others1989 P Cr. L J 1708 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Nasim Baig1989 P Cr. L J 1842 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several Criminal Acquittal Appeals filed by the State against respondents who were employees of the Federal Government and had been acquitted by the Special Judge (Central) in corruption-related cases. A common preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of these appeals, specifically whether they were filed by a competent authority. The Court examined the provisions of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, which governs the prosecution of Federal Government employees. The Court held that under Section 10(2) of the Act, an appeal against an acquittal must be filed by a Public Prosecutor specifically directed by the Federal Government. The Court determined that the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding Public Prosecutors appointed by the Provincial Government do not apply to these cases. Because the appeals were filed by individuals not authorized by the Federal Government as Public Prosecutors for these specific proceedings, the Court concluded that the appeals were incompetent. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for lack of proper authorization, regardless of the merits of the underlying acquittal orders.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against an acquittal of a Federal Government employee under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, can be filed by a Public Prosecutor appointed by the Provincial Government?
- Does the definition of 'Public Prosecutor' under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to prosecutions conducted under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
- Is a direction from the Federal Government a condition precedent for filing an acquittal appeal against a Federal Government employee under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
- Can an advocate appointed in a private capacity to file an appeal be deemed a 'Public Prosecutor' for the purposes of Section 10(2) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
- The State vs Muhammad Babu Khan1989 SCMR 1232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition filed by the State against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9 July 1984, which had maintained the respondent's conviction under section 409 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, but altered the sentence of imprisonment for one year rigorous imprisonment to a sentence of fine. The core legal question concerns the propriety of altering a substantive sentence of imprisonment to a fine alone in a corruption case without cogent grounds. The Court held that the significant delay of 667 days in filing the petition should be condoned due to the nature of the case and the absence of valid reasons for reducing the sentence by the High Court. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted. The key principle laid down is that reduction of a substantive prison sentence to a mere fine in corruption offenses without cogent justification warrants interference by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can condone a delay of 667 days in filing a petition by the State in a corruption case?
- Is it legally justified to alter a substantive sentence of imprisonment to a fine in a corruption offense without cogent grounds?
- The State vs Muhammad Ashraf and another1989 P Cr. L J 1480 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Arif1989 P Cr. L J 1835 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad AkramK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 163 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Akram and another1989 P Cr. L J 657 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- The State vs Maula Bakhsh and others1989 P Cr. L J 2469 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- The State vs Mahboob Ali1989 P Cr. L J 1951 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-06Read full judgment →
- The State vs Lal Masih and others1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 70 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-05-09Read full judgment →
- The State vs Lal Khan and another1989 P Cr. L J 1366 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- The State vs Ghulam Murtaza And Other1989 MLD 4926 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
- The State vs Ghazanfar Ali and others1989 PLD Shariat Court (AJ&K) 1 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
- The State vs Faqirullah And Other1989 MLD 645 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- The State vs Extra Assistant Commissioner Khanpur1989 P Cr. L J 1993 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- The State vs Ehsan Shah and 4 others1989 P Cr. L J 2234 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
- The State vs Azhar Mahmood1989 P Cr. L J 1640 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-12-24Read full judgment →
- The State vs Aqil Khan and another1989 P Cr. L J 1655 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
- The State vs Amanullah1989 P Cr. L J 191 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- The State vs Allah Yar and 5 others1989 P Cr. L J 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- The State vs Ali Akber alias Akoo and another1989 P Cr. L J 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- The State vs Aftab Gul1989 SCMR 1502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the grant of pre-arrest bail to the respondent. The core legal questions were whether the respondent, having been previously convicted by a Military Court for non-appearance, could be denied bail on the grounds of being a fugitive from law, and whether anticipatory bail is barred when no mala fides of the arresting agency are demonstrated after the submission of the challan. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent could not be vexed twice for the same default of non-appearance since his sentence had been remitted. Furthermore, the Court held that the conditions of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were satisfied, rendering the grant of bail a matter of right rather than discretion. The key principle established is that once the conditions of Section 497(2) are met, bail is a right, and the absence of police mala fides does not preclude the grant of anticipatory bail when the court finds sufficient grounds for relief.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be denied bail on the grounds of being a fugitive from law if their previous conviction for non-appearance has been remitted?
- Is the grant of bail a matter of right when the conditions of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are satisfied?
- Does the absence of police mala fides preclude the grant of anticipatory bail after the submission of a challan?
- The State vs Abdul Razaaq1989 P Cr. L J 1663 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- The State vs Abdul Khaliq and another1989 P Cr. L J 328 · Special Court · 1988-02-28Read full judgment →
- The State vs Abdul Aziz1989 P Cr. L J 1486 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
- The State vs Abbas AliK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 550 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-08Read full judgment →
- The State through AdvocateGeneral N.W.F.P. vs Abdur Rashid1989 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
- The State of Tamil Nadu vs Thiru Murugan Brothers1989 PTD 771 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-22Read full judgment →
- The State of Haryana vs Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd.1989 PTD 774 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-20Read full judgment →
- The State Bank of Pakistan vs The Official Liquidator of National1989 SCMR 1434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two petitions for leave to appeal directed against an order passed by the High Court of Sind in a liquidation proceeding concerning a dispute between two creditors regarding the priority of charge in relation to their respective debts. The High Court had partially accepted the application of one petitioner, prompting cross-challenges where one party sought full relief while the other challenged even the partial relief granted. The core legal question involves the determination of priority of charges among creditors in company liquidation matters. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the questions of law raised in the petitions, directing the early hearing of both appeals along with the filing of all essential documents required for their disposal.
Questions settled- How is the priority of charges determined between competing creditors in a company liquidation matter?
- Whether partial relief granted by the High Court regarding debt priority in liquidation is sustainable?
- The Secretary to the Government, Transport Department, Madras vs Munuswamy Mudaliar And Other1989 MLD 1510 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communications and Works Department, Lahore vs Muhammad Anwar1989 SCMR 1943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Communications and Works Department, Lahore, filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 23-8-1981. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Punjab Service Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion in the matter under review. Upon examination, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had duly considered all relevant facts and circumstances before reaching its decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment did not warrant any interference by the appellate court. The petition for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a Service Tribunal where such discretion has been exercised after a comprehensive consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the exercise of discretion by a Service Tribunal when all relevant facts have been considered?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal where discretion was properly exercised?
- The Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Population Division and another vs Syed Nazak Hussain Shah and another1989 SCMR 1443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, representing the Government of Pakistan Population Division, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 12-12-1987, which had reinstated the respondent Syed Nazak Hussain Shah into service with attending benefits. The respondent was initially appointed as a Mali on a temporary basis, later regularized, and subsequently had his services terminated by the Principal of the Regional Training Institute on the ground that his services were no longer required. The core legal question was whether the Principal was the competent authority to terminate the respondent's temporary appointment under Section 11(3) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the competent appointing authority was the Provincial Director General, making the Principal incompetent to terminate the employment. The Court held that termination must be effected by the authority competent to make appointments to that post, and since no question of law of public importance arose, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Principal of the Regional Training Institute was competent to terminate the respondent's temporary appointment?
- Who is the competent authority to terminate a temporary appointment under Section 11(3) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Does the termination of a civil servant by an incompetent authority render the termination order void?
- The Punjab Irrigation Tubewell Workers Union Scarp-II (Cba), Sargodha vs Superintending Engineer, Scarp-II and 2 others1989 PLC 95 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
- The Province of the Punjab vs Syed Shafique Ahmad1989 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- The Province of Punjab And Others vs Izhar Ltd.1989 CLC 180 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- The President, Frontier Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd and 3 others1989 PLC 150 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- The Pakistan Shipping Corporation and anothers vs Rustam F. Cowasjee and others1989 SCMR 1332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the valuation of proprietary interests and entitlement to profits following the government's takeover of the management of a shipping firm, East & West Steamship Company, under the Pakistan Maritime Shipping (Regulation and Control) Act, 1974. The core legal questions involved whether the government could unilaterally revise audited balance sheets to exclude the revaluation of assets, whether the 'minimum return' guaranteed under the Act constituted a maximum, and whether partners were entitled to profits and interest on advances made to the firm during the period of government management. The Supreme Court held that the government could not unilaterally alter audited balance sheets to exclude asset revaluations that were properly conducted. It further ruled that the 'minimum return' guaranteed by the Act was not a maximum, and partners remained entitled to profits and reimbursement of advances. The Court established that statutory guarantees of 'minimum return' do not preclude the payment of higher actual profits, and that acquiring authorities cannot unilaterally disregard audited financial records to the detriment of proprietary interests.
Questions settled- Does a statutory guarantee of a 'minimum return' on investment preclude the payment of higher actual profits to the proprietors?
- Can the government unilaterally direct the revision of audited balance sheets to exclude asset revaluations when determining net worth value under the Pakistan Maritime Shipping (Regulation and Control) Act 1974?
- Is a Constitutional petition an appropriate remedy for challenging the determination of proprietary interests and compensation under the Pakistan Maritime Shipping (Regulation and Control) Act 1974?
- Are partners entitled to interest on advances made to a firm that has been taken over by the government, in the absence of an express agreement?
- The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Faisalabad vs The Punjab Labour1989 PLC 25 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →