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.
- Post Master General Northern Circle Rawalpindi vs Muhammad Nazir1989 PLC 832 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Port Qasim Authority vs Araech (Pakistan) Ltd.1989 MLD 3273 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
- Port Muhammad Bin Qasim Authority vs Messrs National Insurance1989 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a suit for recovery of compensation instituted after a fatal road accident involving a vehicle belonging to the appellant, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim Authority. The core legal question is whether the liability of the insurance company for third-party risk is limited to Rs. 20,000 under section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, given the nature and use of the vehicle. The Supreme Court held that the vehicle was used for the carriage of employees and fell within the statutory framework limiting liability, and that statutory limits cannot be deviated from irrespective of private or commercial classification arguments. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, affirming the lower courts' findings that the insurance company's liability is capped at Rs. 20,000 under the relevant statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Whether the maximum liability of an insurance company for a third-party risk is limited to Rs. 20,000 under section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?
- Does a vehicle used for the carriage of a statutory authority's employees fall within the category of a vehicle for the carriage of persons by reason of or in pursuance of a contract under section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?
- Can a statutory liability regarding insurance coverage limits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 be deviated from?
- Pirzada Muhammad Hassan vs Muhammad Gulzar Alias Boota1989 MLD 3632 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
- Piridno and anothers vs Khurshid Begum1989 SCMR 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the validity of the service of a statutory notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, upon a tenant who was imprisoned in Hyderabad Central Jail at the relevant time. The core legal question was whether the endorsement of 'refusal' by postal authorities on a notice sent to a prisoner, without the verification or involvement of jail authorities and in the face of a categorical denial of service, constitutes valid and sufficient service of notice to sustain an ejectment order for non-payment of rent. The Supreme Court held that where an addressee denies receipt on oath, the legal presumption of service stands rebutted, placing the onus on the sender to prove actual service by examining the postman or establishing the refusal through positive evidence. Furthermore, prison rules require letters to be processed through jail authorities, making the postal endorsement unreliable. The appeal was allowed and the eviction order set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the endorsement of refusal by postal authorities on a notice sent to an incarcerated person constitutes valid service without the verification of jail authorities?
- Does a categorical denial of service by the addressee displace the legal presumption of proper service?
- Is the sender required to examine the postman or produce positive evidence to prove service when the addressee denies receiving or refusing the notice?
- Piran Ditta vs Muhammad Aslam1989 MLD 4658 · Board of Revenue · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Pir Mumtaz Ali vs Sohail Rashid Qureshi, S.D.M., City Hyderabad and 21989 P Cr. L J 38 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
- Pir Gul Badshah vs Sardar Muhammad Nasir Khan1989 CLC 225 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Pir Bakhsh And Others vs Faqir Ullah1989 CLC 44 · Board of Revenue · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- Pir Allaud Din And Another vs Anwar And Other1989 CLC 705 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Pir Abdur Rehman vs Natiq Hussain Shah1989 SCMR 1208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court rightly interfered with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the transaction, which the trial and first appellate courts held to be a sale, but which the High Court on second appeal re-evaluated and determined to be a gift and thus not pre-emptible. The Supreme Court held that no infirmity existed in the impugned judgment of the High Court to warrant interference with its finding of fact in second appellate jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming that the High Court's determination regarding the transaction being a gift was sustainable.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact in a second appeal in a pre-emption matter?
- Does a transaction classified as a gift attract the right of pre-emption?
- Pioneer Steel Mills Ltd. vs Muhammad Ali and another1989 PLC 882 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-16Read full judgment →
- Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra1989 MLD 2067 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-05-06Read full judgment →
- Piara Khan vs Bashir Ahmad1989 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts and the High Court, which decreed a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner had purchased the disputed land through an oral sale evidenced by a mutation attested on 12-9-1971. At the time of the sale, the petitioner was a tenant of the land. Subsequently, paragraph 25(3)(b) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 conferred the first right of pre-emption upon tenants. The core legal question is whether a pre-emption suit against a purchaser who was a tenant at the time of the sale is maintainable when tenants were granted superior pre-emption rights under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 by the time the suit was instituted, notwithstanding the fact that the purchaser had become an owner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this contention.
Questions settled- Is a pre-emption suit maintainable against a purchaser who was a tenant at the time of the sale when tenants were granted the first right of pre-emption by paragraph 25(3)(b) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 before the institution of the suit?
- Phassco Hardware Co. vs The Government of Pakistan and 3 others1989 PLD Karachi 621 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the legality of Section 25-B of the Customs Act, 1969, and a notification issued thereunder, alleging excessive delegation of legislative power and arbitrary valuation of imported goods. The core legal questions were whether Section 25-B, which empowers the Central Board of Revenue to fix customs values, constitutes unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, and whether such notifications can apply retrospectively. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 25-B is intra vires as it does not delegate essential legislative power but rather executive authority to implement the Act's purposes. The Court established that while notifications under Section 25-B must maintain a nexus with actual market values to avoid being deemed arbitrary or capricious, minor discrepancies do not invalidate them. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that notifications operate prospectively, though factual disputes regarding the timing of goods clearance must be adjudicated by the statutory forums provided under the Customs Act rather than through constitutional jurisdiction. The judgment emphasizes that there is a presumption of validity in favor of such notifications, placing the burden of proving arbitrariness on the challenger.
Questions settled- Does Section 25-B of the Customs Act 1969 constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?
- Must a notification issued under Section 25-B of the Customs Act 1969 maintain a nexus with the actual market value of goods?
- Can a notification issued under the Customs Act 1969 be applied retrospectively?
- Is the burden of proof on the petitioner to demonstrate that a notification under Section 25-B was exercised arbitrarily?
- Phalla Masih vs The State1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 72 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
- Perviaz vs Mst. Khurshid Begum And Other1989 MLD 3050 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- Pervez Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 320 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz Irshad vs Riaz Ahmad1989 CLC 978 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State1989 MLD 885(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz Ahmad Butt vs The State1989 MLD 704 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- Personnel Manager, Pattoki Sugar Mills, Kasur vs Soofi Muhammad1989 PLC 904 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Peera and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 690 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-17Read full judgment →
- Peer Muhammad vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd.1989 PLC 466 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Peer Ahmad Yar vs Muhammad Jamal1989 MLD 4168 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
- Pattoki Sugar Mills, Pottoki vs Muhammad Rashid Abbasi and 13 others1989 PLC 92 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-07-12Read full judgment →
- Patrik and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 373 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
- Patauri Devi And Others vs Amar Nath And Other1989 MLD 3364 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-01-12Read full judgment →
- Paradise Associates Ltd. vs Province of Sind And Other1989 MLD 2480 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Pana Lal vs Secretary, Government of Sind, Education Department, Karachi and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 508 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Welding Electrodes Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax,1989 PTD 1243 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-20Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority And Another vs Messrs Light House Electric Concern, Commercial Centre, Nangi1989 CLC 1778 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Warehouse Carriers Workers' Union and others vs Registrar, Trade Unions and others1989 PLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-30Read full judgment →
- Pakistan vs Publicatlarge1989 SCMR 1690 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1988-01-17Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation Motels (N), Rawalpindi vs Muhammad Asghar Khan1989 PLC 714 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Tobacco Co.Ltd vs The C.I.T., Central Zone-a, Karachi1989 PTD 826 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Jhelum vs Bashir Samuel and others1989 SCMR 1729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner company sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of its writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court. The respondent, an employee of the petitioner, was dismissed from service for alleged theft of cigarettes after a domestic inquiry. The core legal question concerned the validity of the employee's dismissal based on disputed findings of fact regarding the recovery of the cigarettes. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and the High Court were correct, noting that the petitioner failed to produce expert evidence to disprove the employee's plausible explanation that he picked up discarded cigarettes from rubbish. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that the benefit of doubt was rightly extended to the employee.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by labor courts and the High Court can be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the failure to produce expert evidence to substantiate allegations of theft make the employer's case doubtful?
- Is an employee entitled to the benefit of doubt in disciplinary proceedings when the employer fails to conclusively establish misconduct?
- Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs The General Public1989 PLD Supreme Court 6 · Shariat Appellate BenchRead full judgment →
- Pakistan through Secretary, Government of Pakistan and 2 others vs Nisar1989 SCMR 2024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan through the Secretary, Government of Pakistan and others against the acceptance of the respondent's service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding his compulsory retirement. During the hearing, the Deputy Attorney-General sought permission to take up additional questions of law of general public importance through an application for amendment of the petition. The newly raised questions pertained to whether the Tribunal, upon objecting to the inquiry procedure for failing to inspect the spot, ought to have remanded the case back to the Inquiry Committee for a fresh finding in light of established precedent, and whether the Tribunal should have ascertained the action taken against other involved officials. The Supreme Court found the request for amendment reasonable and allowed it. Determining that the points raised from the petitioners' side required deeper examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and suspended the impugned judgment in the interim.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal should remand a case to the Inquiry Committee when it finds procedural defects such as failure to inspect the spot?
- Whether the Service Tribunal is required to ascertain the action taken against other co-accused officials when determining a service appeal?
- Can a petitioner be permitted to amend a petition for leave to appeal to raise additional questions of law of public importance?
- Pakistan through Chairman, Railway Board vs Messrs Pak Traders and Manufacturers1989 SCMR 1435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding a decree in favor of the respondent firm for the recovery of the price of goods supplied under a contract. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner could lawfully reject goods that had already been duly inspected, tested, and accepted via an official receipt note, and whether a new plea regarding an arbitration clause could be raised for the first time at the leave to appeal stage. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were unexceptionable since the goods were admittedly supplied and accepted in accordance with the contract procedure, and further ruled that a plea regarding an arbitration clause not raised before the lower courts cannot be permitted at the petition stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that accepted goods entitle the supplier to payment and that fresh factual or procedural pleas cannot be introduced for the first time before the apex court.
Questions settled- Can a party raise an objection regarding an arbitration clause for the first time at the petition for leave to appeal stage?
- Is a supplier entitled to recover the price of goods where the goods have been duly inspected, tested, and certified as meeting contract specifications?
- Pakistan through Chairman, Railway Board vs Khuda Bakhsh and 7 others1989 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondents filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership regarding disputed land measuring 5 kanals and 6 marlas located in District Bahawalnagar, claiming purchase through a public auction from the District Collector followed by an attested mutation. The Federal Government in the Railways Department contested the ownership, presenting the matter as a title dispute between the Federal and Provincial Governments. The core legal question centered on whether the courts below erred in relying upon the mutation register rather than examining the conveyance deed, given that the Transfer of Property Act was in force in the former Bahawalpur State. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, holding that the lower courts failed to examine the crucial aspect of the conveyance deed under the applicable law. The key principle laid down is that in regions where the Transfer of Property Act applies, the conveyance deed must be scrutinized to determine title rather than relying solely on mutation entries.
Questions settled- Whether the courts below erred in relying upon the mutation register instead of examining the conveyance deed?
- Is a conveyance deed required to be examined when the Transfer of Property Act is in force?
- How is a title dispute between the Federal Government and Provincial Government regarding auctioned land to be determined?
- Pakistan Television Corporation vs M. Babar Zaman and others1989 SCMR 1549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated appeals and civil petitions arose from disputes regarding the terms and conditions of employment of Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV) employees. Following disciplinary actions and suspensions, employees invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, asserting that they were governed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. PTV contended that the employees were governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952, and that rules framed thereunder by a member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) were valid. The High Court initially held the rules to be ultra vires and ruled that the Act ousted the jurisdiction of all other adjudicatory forums. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the rules were competently framed by an authorized member of the NIRC under the 1952 Act. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the 1952 Act only supersedes other laws to the extent of direct contrariety; it does not completely oust the jurisdiction of ordinary adjudicatory forums, such as Labour Courts or the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction, for matters not covered by the Act.
Questions settled- Whether service rules framed by a member of the National Industrial Relations Commission authorized by the Chairman are valid and statutory under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952?
- Does the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952 completely oust the jurisdiction of ordinary adjudicatory forums for matters not covered by the Act?
- Can an employee directly invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge disciplinary proceedings if the governing service rules are statutory?
- Pakistan Tabacco Company Ltd. vs Collector of Customs And Other1989 MLD 1996 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd., Karachi vs Sadda Hussain1989 PLC 111 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-04Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. vs Mirajul Abedin1989 PLC 558 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited and others vs Deputy Commissioner (East), Karachi and others1989 SCMR 812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants, including Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited, challenged judgments of the High Court regarding whether a company or local authority for whose benefit land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 has the legal standing to file an appeal against an award/judgment of the Referee Court under Section 18 of the said Act. The High Court had answered the question in the negative, relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad (PLD 1987 SC 485). The Supreme Court re-examined the statutory scheme, including Sections 9(5), 11, 18, 20, 22-A, 26, and 50(2) of the Act, and refused to review its earlier decision. The Court held that a right of appeal must be expressly conferred by statute. Since no such right is granted to a company or local authority under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, they cannot prefer an appeal against the Referee Court's decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgments and dismissed the matters.
Questions settled- Can a company or local authority for whose benefit land is acquired file an appeal against a decision of the Referee Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Does a party have a right of appeal under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 without explicit statutory authorization?
- Under what circumstances can a judgment of the Supreme Court be reviewed on grounds of being per incuriam?
- Pakistan Railways vs Muhammad Jamil Khan1989 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan Railways against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent's service appeal and directed his reinstatement. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Service Tribunal's decision to reinstate the respondent, while allowing authorities to proceed afresh against him for the alleged charges, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order, which was based on both the merits of the case and the legal permissibility of recovering losses from the respondent's pay following his dismissal. The Court held that the first point regarding the merits did not involve a question of law of public importance. Regarding the second point, the Court determined that it was premature to address the legality of the recovery, as the respondent might be dismissed again upon a fresh inquiry, at which point the authorities could independently decide the recovery issue. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, finding no useful purpose would be served by further litigation in the current circumstances.
Questions settled- Does the decision of a Service Tribunal regarding the merits of a service appeal necessarily involve a question of law of public importance?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal when the underlying legal issue regarding the recovery of losses may become moot depending on the outcome of fresh disciplinary proceedings?
- Pakistan Railways vs Mst. Rasheed Akhtar And 2 Other1989 MLD 341 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-04Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways vs Ghulam Sarwar1989 SCMR 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by Pakistan Railways challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal allowing the respondent's appeal regarding War Service Benefits for pay fixation and pension. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in deciding the appeal on merits without properly considering and determining the question of limitation and the application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal failed to apply its mind to the question of limitation or record any finding on the sufficiency of grounds for condonation of delay before deciding the matter on merits, which is a mandatory legal requirement. The Court laid down the principle that a court or tribunal is legally bound to independently examine and determine the point of limitation, even if it is a special law, and must explicitly record its satisfaction regarding condonation of delay before addressing a case on its merits.
Questions settled- Whether a service tribunal is required to explicitly determine the question of limitation before deciding an appeal on merits?
- Can the question of limitation be waived in proceedings governed by a special law?
- Does a general reference to unspecified technical and legal objections satisfy the requirement of adjudicating upon a time-barred appeal?
- Pakistan Railways through General Manager, (Ho) and another vs Naseeb Baig Mirza1989 PLC 869 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Paper Corporation Ltd. vs The Collector, Central Excises1989 CLC 2243 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Oxygen Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and others1989 PTD 818 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Molasses Company vs The Collector of Customs and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order rejecting the petitioner's application to amend their constitutional petition. The petitioner sought to amend their pleadings to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 31-A, introduced into the Customs Act, 1969, by the Finance Ordinance, 1988, during the pendency of their original challenge against customs duty assessments. The core legal question was whether a petitioner must formally amend their pleadings to challenge the validity of a new statutory provision enacted during litigation, even before the respondents have invoked it. The Supreme Court held that the amendment application was misconceived and unnecessary. The Court ruled that if a party relies on a new law during proceedings, the opposing party may challenge its validity or applicability at that time without needing to amend their pleadings in advance. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the amendment application, establishing the principle that a court cannot refuse to entertain a party's plea challenging the validity of a law invoked by an opponent, regardless of whether the pleadings were formally amended to include such a challenge.
Questions settled- Is it necessary to amend a constitutional petition to challenge the validity of a new law enacted during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Can a party challenge the validity of a statute relied upon by an opponent if the statute was not on the statute book when the proceedings were instituted?
- Does the failure to amend pleadings to include a constitutional challenge to a new law preclude a party from arguing its invalidity during the hearing?
- Pakistan Milk Food Manufacturers Ltd. vs Joint Registrar of Companies1989 PLD Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-09Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines through its Chairman, Karachi vs Muhammad Ali and 3 others1989 PLD Karachi 269 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and anothers vs Manzoor Ahmad Khan1989 PLD Supreme Court 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which accepted the respondent employee's appeal and set aside his dismissal from service with back benefits. The core legal question concerns the extent to which the Supreme Court can interfere with findings of fact by the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, particularly where evidence is allegedly misread. The Supreme Court held that while it possesses corrective jurisdiction under Article 212(3) to interfere if the Tribunal's conclusions are whimsical, capricious, or based on a complete misreading of evidence, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the evidence merely established suspicion rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt was a possible view. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the Court admonished the Tribunal to give greater attention to all evidentiary material in future cases. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with factual determinations of the Service Tribunal unless the conclusions are perverse, whimsical, or founded on a complete disregard of record evidence.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Does suspicion alone constitute sufficient evidence to uphold the dismissal of a corporate employee for aiding and abetting smuggling?
- What constitutes a whimsical or capricious conclusion by a Service Tribunal warranting interference by the Supreme Court?
- Pakistan Industrial Gases Co. Ltd. vs Dr. Saleh1989 MLD 612 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-06Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited vs Mansoor Textile Mills Limited And Other1989 MLD 945 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Flour Mills, Peshawar vs Mian Sultan Muhammad1989 CLC 116 · Board of Revenue · 1988-04-14Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd. vs Terni S.P.A., Italy1989 MLD 2787 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Secretary1989 MLD 2880 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Service Corporation Ltd. and others vs Nooruddin Dhamra1989 PLC 181 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-18Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Agricultural Storage & Service Corporation Limited vs Province of Punjab and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 367 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the vires of Rule 36-A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979, which empowered Market Committees to levy a 'special cess' on agricultural produce bought or sold by dealers. The core legal question was whether the Government possessed the rule-making power to impose such a 'special cess' under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978, when the parent statute only authorized the levy of a 'fee' and 'licence fee'. The Lahore High Court held that the levy in substance constituted a 'fee' rendered for specific services such as the construction of roads and culverts, rather than a tax or cess. However, because the impugned 'special cess' was levied in addition to and exceeded the maximum fee limit prescribed by the Government under Section 19 of the Ordinance, it was inconsistent with the parent statute. The court laid down the principle that the substance of a levy, rather than its nomenclature, determines its legal nature, but delegated subordinate legislation cannot exceed the substantive limits and maximum caps prescribed by the enabling statute.
Questions settled- Whether Rule 36-A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979 is ultra vires the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978?
- Can the nomenclature of a levy as a 'special cess' be regarded as conclusive for determining its validity, or does the substance of the enactment govern?
- Does the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 authorize the imposition of a special cess in addition to the maximum fee prescribed under Section 19?
- Pak Trade Affiliation vs Commissioner of Income Tax Zone 'A' and others1989 PTD 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from three petitions for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by a firm of contractors challenging the dismissal of its writ petitions by the High Court. The petitioner had filed its income tax returns before the Contractors Circle III, Zone 'A', Lahore, but assessment orders were subsequently passed by an Income-tax Officer of a different circle in Zone 'B' without knowledge of the initial filings. Upon discovering this procedural irregularity, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Zone 'A', set aside the assessment orders under Section 138 of the Income-tax Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner acted within his lawful authority and without illegality in setting aside assessment orders passed by an Income-tax Officer lacking proper jurisdiction over the returns filed. The Supreme Court held that the order of the Commissioner suffered from no illegality, affirming that assessments conducted by an unauthorized circle without disclosure of pending returns in the correct circle are liable to be set aside. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused and the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a Commissioner of Income-tax has the lawful authority under Section 138 of the Income-tax Ordinance to set aside an assessment order passed by an Income-tax Officer of another circle?
- Can an assessment order passed by an Income-tax Officer lacking proper jurisdiction over the filed returns be set aside for irregularity?
- Pak Noble Enterprises vs The Central Board of Revenue and 2 others1989 PLD Karachi 617 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
- Pak Cigarette Labour Union, Karachi vs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Karachi1989 PLC 163 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
- Painday Khan vs Mohammad Zaman1989 MLD 4696 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- P.T.O. Co. Circle C-9, Karachi vs Unique Ltd., Karachi1989 PTD (Trib.) 73 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
- P.N. Duda vs P. Shiv Shanker And Other1989 MLD 2543 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-15Read full judgment →
- P vs 'R'K.L.R. 1989 Revenue Cases 139 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Oscar Hendrick vs Abdul Wahid1989 MLD 1800 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
- Omar vs The State1989 MLD 1316 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- Om Prakash Garg vs Ganga Sahai And Other1989 MLD 1117 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
- Om Prakash And Another vs Union of India And Other1989 MLD 2416 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
- Okara Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Bashir Ahmad1989 PLC 169 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- Nusrat vs Mohammad Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Nusrat and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1893(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Nur Muhammad vs Munir Ahmad and others1989 P Cr. L J 712(2) · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-01Read full judgment →
- Nur Jehan Begum and Two Other vs Syed Mujtaba Ali NaqviK.L.R.1989. Civil Cases. 49 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- Nowsherwan vs S.D.M. Nazimabad and Tribunal, Karachi and others1989 P Cr. L J 802 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
- Not vs NotK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Casees 401 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- Not vs Not1989 PTD (Trib.) 859 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
- Not vs Not1989 PTD (Trib.) 599 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
- Nosher Khan vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaranwala and others1989 SCMR 1500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a challenge by a Lambardar against the recovery of Government dues and the subsequent issuance of arrest warrants. The petitioner had previously failed in the High Court, which dismissed his writ petition on the grounds that he possessed an alternative remedy under the Land Revenue Act. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the amount demanded by the authorities was incorrect and not actually due. The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether specific amounts are due constitutes a question of fact, which is properly within the jurisdiction of the relevant administrative authorities rather than the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Affirming the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner must pursue the alternative legal remedies available to him under the relevant statute. Consequently, the Court found no legal error in the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition and refused leave to appeal, emphasizing that factual disputes regarding government dues should be resolved through established administrative channels.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction to determine disputed questions of fact regarding government dues?
- Is the existence of an alternative remedy under the Land Revenue Act a valid ground for dismissing a writ petition?
- Nosher Khan vs Nek Muhammad alias Neki1989 SCMR 1960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's regular second appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent dismissal of his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell by the lower courts. The core legal questions involved whether the concurrent findings of fact were vitiated by the respondent's inconsistent pleas, the shifting of the onus of proof following a finger-print expert's report, and defects in pleadings regarding the allegation of fraud under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts and the High Court committed no error of law in the appraisal of evidence or in addressing the technical objections regarding pleadings and onus, noting that the respondent's explanation regarding the thumb-impressions was plausible and pleadings in mufassil areas do not require meticulous drafting. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual findings supported by plausible explanations and evidence appraisal will not be disturbed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a suit for specific performance can be set aside on the ground of inconsistent pleas by the defendant?
- Does the report of a finger-print expert verifying a disputed thumb-impression automatically shift the burden of proof to the defendant to establish fraud?
- Can a plea of fraud be excluded from consideration if specific particulars are not meticulously detailed in the written statement?
- Noorulamin, Barristeratlaw Advocate, Supreme Court, Azad Jammu1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 53 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-12-16Read full judgment →
- Noorul Islam vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority And Other1989 MLD 2253 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
- Noorul Hassan vs The StatePTCL 1989 CL. 455 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Noorul Hassan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 631 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of an appellant for an offence under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, relating to the seizure of betel leaves. The core legal questions revolved around the mandatory compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act, the necessity of proving the foreign origin of seized goods for a smuggling charge, and the impact of the non-production of case property during trial. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction. The court held that non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, is a mandatory requirement designed to protect individuals and vitiates the trial, not being curable under Section 537 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the prosecution must establish the foreign origin of goods to sustain a smuggling charge, and the failure to exhibit case property in court can also vitiate the trial.
Questions settled- Is compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 mandatory?
- Can non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 be cured under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove the foreign origin of seized goods to sustain a conviction for smuggling under the Customs Act?
- Does the non-production of case property in court vitiate a criminal trial under the Customs Act?
- Noorul Haq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1322 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Noori vs The State1989 MLD 762 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Noori vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 400 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Noori Trading Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan through the Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1989 PLD Quetta 74 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the imposition of excise duty on ship plates and materials recovered from the dismantling of ships at Gadani, following the promulgation of the Central Excise and Salt Act (Amendment) Ordinance-III of 1988. The core legal question was whether the process of ship-breaking constitutes 'manufacture' or 'production' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, thereby attracting excise duty. The Court held that the process of dismantling a ship does not amount to 'manufacture' as defined in the Act, as it involves disintegration rather than the creation of a new, commercially distinct product. Consequently, the Court ruled that the ship plates and materials recovered were not liable to excise duty. The key principle laid down is that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly; if a subject does not fall clearly within the letter of the law, tax cannot be imposed by inference, analogy, or intendment. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that where a statutory definition of 'manufacture' is not amended to include a specific process, the executive cannot expand the scope of taxation through administrative action.
Questions settled- Does the process of dismantling or breaking a ship constitute 'manufacture' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Can excise duty be imposed on goods by implication or analogy if they do not fall within the strict letter of the taxing statute?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against a fiscal statute when an alternative appellate remedy exists?
- Is the material recovered from ship-breaking liable to excise duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act (Amendment) Ordinance-III of 1988?
- Noordin vs Savan and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 439 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-07Read full judgment →
- Noor vs Shera1989 MLD 4149 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
- Noor Ur Rehman vs Mst. Zareena Jan1989 CLC 1578 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
- Noor Sahib Khan And 3 Others vs Mir Jananson And 6 Other1989 CLC 1666 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs The State1989 MLD 4653 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 153 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-28Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad YusufK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 45 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →