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.
- Nawab vs Muhammad Saeed And Another1989 MLD 4933 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-04Read full judgment →
- Nawab Shah and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1779 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Nawab Khan vs Said Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside orders of Revenue authorities regarding the ejectment of respondents from a disputed Ihata. The petitioner, who had been allotted the Ihata, sought to eject the respondents, who were refugees from Jammu and Kashmir residing on the property. While the Revenue authorities initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, the High Court set aside these orders. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction to overturn concurrent findings of Revenue authorities regarding the possession and entitlement of the disputed property. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's interference was justified. The Court relied on Board of Revenue instructions protecting refugees in continuous possession of an Ihata for over ten years from disturbance, particularly where the petitioner already possessed other property and sought the disputed Ihata merely for tethering cattle, whereas the respondents had constructed permanent homes thereon. The principle established is that equitable considerations and specific administrative instructions regarding refugee rehabilitation override strict ejectment claims in revenue proceedings.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of Revenue authorities in the exercise of writ jurisdiction?
- Does the continuous possession of an Ihata by a refugee for over ten years grant protection against ejectment under Board of Revenue instructions?
- Nawab Fayyaz Ali Khan vs Athar Ali Khan1989 MLD 3751 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Nawab Din vs Qais Abdur Rashid1989 MLD 3214 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Naveed Nawazish Malik vs Additional District Judge/Appellate1989 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an order striking off a tenant's defence in an eviction proceeding. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on grounds of rent default. The Rent Controller had ordered the tenant to deposit arrears and future rent by specific dates under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The tenant failed to comply with the deadline, leading the Rent Controller to strike off the defence, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge. However, the High Court reversed this, accepting the tenant's explanation that they attempted to deposit the rent on the final day but were prevented from doing so. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that prior jurisprudence consistently holds that a tenant who waits until the last day to deposit rent and subsequently fails to do so bears full responsibility for the default. The Court found the High Court's acceptance of the tenant's excuse required further judicial consideration, thereby setting the stage for a review of the strict compliance requirement for rent deposits.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's failure to deposit rent by the deadline due to an alleged last-minute attempt to pay constitute a valid excuse for non-compliance?
- Is a tenant solely responsible for the consequences of defaulting on a rent deposit order when they wait until the final day to make the payment?
- Nausher Ahmad Khan and 8 others vs District Collector/Deputy1989 SCMR 1205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of a constitutional petition relating to the allotment of State land under the Horse-Breeding Tenancy Scheme. The core legal question concerns the rival claims for the allotment of tenancy following the death of the original tenant, Hassan Ali, between his sons, where the Remount Officer recommended the younger son and the Collector eventually allotted the tenancy to him after the death of the elder claimant, Ahmed Khan. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the questions raised, noting that similar leave had been granted in connected matters, and directed that the appeal be prepared on the present record along with the filing of necessary additional documents to be heard alongside those connected cases. The holding establishes that where similar substantial questions regarding land allotment under tenancy schemes arise, leave to appeal is warranted for a comprehensive examination alongside pending analogous matters.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when similar questions regarding the allotment of State land under the Horse-Breeding Tenancy Scheme are pending in other cases?
- How does the death of a claimant affect the proceedings for the allotment of tenancy under government schemes?
- Naurang and 4 others vs Bagh Ali1989 SCMR 1171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by pre-emptors against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed the respondent vendee's Regular Second Appeal. The core legal question was whether the transaction in dispute constituted a sale or an exchange, thereby determining the maintainability of the pre-emption suit. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to raise any point in seeking leave to appeal that could justify interference by the Court on either a point of law or fact. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the High Court's finding that the transaction was one of exchange rather than sale.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction in dispute constitutes a sale or an exchange for the purposes of a pre-emption suit?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent or appellate factual findings regarding the nature of a transaction without sufficient justification on law or fact?
- National, Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Knitwara Garments Ltd. And Other1989 MLD 3209 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
- National Detergents Limited vs Assistant Registrar of Trade Marksii1989 MLD 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- National Construction Company (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Assistant1989 MLD 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
- National Construction Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan1989 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a government-controlled company, challenged a demand for customs duty amounting to Rs. 4,52,02,875 on a consignment of building material imported in 1976 and stored in a licensed pile yard under section 13 of the Customs Act. The core legal question was whether customs duty should be assessed based on the rate prevailing at the time of initial import in 1976, or at the rate prevailing in June 1979 when the bill of entry for home consumption was voluntarily filed after it was discovered that 90% of the goods had been consumed without filing an ex-bond entry. The Sindh High Court held that since the goods were stored in a bonded warehouse and removed without filing an ex-bond entry or paying duty, and the petitioner represented until April 1979 that the goods remained unconsumed before filing a fresh bill of entry in June 1979, the assessment of duty based on the rates prevailing in June 1979 was fully justified and strictly in accordance with section 30 of the Customs Act. The court laid down that for goods stored in a bonded warehouse, duty is determined by the rate applicable upon clearance or actual removal, and the mention of a wrong statutory section for penalty does not vitiate the penalty if jurisdiction to impose it otherwise exists under the statute.
Questions settled- What is the relevant date for determining the rate of import duty for goods cleared from a warehouse under Section 104 of the Customs Act?
- Whether customs duty on goods stored in a bonded warehouse is payable at the rate prevailing on the date of actual removal or the date of initial import?
- Does the mention of a wrong section number in an order imposing a penalty vitiate the penalty if the authority otherwise possesses the jurisdiction to impose it under the statute?
- National Bank of Pakistan, Que1ta vs Muhammad Bakhsh1989 PLC 139 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Hyderabad vs Qurban Ali Channa1989 PLC 1007 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs The Punjab National Silk Mills Ltd. And 21989 MLD 2963 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application filed under section 319 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 for the withdrawal and revocation of a final winding up order previously passed against the Punjab National Silk Mills Ltd. The core legal question was whether a winding up order could be revoked upon the application of the company's directors when arrangements had been made to fully discharge all liabilities, including principal amounts, consolidated interest, and liquidation expenses. The Lahore High Court held that since the company's liabilities to its creditors, including the National Bank of Pakistan and Commerce Bank (merged into United Bank), were fully satisfied or accounted for through offered funds and bank drafts, and the primary ground for winding up—inability to pay debts—no longer subsisted, the application ought to be accepted. The court laid down the principle that a winding up order may be recalled or revoked under appropriate statutory provisions when the underlying debt that necessitated the liquidation stands settled and the company's financial obligations to creditors and liquidators are completely discharged.
Questions settled- Can a winding up order be revoked under section 319 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 upon the satisfaction of company debts?
- Whether the court can accept a settlement offer for principal and consolidated interest to discharge a company from liquidation proceedings?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Punjab Labour Court No.77 GujranwalaK.L.R. 1989 Labour Service Cases 92 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Punjab Labour Court No.7 and others1989 SCMR 1372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner bank's writ petition against the Punjab Labour Court's decision, which had set aside the removal from service of respondent No. 2 and directed his reinstatement with full back benefits. The core legal question concerned the validity of the employee's removal following a domestic inquiry that found the charges of irregularities were not established as fraud or forgery. The Supreme Court held that the domestic inquiry failed to establish any charge and that the cited precedent regarding the overriding effect of bank disciplinary rules over standing orders had no bearing on the facts of the present case. Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings in favor of the employee's reinstatement.
Questions settled- Whether an employee removed from service after a domestic inquiry exonerating him of fraud is entitled to reinstatement with back benefits?
- Does a precedent concerning the conflict between bank disciplinary rules and standing orders apply where no such question arises on the facts?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Sialkot and another1989 PLC 213 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1989 PLC 203 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-14Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Iqbal1989 PLC 816 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Haleem Chohan1989 PLC 17 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Mst. Bilquis Begum1989 MLD 2785 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Home Aids Corporation and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 213 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Manzoorul Hassan1989 SCMR 832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, a bank manager, challenged his dismissal from the National Bank of Pakistan through a civil suit. The trial court decreed in his favor, but the appellate court reversed this, citing the Master and Servant doctrine. The High Court restored the decree, ruling that the bank's service rules were statutory. The core legal question was whether the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1953, constituted statutory instruments, thereby enabling a civil suit for declaration against wrongful dismissal. The Supreme Court held that although the rules were framed under Bye-laws, they were authorized by Section 32 of the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1949, and approved by the Central Government. Consequently, the rules possessed statutory force. The court affirmed that when an employee's service conditions are regulated by statutory rules, the employer's pleasure is limited, and violations of such rules are justiciable in civil courts. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the suit was maintainable as the respondent's employment was governed by statutory provisions rather than mere internal administrative instructions.
Questions settled- Are the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1953, considered statutory instruments?
- Does the existence of statutory service rules override the common law doctrine of Master and Servant in employment disputes?
- Is a suit for declaration maintainable against a statutory body when service conditions are governed by statutory rules?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Madina Dal Mills And 4 Other1989 MLD 337 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-11Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Khalid Hussain Khan1989 PLC 737 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Fakir Spinning Mills Ltd. And 4 Other1989 MLD 2979 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan through its General Attorney vs Punjab1989 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a service dispute involving the dismissal of a bank employee, Muhammad Javid Akhtar, by the National Bank of Pakistan. The employee was dismissed following an inquiry into allegations of misappropriation and violation of bank rules, where the inquiry officer relied on a questionnaire rather than formal evidence. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reinstated the employee without back benefits, finding the misappropriation charge unproven and the dismissal disproportionate for mere rule violations. The High Court upheld this decision, refusing to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined whether the matter should have been remanded for a fresh inquiry due to procedural irregularities. The Court held that since the Tribunal had correctly determined that the misappropriation charge was not established and that the dismissal was unjustified, the reinstatement without back benefits was a fair and equitable resolution. The Court affirmed that where the primary charge of misconduct is not proven, the employer’s decision to dismiss is unsustainable, and remanding for a fresh inquiry after significant time has elapsed would cause undue hardship.
Questions settled- Is a domestic inquiry based solely on a questionnaire instead of recorded evidence legally sustainable?
- Can a court or tribunal refuse to remand a case for a fresh inquiry if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employee?
- Does the failure to prove a serious charge of misappropriation render a dismissal order based on lesser charges unsustainable?
- Nat Steel Equipment (Pvt). Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise1989 MLD 3683 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-01-19Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah Khan vs Province of Punjab And Other1989 MLD 4514 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-28Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah Khan vs Province of Punjab and OtherK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 191 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-28Read full judgment →
- Nasreen Begum Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 20 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Nasreen Begum and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2362 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Nasir vs The State1989 MLD 1673 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- Nasir Ud Din represented by Legal Heir and others vs Abdul Malik and others1989 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a suit for possession of land where the appellants claimed ownership, while the respondents asserted ownership through adverse possession based on entries in the 'lagan' (rent) column of the revenue record. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the appellants, finding the respondents were tenants-at-will. The High Court reversed this, ruling the suit time-barred based on the 'lagan' entries. The Supreme Court addressed whether entries in the 'lagan' column of a Jamabandi take precedence over the 'cultivation' column regarding title and adverse possession. The Court held that entries in the 'lagan' column, without corroborating evidence, cannot override the 'cultivation' column. Since the respondents' reliance on a rejected exchange mutation failed and they produced no other evidence, their possession was deemed permissive. The Court reaffirmed that possession as a tenant-at-will does not ripen into ownership through adverse possession, and the 'cultivation' column entry establishes the tenancy relationship. The appeal was allowed, restoring the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Do entries in the 'lagan' column of a Jamabandi take precedence over the 'cultivation' column in determining title?
- Can a party claim ownership by adverse possession based solely on an entry in the 'lagan' column of a Jamabandi?
- Does the status of a tenant-at-will change if the 'lagan' column indicates no rent is being paid?
- Nasir Siddiq Corporation Pakistan Ltd., Sheikhupura vs Muhammad1989 PLC 5 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Nasir Mahmood vs The State And 4 Other1989 MLD 2925 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Nasir Khan vs Deputy Postmaster General and another1989 PLC 725 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
- Nasir Khan vs Amjad Rashid1989 MLD 4888 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Nasir Khan vs Amjad RashidK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 745 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Nasir Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 4853 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Nasir Ahmad vs Mst. Kaneez Fatima1989 MLD 2273 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Nasir Abbas vs Manzoor Haider Shah1989 PLD Supreme Court 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns appeals against the reversal of trial court judgments regarding pre-emption suits for a 'haveli' in Talagang. The core legal question was whether the disputed property constituted 'urban immovable property' or 'village immovable property,' determining its pre-emptibility. The trial court initially held the property was urban and dismissed the suits, but the Additional District Judge and the High Court reversed this, finding it rural. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, restoring the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the lower appellate courts failed to properly weigh material evidence, constituting a jurisdictional defect. It affirmed that the test for determining the character of property is to assess the 'overall picture' of the locality to see if it has been absorbed into the town. The Court emphasized that administrative notifications are not the sole determinant; rather, the presence of urban amenities, proximity to town centers, and the nature of the locality's development are decisive factors. The judgment clarifies that appellate courts must consider the entire evidence on record, and failure to do so warrants interference.
Questions settled- What is the test for determining whether a property is 'urban immovable property' or 'village immovable property' for pre-emption purposes?
- Does the failure of an appellate court to consider material evidence on record constitute a jurisdictional defect?
- Can a court interfere with a finding of fact if the lower court failed to weigh the entire evidence or misread the record?
- Is the character of property for pre-emption purposes determined solely by government administrative notifications?
- Nasim Malik vs The Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines1989 PLC (C.S.) 615 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Nasim Hussain vs General Manager, Mangla Dam and others1989 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, appearing in person, against an order of the Lahore High Court which had dismissed his constitutional petition. The matter originated from a service-related dispute concerning the petitioner's seniority, which was initially litigated before the Sub-Judge, Mirpur, and subsequently pursued through appellate forums in Azad Jammu & Kashmir, culminating in an unsuccessful appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Following these adverse outcomes, the petitioner sought relief by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, which was also dismissed. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the threshold issue of jurisdiction. The Court held that it lacked the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the underlying dispute had already been adjudicated by the courts of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, and the constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court was not maintainable in this context. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, rendering the merits of the petitioner's case unexaminable by the Court.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court of Pakistan have jurisdiction to entertain a petition where the underlying dispute has been adjudicated by the courts of Azad Jammu & Kashmir?
- Can the merits of a case be examined by the Supreme Court if the Court lacks the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the petition?
- Nasim Company vs Additional Chief Engineer (Army), Okara Cantt. And Other1989 MLD 1203 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
- Nasim Anwar and others vs Abdul a Ziz1989 PLD Lahore 511 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Nasim Akhtar vs Muhammad Ramzan1989 CLC 1650 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
- Nasim Ahmad Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
- Nasim Ahmad and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 853 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
- Nasim Ahmad and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 71 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
- Naser Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1732 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1347 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmad vs Deputy Commissioner and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 590 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmad And Others vs Asghar Ali1989 MLD 4523 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmad Alias Bhop vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 383 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
- Naseem Zafar And Others vs Lahore Development Authority1989 MLD 3653 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-27Read full judgment →
- Nanahau Ram And Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh1989 MLD 1293 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-24Read full judgment →
- Namdar Ali Shah vs Anwar Hussain Shah and another1989 SCMR 326 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an interim stay order that had been set aside by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction in setting aside an interim order on the basis of a prima facie finding that the officers who passed the order lacked the requisite jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was justified, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the High Court's finding regarding the lack of jurisdiction was erroneous. The Court further observed that it would not grant relief where both parties were attempting to benefit from alleged illegalities. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the exercise of writ jurisdiction to correct an order passed without jurisdiction does not suffer from legal infirmity. Leave to appeal was refused, establishing the principle that the Supreme Court will decline to intervene where the underlying impugned order is based on a sound prima facie finding of jurisdictional defect.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant relief to a petitioner who is attempting to take advantage of illegalities alongside the opposing party?
- Does the High Court have the authority to set aside an interim stay order in writ jurisdiction upon a prima facie finding of lack of jurisdiction?
- Najib Ullah vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Faisalabad and1989 SCMR 679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from service as a Patwari. The core legal question concerns whether the Supreme Court should re-appraise evidence in service matters where a full-fledged departmental enquiry has been conducted with adequate opportunity of defense. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it declines to re-appraise evidence at the leave stage and that no question of law of general importance is involved. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not normally re-appraise factual evidence in service matters when the departmental tribunals have concurrently found against the employee after a fair and regular inquiry.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a service matter at the leave to appeal stage?
- Does a service matter involving a departmental inquiry of a Patwari necessarily raise a question of law of general importance?
- Najeeb Gul vs Khalid Khan and AnotherK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent in a murder case. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting bail despite the accused's significant abscondence and the presence of direct evidence from injured eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its assessment. The Court clarified that notable abscondence generally deprives an accused of the concession of bail unless they are entitled to it as of right under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the 'further inquiry' provision under Section 497(2) is only applicable when there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused has not committed the offense, not merely when the case requires investigation. Because the lower courts failed to apply this legal standard correctly and ignored the implications of the accused's abscondence, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and cancelled the respondent's bail.
Questions settled- Does notable abscondence by an accused person deprive them of the concession of bail?
- Under what circumstances can bail be granted as a matter of right under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the mere observation that a case requires 'further inquiry' sufficient to justify the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Najeeb Gul vs Khalid Khan and another1989 SCMR 899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing an application for the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1 in a murder case. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to an accused facing a murder charge where eye-witnesses have specifically named him, where he allegedly absconded for eight months, and where the lower courts misapplied the concept of further inquiry under section 497(2). The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ignoring the noticeable abscondence of the accused and misinterpreting the provisions regarding further inquiry, as mere further inquiry without reasonable grounds that the accused has not committed the offence does not warrant bail under section 497(2). The appeal is allowed and the bail granted to respondent No. 1 is cancelled. The key principle laid down is that noticeable abscondence deprives an accused person of the concession of bail, and the ground of further inquiry under section 497(2) requires the existence of reasonable grounds that the accused has not committed the offence.
Questions settled- Whether noticeable abscondence deprives an accused person of the concession of bail?
- Does mere further inquiry without reasonable grounds that the accused has not committed the offence justify bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the proper application of further inquiry in the context of bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Naimat Ali vs District Manager, G.T.S. Urban Depot, Saddar,Lahore1989 PLC 268 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
- Naila Gauhar Shahzad Kharal vs Rai Gauhar Shahzad Kharal And Another1989 MLD 460 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Naik Muhammad vs Muhammad Manzur and others1989 P Cr. L J 1733 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- Naib-Subedar (Retd.), Mahdi Khan vs Fauji Sugar Mills, Sangla Hills and another1989 PLC 226 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-09-01Read full judgment →
- Nagi Vallabhji & Co. vs Meghji Vijpar Through His Legal Heirs1989 MLD 2075 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-05-04Read full judgment →
- Naghma Rashid And Others vs B.Z. University And Other1989 MLD 3935 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- Nafeesul Hussan Siddiqui vs Messrs Shaheen Airport Services1989 PLC 76 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-02Read full judgment →
- Naeem Ahmad Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 606 · Special Court · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
- Nadir Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2150 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Nadir and others vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and another1989 SCMR 1432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition, which had challenged the order of the Member, Board of Revenue. The core legal question concerns the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the Member, Board of Revenue lawfully interfered with concurrent findings of fact regarding the same. The Supreme Court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood established by virtue of a rent decree awarded in favor of the respondent which had attained finality, and the petitioners had failed to challenge it through a civil suit. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a final rent decree establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant, and concurrent findings of Revenue Courts can be interfered with by the Board of Revenue when based on concluded final adjudications.
Questions settled- Whether a final rent decree establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
- Can the Member, Board of Revenue interfere with concurrent findings of Revenue Courts regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Whether a tenant against whom a rent order has attained finality can resist ejectment without challenging the underlying decree in a civil suit?
- Nadir Ali vs The State1989 MLD 2329 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Nadim Ahmad and others vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 648 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-21Read full judgment →
- Nabi Bux alias Nabu vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Nabi Bakhsh and others vs Hote Muhammad and others1989 PLD Revenue 22 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- N.A. Shaharyar vs Mahmood Khalid, Civil Judge1989 MLD 3259 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- M/s Mahboob Bakhsh (Private) Limited vs Moinuddin ParachaK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases386 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- Muzammal Iobal vs The State1989 MLD 4003 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Muzammal Hussain vs Muhammad Boota and others1989 PLD Revenue 24 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar vs Ali Khan And 3 Other1989 CLC 2342 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff obtained a decree for possession conditional upon depositing a specified sum of money within a stipulated period. Due to a clerical error in the report of the court's moharrir, the trial court mistakenly directed the decree-holder to deposit a balance that was four paisas short of the total decretal amount, which the plaintiff accordingly deposited. Subsequently, the judgment-debtor applied for the dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-compliance with the conditional decree. Both lower courts accepted the application and dismissed the suit. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the decree-holder was aware of the correct decretal amount and could not take advantage of a bona fide judicial mistake or a clerical error arising from the court's staff, especially when no steps were taken to deposit the deficient amount or seek condonation. The key principle laid down is that a party must strictly comply with the terms of a pre-emption decree and cannot benefit from a court's inadvertent error regarding the calculation of the payable sum.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emptor's suit stands dismissed if there is a short deposit of the pre-emption money due to a mistake by the court?
- Can a decree-holder take advantage of a bona fide mathematical or clerical error made by the trial court in calculating the balance amount payable under a decree?
- Does an act of the court in specifying an incorrect balance relieve the decree-holder from the strict statutory obligation to deposit the full pre-emption price?
- Muzaffar Iqbal vs Director-General, Pakistan Rangers, Lahore and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 419 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Ali Awan vs Pioneer Alliance (Pvt) Ltd. Lahore Through ItsPTCL 1989 CL. 281 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muzaffar Ali Awan vs Messrs Pioneer Alliance (Pvt.) Ltd. and others1989 PLD Lahore 106 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the maintainability of winding-up petitions filed in the Lahore High Court against a company whose registered office is located in the Province of Baluchistan. The core legal question is whether the Lahore High Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain winding-up proceedings for a company registered outside its territorial jurisdiction, despite the company having significant assets and business operations within the Province of Punjab. The Court held that, pursuant to Section 7 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, jurisdiction for winding-up proceedings is exclusively vested in the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the company's registered office is situated. As the respondent-company's registered office was in Baluchistan, and a winding-up order had already been passed by the High Court of Baluchistan, the Lahore High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. The principle laid down is that the location of the registered office is the sole determinant for jurisdiction in winding-up matters under the Ordinance, and a High Court cannot assume jurisdiction based merely on the location of a company's assets or business operations.
Questions settled- Does a High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a winding-up petition against a company whose registered office is located outside its territorial jurisdiction?
- What is the legal definition of 'registered office' for the purposes of determining jurisdiction in company winding-up proceedings?
- Can a High Court transfer winding-up proceedings to another High Court based solely on the location of a company's assets?
- Mustehkam Cement Factories Limited vs Malik Muhammad Iobal Khan1989 SCMR 1309 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which reversed a Civil Court's decision and remanded a land acquisition compensation case for fresh trial on recast issues. The appellant-company contended that because the respondent land-owners had entered into a negotiated settlement regarding compensation and received payment, their reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was incompetent. The Senior Civil Judge had initially dismissed the reference on this ground, but the High Court remanded the matter. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that determining the competency of the reference required deciding whether the compensation agreement was lawfully made, which was a factual question. Noting that the Referee Judge had relied on the Collector's record without a formal agreement or statement from counsel to read that material as evidence, and that full evidence had since been recorded by the Civil Court post-remand, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the remand order. The appeals were dismissed, leaving the trial court to render its findings on the evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is competent if the land-owners have allegedly accepted compensation pursuant to a negotiated settlement?
- Can a Referee Judge rely on the evidence and record of the Land Acquisition Collector without a formal statement or agreement from the parties' counsel to treat it as evidence in the reference proceedings?
- Should an appellate court interfere with a remand order when the trial court has already recorded full evidence on the disputed factual issues post-remand?
- Mustakeem Khan and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1771 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Mustafa vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 543 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank vs Abdul Majid and others1989 PLC 9 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1989 PLC 209 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-05Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1989 PLC 206 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Akbar Ali1989 PLC 687 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and 2 Others vs Riaz Ahmad Shahid1989 PLC 469 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1989 PLC 323 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq vs D.M. Gujranwala1989 MLD 4309 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Masih and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 665 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Hussain vs The State1989 SCMR 2035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two connected petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of Mushtaq Hussain for the murder of Muhammad Sharif, while simultaneously dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant against the acquittal of co-accused Muhammad Yaqub. The core legal questions involved whether the conviction of the primary accused was sustainable based on the testimony of interested eye-witnesses and whether the acquittal of the co-accused, who was attributed a simple injury potentially caused by a fall, was justified. The Supreme Court found no grounds for interference with the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the conviction and sentence of the primary accused were proper, as was the acquittal of the co-accused, who was granted the benefit of doubt regarding the injury attributed to him. The key principle affirmed is that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding conviction and acquittal where the evidence, including medical testimony, supports the trial court's assessment of culpability and the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of an interested eye-witness?
- Is an appellate court justified in maintaining an acquittal when the medical evidence suggests an injury could have been caused by a fall rather than an assault?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding conviction and acquittal in murder cases?
- Mushtaq Hussain vs Muhammad Ashfaq and others1989 P Cr. L J 2348 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Begum vs XEN, Irrigation WAPDA Tubewell Operation Division, Kot Adu1989 PLC 955 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mushtaq and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2336 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting multiple accused persons for double murder. The prosecution case rested on an eyewitness account by highly inimical and partisan witnesses, coupled with evidence of longstanding enmity, medical corroboration, and, in the case of one appellant (Ahmad Hassan), strong motive and prolonged abscondence. The Lahore High Court examined whether tainted eyewitness testimony could be safely relied upon without independent and definitive corroboration regarding the identity of the assailants. The Court held that while medical evidence is consistent with the occurrence, it cannot corroborate the identity of specific accused persons in cases of deep-seated enmity and partisan testimony. Consequently, the Court acquitted most of the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt, as well as setting aside the conviction of an absconding convict. However, regarding Ahmad Hassan, the Court held that his proven motive and prolonged abscondence provided sufficient corroboration to sustain his conviction despite the procedural omission of not putting those circumstances directly to him under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as no actual failure of justice or prejudice was occasioned under section 537 of the Code.
Questions settled- Can medical evidence corroborate the identity of individual assailants in cases where eyewitness testimony is tainted by deep-seated enmity?
- Does the failure to put incriminating pieces of evidence such as motive and abscondence to an accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically vitiate a conviction?
- When can abscondence and strong motive serve as sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain a murder conviction despite unreliable eyewitness accounts?
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 237 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →