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.
- Mansoor Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 479 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
- Mansha vs Manzoor and 3 others1989 SCMR 1169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that modified the convictions of three respondents. The trial court had originally convicted all three respondents under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, Jaimal. The High Court, however, found no evidence of a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds, concluding the incident occurred at the spur of the moment. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions of two respondents under Section 302/34, convicting them instead under Section 323 for causing simple injuries, while maintaining the conviction of the third respondent under Section 302 but reducing his sentence from death to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's claims regarding motive and pre-planning. Finding no substance in the petitioner's arguments that the motive was sufficient or that the attack was premeditated, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings that each accused was liable only for their individual acts. The petition for enhancement of sentence and reversal of the High Court's findings was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds precludes the application of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an appellate court alter a conviction from murder to simple hurt if the prosecution fails to establish a common intention?
- Is a remote motive sufficient to establish a pre-planned conspiracy for murder?
- Mansab Ali vs Mst. Fatima Bibi1989 MLD 4234 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Manochar vs Mst. Sarwar Sultana And Another1989 CLC 2417 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
- Mano0 Gul and others vs Pakistan and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld orders of customs authorities confiscating foreign goods and a truck seized under suspicion of smuggling. The central legal issue was whether the phrase 'give notice' under Section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969 requires actual receipt/service of the show-cause notice by the owner within the statutory two-month period, or merely its dispatch/issuance by the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that dispatching the show-cause notice by registered post within two months satisfies the requirement of Section 168(2) read with Section 215 of the Customs Act 1969. The Court ruled that Section 215 makes the Customs Act self-sufficient regarding service, rendering Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897 inapplicable due to a contrary intention. Effectiveness of dispatch cannot depend on receipt, as an addressee could otherwise evade service to defeat confiscation powers. The Court further held that failure to send notice via acknowledgement due is an irregularity that does not invalidate proceedings where notice was actually received.
Questions settled- Does the requirement to give notice under Section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969 require receipt by the addressee within two months or merely dispatch?
- Does Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897 apply to service of notices under the Customs Act 1969?
- Whether failure to issue a notice by registered post acknowledgement due invalidates proceedings when the notice is admittedly received?
- Manik Ali vs Auqaf Department1989 MLD 4757 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-10Read full judgment →
- Manak And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2753 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Managing Partner, Messrs Malik & Co. Successor of Mughal1989 PLC 600 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, Universal Oil & Vegetable Ghee Mills Limited, Sheikhupura vs Muhammad Khan1989 PLC 239 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, House Building Finance Corporation, Karachi1989 PLC 657 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mam Bux alias Imamun vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-19Read full judgment →
- Malik Zulfiqar Ahmad vs The State And AnotherPTCL1989 CL. 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether a motor vehicle not specifically notified under sub-clause (a) of clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969 can constitute "smuggled goods" so as to sustain a prosecution under section 156(1) of the Act. The appellant sought the quashment of pending criminal proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with section 185-F of the Customs Act, contending that the absence of a notification under section 2(s)(a) precluded a charge of smuggling. The Supreme Court held that sub-clause (b) of section 2(s) operates independently of sub-clause (a) and covers goods brought into Pakistan by routes other than those declared under sections 9 or 10 or from unauthorized places, thereby preventing redundancy. The Court ruled that the prosecution is entitled to lead evidence to prove that the vehicle fell within the definition under sub-clause (b), and declined to pre-empt the trial. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can goods not notified or specified under sub-clause (a) of clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act 1969 still be considered smuggled under sub-clause (b) of the same section?
- Whether sub-clause (b) of section 2(s) of the Customs Act 1969 can be read in isolation or divorced from sub-clause (a)?
- Can criminal proceedings under the Customs Act 1969 be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when factual questions regarding the illegal import of goods remain to be determined at trial?
- Malik Shaukat Hussain vs Settlement Commissioner and others1989 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose out of a dispute regarding whether the upper portion of a property formed part of an industrial concern known as Goraya Printing Press, which was sold to the petitioner and his associates as the highest bidders in a public auction in 1957. The respondent, who occupied the upper portion, initially applied for alternative accommodation but subsequently sought transfer of the portion on a C.H. Form. Following several rounds of remand and litigation, the Settlement Commissioner (Industries) ultimately held that the entire property, including the upper portion, was disposed of as part of the industrial concern. However, the High Court in a constitutional petition set aside this finding, concluding that only two rooms and sealed machinery formed part of the auctioned property. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court erred in interfering with a consistent finding of fact in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction and whether the respondent was precluded from claiming transfer after repeatedly applying for alternative accommodation.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction can interfere with a finding of fact regarding the extent of property transferred in a public auction?
- Whether an occupant who previously applied for alternative accommodation is precluded from subsequently claiming transfer of the property under settlement laws?
- Whether property forming part of an industrial concern sold at a public auction includes portions occupied by third parties not explicitly sealed at the time of auction?
- Malik Shahid Mehmood vs Samina YasmeenK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 126 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Malik Shahid Mefimood vs Samina Yasmeen1989 P Cr. L J 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Malik Riaz Ahmad Khan And Others vs Inayat Ullah Qureshi And Other1989 MLD 244 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Malik Nisar vs The State1989 MLD 856 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Malik Niaz Muhammad vs Provincial Transport Authority and others1989 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the refusal of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) to grant stage carriage permits to the appellant for the Muslimbagh-Quetta route. The core legal question was whether the RTA retained discretion to refuse route permits under the amended Section 49 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, once the statutory requirements were satisfied. The RTA had denied the permits citing a 'Qaumi Tanaza' (tribal dispute) between the appellant and other transporters, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by reading guidelines from the repealed/unamended law into the current statute. The Court ruled that under the amended Section 49, the RTA possesses no discretion to refuse permits if the applicant fulfills the conditions stipulated in Section 48 and Section 49 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. The Court established that administrative authorities cannot introduce extraneous considerations, such as private disputes, to deny statutory rights when the legal requirements for a permit are met. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the RTA to reconsider the application in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the Regional Transport Authority have discretion to refuse a route permit under the amended Section 49 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, if all statutory conditions are met?
- Can the Regional Transport Authority deny a stage carriage permit based on a private tribal dispute between transporters?
- Is it permissible for a court to read guidelines from a repealed statute into an amended statute to justify administrative discretion?
- Malik Nazir Ahmad and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 692 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Tufail vs S.H.O. Police Station Mitha Dar,Karachi1989 SCMR 922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition seeking to quash an F.I.R. registered under sections 419, 420, 406, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with consequential investigations. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with or stifle an ongoing police investigation through a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court held that courts will not normally interfere with or stifle a lawful investigation commenced by competent authorities, as unwarranted interference is impermissible unless the investigation is shown to be launched mala fide or clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the investigating agencies. The key principle laid down is that while a constitutional petition may theoretically lie to correct an investigation launched mala fide or without jurisdiction, mere assertions without relevant or coherent material to substantiate mala fides or jurisdictional defect are insufficient to warrant judicial interference with ongoing police investigations.
Questions settled- Can a High Court stifle an ongoing police investigation through a constitutional petition?
- Under what circumstances can the action of investigating agencies be corrected through legal proceedings?
- Does the power to issue directions under constitutional jurisdiction include the power to interfere with lawful investigations?
- Malik Muhammad Sarfraz Khan Tiwana, Advocate vs Settlement1989 PLD Supreme Court 580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the legality of the transfer of a residential property in Lyallpur City by Settlement Authorities. The core legal questions were whether the appellant had locus standi, whether the Settlement Authorities possessed jurisdiction over the property given its location outside municipal limits on August 14, 1947, and whether the respondent, Saleh Ahmad, held any legal entitlement to the property. The property was situated outside municipal limits in 1947 and only brought within such limits in 1966. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authorities lacked jurisdiction to transfer the property because it did not fall within the definition of urban area under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, at the relevant time. The Court found that the transfer to Saleh Ahmad was invalid, as it lacked legal basis and was disapproved by the Central Government. Furthermore, the Court determined that the appellant, as a local occupant, had a valid claim to be considered under the applicable scheme. Consequently, the Court set aside the previous orders and remanded the case to the Notified Officer to determine the appellant's entitlement.
Questions settled- Does the Settlement Authority have jurisdiction to transfer property that was not within urban limits on August 14, 1947?
- Can a transfer of property be sustained if it lacks legal entitlement and is disapproved by the Central Government?
- Does a local occupant have the right to challenge the transfer of a property when the area was only included in municipal limits after the relevant cutoff date?
- Malik Muhammad Ra Shid vs Revising Authority and 2 others1989 PLD Azad J&K 52 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Hafeez and others vs The Province of Punjab through District Collector, Multan1989 SCMR 1664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding land located in Khasra No. 480, Multan. The petitioners claimed they were the rightful owners of the land, which had previously been used by the Irrigation Department for a water course (Rajba) without formal acquisition or compensation. After the water course was abandoned, the petitioners regained possession and constructed structures. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners, but the appellate court set aside this decree, finding that the petitioners failed to prove their ownership of the specific land in dispute. The revisional court upheld this dismissal, noting that revenue records recorded the land under the ownership of the Provincial Government. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts erred in their factual findings regarding ownership. The Court held that since the lower courts had concurrently decided the questions of fact against the petitioners based on the evidence, no grounds existed for interference. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a civil court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land ownership in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the abandonment of a water course constructed by the Irrigation Department automatically revert ownership to the original possessors?
- Is a party entitled to a declaration of ownership if the revenue record identifies the Provincial Government as the owner of the disputed land?
- Malik Muhammad Azam and 4 others vs Province of Punjab and 2 others1989 SCMR 1439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court. The appellants, employees of the Local Councils Service, claimed the benefit of an amending notification dated 7-9-1980 under the Punjab Civil Servants (Pay Revision) Rules, 1977, which upgraded Superintendents from Grade-11 to Grade-15. The core legal question was whether amendments to the main rules apply automatically to local council employees without formal adoption by the Provincial Government. The Supreme Court observed that two of the appellants were already enjoying National Pay Scale 16, while the case of the remaining three appellants regarding the grant of NPS-15 had not yet been finalized by the Government and was pending when the writ petition was filed. Holding that the matter was premature and unfinalized, the Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, establishing that unfinalized administrative matters cannot form the basis of a constitutional petition.
Questions settled- Whether subsequent amendments to the Punjab Civil Servants (Pay Revision) Rules, 1977 apply automatically to employees of the Local Councils Service?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained when the departmental matter regarding upgradation is yet to be finalized by the Government?
- Malik Muhammad and 2 others vs Tehsildar (A.R.C.) and 7 others1989 SCMR 1655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of a writ petition concerning a property jointly owned by Muslims and non-Muslims. The core legal question involved the validity of the writ petition in light of substantial delay and the legal effect of the confirmation of land allotment to displaced persons in joint holdings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of laches, noting that the petitioners had notice of adverse possession and transfer of a part of the disputed property since 1963 but failed to take action until 1977. The key principle laid down is that the confirmation of specific land in favour of displaced persons in a joint holding amounts to a partition thereof, and unexplained delay coupled with change of third-party interests bars equitable relief under writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the confirmation of specific land in favour of displaced persons in a jointly owned property amount to its partition?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of laches when the petitioner fails to challenge adverse possession and transfer of property for over a decade?
- Malik Muhammad Alias Malk00 And Others vs Jan Muhammad1989 CLC 776 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a pre-emption suit was decreed in favor of the respondent after 31 July 1986. The core legal question was whether a civil court could pass a decree in a pending pre-emption suit after the cut-off date of 31 July 1986, and whether parties could validate such a decree through a compromise. The Lahore High Court held that no decree in a pre-emption suit could be passed after 31 July 1986, as established by Supreme Court precedents, rendering any such decree a nullity and void ab initio. The court further held that there is no estoppel against a statute, and parties cannot confer jurisdiction through a compromise or consent where the court inherently lacks jurisdiction. The key principles laid down are that a decree passed in a pre-emption suit after 31 July 1986 is without jurisdiction and void, that courts are bound to apply the law regardless of party concessions, and that a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be lawful and cannot bypass binding declarations of law.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit can be decreed after 31st of July, 1986?
- Can parties confer jurisdiction on a civil court to pass a pre-emption decree through a compromise or consent?
- Does a concession or compromise made in ignorance of law create an estoppel against a statutory bar?
- Whether a decree passed without jurisdiction can be maintained in revisional proceedings on the ground of the petitioner's conduct?
- Malik Muhammad Abdullah and anothers vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division and others1989 SCMR 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the Lahore High Court overlooked the provisions of paragraph 3-A of Settlement Scheme No. VIII by upholding the transfer of a disputed shop to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The property underwent successive auctions, leading to competing claims between the appellants, who purchased it in a third auction and later deposited the balance price after a resumption notice, and the respondents, who relied on an earlier unconfirmed single bid. The core legal question concerned the subsistence of prior auction rights and the applicability of subsequent administrative instructions to revive lapsed claims. The Supreme Court held that subsequent auctions supersede earlier unconfirmed proceedings unless a controversy is kept alive, and that a nominal bid below the reserve price confers no vested right. The Court further ruled that substantial compliance with paragraph 3-A of Settlement Scheme No. VIII, permitted by settlement authorities through the acceptance of the balance price, established the appellants' rights beyond attack. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the Settlement Commissioner's order restored, establishing that lapsed administrative bids cannot be revived retrospectively against subsequent valid auction and compliance.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent auction supersede earlier unconfirmed auction proceedings when the prior controversy was not kept alive?
- Can a nominal bid falling significantly below the reserve price create a vested right for the bidder?
- Do subsequent administrative instructions apply retroactively to revive a lapsed auction claim from an earlier year?
- Does the acceptance of the balance price by settlement authorities constitute substantial compliance under paragraph 3-A of Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Malik Muhammad Ab Bas vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 565 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
- Malik Mehboob vs The State1989 MLD 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- Malik Khan Muhammad vs Haji Sikandar Khan1989 CLC 2412 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal challenged the appellate court's dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions concerned whether the plaintiff had established a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer and whether the suit was time-barred due to court-fee deficiencies. The High Court held that the plaintiff sufficiently proved his status as a co-sharer through revenue mutation entries and the defendant's failure to rebut the plaintiff's specific assertion of co-ownership. Regarding the court-fee issue, the Court held that a suit cannot be dismissed for insufficient court-fees without the court first determining the correct amount and providing the plaintiff an opportunity to rectify the deficiency. Finding no evidence of contumacy or negligence by the plaintiff in paying the court-fees, the Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree, modifying the pre-emption price to the market value determined by the appellate court. The principle established is that revenue mutations, while not records of rights, constitute significant evidence, and procedural fairness requires courts to allow time for rectifying court-fee deficiencies before dismissing suits.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a defendant to rebut a plaintiff's assertion of being a co-sharer in a pre-emption suit amount to an admission?
- Can a suit be dismissed for insufficient court-fee without the court first determining the correct amount and providing an opportunity to rectify the deficiency?
- Do entries in revenue mutations constitute evidence of facts in a pre-emption suit?
- Malik Khadim Hussain vs The Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore and 11 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 79 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
- Malik Iftikhar Ahmad vs The Province of the Punjab through Secretary1989 P Cr. L J 697 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- Malik Gulzar Ahmad vs Government of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for seniority in the rank of Executive Engineer over respondents 2 to 116. The petitioner, an Irrigation Department employee, was promoted to Sub-Divisional Officer in 1960 and later granted Class-I (junior) status effective from 22-7-1971, following the government's recognition of his A.M.I.E. qualification as equivalent to an engineering degree. Respondents 2 to 116 were promoted to Executive Engineer prior to the petitioner's own promotion to that grade on 7-7-1977. The petitioner contended that because his induction date into Class-I was identical to that of the respondents, his longer prior service in Class-II should entitle him to seniority. The Supreme Court found that this contention regarding the determination of seniority based on prior service in a lower grade, despite a common date of induction into the higher grade, required further judicial examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the merits of the seniority dispute.
Questions settled- Does longer service in a lower grade (Class-II) entitle an employee to seniority over others promoted to a higher grade (Class-I) on the same date?
- Is the date of induction into a higher service grade the sole determinant of seniority when prior service duration differs?
- Malik Fazal Muhammad and anothers vs Col. Abdul Ghafoor1989 SCMR 1568 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by leave of the Court, arose from a suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the respondent, a retired army officer, against the appellants, who had purchased agricultural land situated in a border area. The land was originally allotted under the West Pakistan Border Area Scheme (Martial Law Regulation No. 9) of 1959 and subsequently sold to the appellants with the requisite approval of the military authorities. The appellants contended that the sale of such land was not pre-emptible under the Martial Law Regulation. The core legal question was whether agricultural land situated in a border area, controlled by the Army General Headquarters and subject to sale restrictions, is exempt from the right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 6 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, agricultural land is subject to pre-emption unless specifically exempted under Sections 7, 8, or 9 of the Act. The Court laid down the principle that where a sale transaction of border area land is permitted by military authorities, the right of pre-emption cannot be ruled out, especially when the pre-emptor is a retired army officer and an owner in the estate.
Questions settled- Whether agricultural land allotted under the West Pakistan Border Area Scheme (Martial Law Regulation No. 9) of 1959 is exempt from the right of pre-emption?
- Does the requirement of prior military approval for the sale of border area land bar the exercise of a pre-emption right once such approval is granted?
- Can a retired army officer who is an owner in the estate exercise a right of pre-emption over border area land?
- Malik Farooq Ahmad Khokhar vs Peer Akhtar Hussain Bodla, Additional Sessions Judge,Multan and 2 OtherK.L.R 1989.Civil Cases 25 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Malik Baboo Khan Owner and Occupier, Toor Sizing Industries, Faisalabad vs Tajamal Hussain Shah and 8 others1989 PLC 948 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Malik Akhtar Hussain vs Province of Punjab And Other1989 CLC 61 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Malik Akber Khan And Another vs Zila Council, Sargodha And Another1989 MLD 4761 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
- Malik Abdul Wahid And Others vs The State And Another1989 MLD 4065 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Malik Abdul Qayyum vs Additional District Judge, Attock and 8 others1989 SCMR 1768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld an ejectment order issued under the Urban Rent Restriction Law. The petitioner challenged the ejectment on two primary grounds: first, that he was denied sufficient opportunity to produce evidence; and second, that the respondent had previously described him as a trespasser in a civil suit, thereby negating the landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court rejected the contention regarding lack of opportunity, noting that the petitioner had been granted four opportunities to produce evidence and failed to do so. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner deliberately failed to confront the respondent with the previous civil suit documents during cross-examination. Crucially, the Court held that the petitioner's defense—arguing that as an unauthorized occupant or trespasser, he could not be ejected via the Rent Controller—was legally and morally untenable. Consequently, the Court refused to exercise its discretion to grant leave to appeal, dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Can a tenant avoid ejectment proceedings by claiming to be a trespasser rather than a tenant?
- Is a party entitled to relief when they fail to utilize multiple opportunities to produce evidence?
- Does the failure to confront a witness with documentary evidence during cross-examination preclude reliance on that evidence in appeal?
- Malik Abdul Hameed vs Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1989 SCMR 1735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the petitioner's status as a whole-time employee of an establishment taken over by lessees. The petitioner claimed entitlement to wages under Section 16 of the Cotton Ginning Control and Development Ordinance 1976, having served as an administrator for the original owners. Following an award in his favor by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, the Punjab Labour Court set aside the decision, and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal subsequently dismissed his revision. The Lahore High Court dismissed his writ petition, citing the proviso to Section 16, which grants the Corporation final authority to determine whole-time employee status. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Corporation had effectively made a decision regarding the petitioner's status and whether the High Court's findings were sustainable. The Court held that the Corporation's refusal to pay wages constituted a valid decision under the Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner was not a whole-time employee, thereby dismissing the petition and upholding the finality of the Corporation's determination under the relevant statutory proviso.
Questions settled- Does the refusal of a corporation to pay wages constitute a decision regarding an individual's status as a whole-time employee under the Cotton Ginning Control and Development Ordinance 1976?
- Is the determination by a corporation regarding whether an individual is a whole-time employee final under the proviso to Section 16 of the Cotton Ginning Control and Development Ordinance 1976?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding employment status in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Makroo alias Chahat vs Haji Shan Muhammad and 9 others1989 SCMR 1051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court regarding the refusal of a temporary injunction. The core legal question presented is whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, acted erroneously by issuing an order that effectively nullified previous directions passed by the Supreme Court in the same matter. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the nullification of earlier Supreme Court orders carried prima facie weight. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's interference. The Court held that the impugned judgment and orders of the High Court shall remain suspended pending the final disposal of the appeals. The key principle established is that the High Court's revisional powers cannot be exercised in a manner that undermines or nullifies the effectiveness of prior orders issued by the Supreme Court in the same litigation.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction pass an order that nullifies the effectiveness of earlier orders passed by the Supreme Court?
- Does the refusal of a temporary injunction by both the trial court and the appellate court warrant interference by the High Court in revision?
- Makhmood Hussain and 3 others vs The State1989 SCMR 778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two cross-petitions for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The first petition was filed by the accused-convicts challenging their conviction and sentence, while the second petition was filed by the complainant seeking an enhancement of the sentence awarded to the convicts. The primary legal contention raised by the defense was that the medical evidence, specifically the post-mortem report indicating blackening and charring of injuries, contradicted the ocular testimony which suggested firing from a long distance. Furthermore, it was argued that the ocular testimony, being of an interested nature, lacked sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court, finding that the points raised required deeper examination, granted leave to appeal in both petitions to consider the merits of the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence. The Court thus set the stage for a full review of the evidence and the legal sufficiency of the conviction based on the alleged contradictions between medical and testimonial evidence.
Questions settled- Does the presence of blackening and charring in a post-mortem report necessarily contradict ocular testimony of long-range firing?
- Is ocular testimony from an interested witness sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of independent corroborative evidence?
- Makhdoom Hussain Shah vs The State1989 MLD 2747 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Major Taj Ud Din And Others vs Muhammad Akhtar And Other1989 CLC 2183 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ex parte decree passed in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in resorting to substituted service under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, leading to an ex parte decree. The High Court held that the trial court acted with undue haste and without sufficient material to establish that the defendants were intentionally avoiding service or that ordinary service was impossible. The Court observed that the plaintiffs failed to comply with procedural requirements, including furnishing registered covers and ensuring the newspaper containing the notice was properly dispatched to the defendants. Consequently, the Court set aside the ex parte decree, ruling that the substituted service was not due service. The key principle laid down is that substituted service is an extraordinary measure; it is a condition precedent that the court must be satisfied, based on concrete material, that the defendant is avoiding service before ordering publication, and strict compliance with procedural rules governing such service is mandatory to validate the proceedings.
Questions settled- Is it a condition precedent for a court to be satisfied that a defendant is avoiding service before ordering substituted service under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure to comply with procedural requirements regarding the dispatch of a newspaper containing a public notice invalidate the substituted service?
- Can an ex parte decree be sustained if the trial court orders substituted service without exhausting ordinary modes of service or recording sufficient justification?
- Major Sher Bahadur (Rid.) And Another vs Member, Board of Revenue1989 CLC 2052 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Major (Rtd.) Tanvir Hussain Shah vs Government of the Punjab And Other1989 MLD 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- Major (Rtd.) Riasat Ali vs Senior Personnel Manager, Fauji Fertilizer Co.1989 PLC 461 · Labour Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi vs Delhi Development Authority1989 MLD 3131 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-24Read full judgment →
- Majid Latif vs Government of Baluchistan through Secretary Health1989 SCMR 191 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the rejection of the appellant's admission to Bolan Medical College for the academic year 1986-87 against a reserved seat for District Pishin. The Selection Committee and the High Court of Baluchistan had rejected his application on the ground that neither the appellant nor his father possessed a valid domicile certificate from Pishin District, as the father's original 1971 domicile certificate (issued before the division of Quetta-Pishin District) was corrected in 1985 by the District Magistrate of Quetta to substitute 'Chaman' for 'Quetta'. The High Court held that the District Magistrate of Quetta was incompetent to issue or correct a domicile certificate for another district. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether, under Rule 28-B of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules 1952, the authority that granted the original certificate is the sole competent authority to make corrections. During the hearing, the Advocate-General stated he would not oppose the appeal as both the appellant and the objector were already studying in their second year. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Questions settled- Which authority is competent to correct particulars in a domicile certificate under Rule 28-B of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules 1952 when the original district of issuance has since been bifurcated?
- Can a candidate be denied admission to a reserved district seat if their parent's pre-bifurcation domicile certificate was corrected by the original issuing authority rather than the newly created district authority?
- Maj. Gen. (Rtd) Naseerullah Khan Babar vs President, Summary Military1989 PLD Peshawar 215 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
- Maj. Abdul Qayyum vs Fazal Dad Khan and 2 others1989 PLD Azad J&K 50 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-05-26Read full judgment →
- Main Ghulam Qadir and 2 others vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and 10 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 546 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-12-23Read full judgment →
- Mahnat Dhangir And Another vs Shri Madan Mohan And Other1989 MLD 1632 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-10-28Read full judgment →
- Mahmoora and others vs Ilam Din and others1989 SCMR 1477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a tenant possesses the necessary locus standi to challenge an order of the Land Commissioner that allowed a landlord to retain his entire landholding under the relevant Land Reforms laws. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petition. The Court held that the petitioner lacked the requisite locus standi to maintain the challenge. The ratio of the decision is that a tenant's interest in the land only arises if the Land Commission determines that the landlord holds excess land and, subsequently, the landlord elects to surrender the specific land under the tenant's cultivation. Absent such a determination and election, the tenant has no legal standing to interfere with the landlord's retention of his holding. The principle established is that a tenant's right to challenge land retention orders is contingent upon the actual surrender of land by the landlord following a finding of excess holding.
Questions settled- Does a tenant have locus standi to challenge a landlord's retention of land under Land Reforms if no excess land has been determined?
- At what point does a tenant acquire a legal interest in land held by a landlord under Land Reforms legislation?
- Mahmoodulhassan and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodul Hassan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 130 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodul Has San and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989, Criminal Cases 533 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mahmooda Khatoon and 5 others vs Adi Shroof1989 PLD Karachi 181 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mahmood vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1875 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Nawaz, A.S.I. vs Chairman, Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore1989 SCMR 740 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), from service following his removal from probation. The core legal questions were whether the appellant was entitled to automatic confirmation upon the expiry of his initial probation period and whether the subsequent removal order passed by the competent authority was legally valid. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not entitled to automatic confirmation, as the competent authority had consistently found him unfit for service due to adverse reports regarding his performance, reputation, and conduct. The Court determined that the removal order was not a retrospective action but a formalization of the authority's earlier decision to address legal lacunae identified by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that probation does not confer an automatic right to confirmation; rather, confirmation remains subject to the assessment of the competent authority, which retains the power to revert or remove a probationer if they are found unfit for service based on their performance record. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Service Tribunal's decision.
Questions settled- Does the expiry of a probation period automatically entitle a government servant to confirmation?
- Can a competent authority consider the entire service record of a probationer, including periods of temporary service, when deciding on confirmation?
- Is an order of removal from probation valid if it formalizes a previous decision to address a legal lacuna identified by a court?
- Mahmood Khan vs Province of the Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his service status. The petitioner, formerly an Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.) in the Federal Security Force, was transferred to the Punjab Police as a junior clerk upon the disbandment of the former force. He subsequently sought to be appointed as an A.S.I. on the executive side, citing the case of a colleague, Zawar Hussain, who had received such an appointment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to claim an executive position and seniority despite having accepted a fresh appointment as a junior clerk and providing an undertaking not to claim seniority over existing ministerial staff. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the appointment as a junior clerk and signed an undertaking waiving seniority claims. Furthermore, the Court distinguished his case from that of Zawar Hussain, who had been appointed to the executive side, thereby affirming the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a former Federal Security Force employee claim executive rank seniority after accepting a fresh appointment as a junior clerk?
- Does an undertaking not to claim seniority over existing staff preclude a government servant from later challenging their rank?
- Is a government servant entitled to parity of treatment with a colleague who was appointed to a different cadre?
- Mahmood Hussain vs Pakistan International Airlines and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 549 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the dismissal of a suit filed by the petitioner against Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) regarding the termination of his service. The petitioner sought a declaration that his termination was illegal, mala fide, and void, arguing that he was condemned unheard and that the termination order was issued by a junior officer. The core legal questions were whether the relationship between the petitioner and PIA was governed by the principle of master and servant, whether the Civil Court at Lahore had territorial jurisdiction, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Court held that the relationship between PIA and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant, as PIA's service regulations are directory instructions rather than statutory rules. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction as no cause of action arose in Lahore, and the suit was time-barred. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of statutory rules governing employment, the relationship between a corporation and its employees is one of master and servant, allowing termination in accordance with internal service codes.
Questions settled- Is the relationship between Pakistan International Airlines and its employees governed by the principle of master and servant?
- Does the mere existence of a subordinate office of a corporation in a city confer territorial jurisdiction on the civil court of that city for a service termination suit?
- Can the limitation period for filing a suit be extended by the filing of departmental appeals where no such appeal is provided for by law?
- Do the service regulations of Pakistan International Airlines constitute statutory rules?
- Mahmood Hussain Shah vs The State1989 MLD 3728 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Alias Sultan Mahmood vs The State1989 MLD 4827 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a split decision by a Division Bench regarding the nature of the offense. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s act of stabbing the deceased constituted premeditated murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the prosecution failed to establish premeditation or prior enmity. Instead, the evidence demonstrated that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel and exchange of hot words between the parties. Consequently, the court held that the appellant’s actions fell within the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300, as the act was committed in the heat of passion without undue advantage. The court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 (Part I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence accordingly. The judgment affirms the principle that where a homicide occurs during a sudden, unpremeditated quarrel, it constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Does a sudden quarrel and exchange of hot words without premeditation mitigate murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 304 (Part I) when the prosecution fails to prove prior enmity or premeditation?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences for culpable homicide?
- Mahmood Akhtar Ansari vs District and Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur1989 PLC (C.S.) 343 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-03Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 703 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Ahmad Khan vs Province of Punjab And Other1989 MLD 4845 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mahmeed Ltd. vs Collector of Customs, Quetta and another1989 PTD 1155 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Mahmand vs The State1989 MLD 4930 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-10Read full judgment →
- Mahesh Chand And Another vs State of Rajasthan.1989 MLD 1517 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mahboob vs The State1989 MLD 2727 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mahboob vs The State and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 2050 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mahar Dad And Another vs Barkat Ali1989 MLD 4236 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
- Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P.) Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise, Bombay1989 MLD 2451 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-07-26Read full judgment →
- Madrassa Qazi Hissamuddin vs Mst. SH a HG Ula1989 PLD Supreme Court 685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit for possession by pre-emption filed by a Madrassa, a Waqf institution, through its Mutawalli. The core legal question was whether a Waqf estate or its Mutawalli possesses the legal capacity to claim a right of pre-emption under Islamic law and the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950. The Peshawar High Court had dismissed the suit, ruling that the Madrassa was not a juristic person capable of suing. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the dismissal of the suit. The Court held that under Islamic law, Waqf property vests in Almighty God, not in the Mutawalli or the Waqif. Because the right of pre-emption is strictly founded upon "milk" (ownership) of the property, a Mutawalli or Waqf lacks the necessary ownership to exercise this right. Consequently, the Court established that irrespective of whether a Waqf is recognized as a juristic person, neither a Mutawalli nor a Waqf is entitled to claim pre-emption under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, as they lack the requisite ownership of the property.
Questions settled- Can a Mutawalli of a Waqf claim a right of pre-emption under Islamic law?
- Does a Waqf estate possess the requisite ownership to exercise the right of pre-emption?
- Is a Waqf institution entitled to file a suit for pre-emption under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
- Madhao Deshpande vs Madhav Dharmadhikaree1989 MLD 2389 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-22Read full judgment →
- Madar Bakhsh vs Aziz Ahmad1989 SCMR 1167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking the annulment of a receipt and agreement concerning property, alleging fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioner failed to prove the alleged fraud. This decision was upheld by the first appellate court and subsequently by the High Court in second appeal. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent failed to establish certain objections raised in the written statement. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the burden of proof rested entirely on the petitioner to establish the assertions made in the plaint. The Court ruled that the petitioner could not succeed or gain any advantage based on alleged technical weaknesses in the respondent's defense when the petitioner's own case had failed on merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does a failure by the defendant to establish objections in a written statement entitle the plaintiff to succeed if the plaintiff has failed to prove their own case?
- Where does the burden of proof lie in a suit seeking the annulment of an agreement on the grounds of fraud?
- Can a petitioner gain an advantage from technical weaknesses in the respondent's case if the petitioner has failed to discharge their own burden of proof?
- Macdonald Layton & Company Ltd. vs Messrs Uzin Export Import1989 PLD Karachi 645 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-27Read full judgment →
- Mabood Khan vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan1989 SCMR 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a constitutional petition filed by an employee of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, who was removed from service. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, not having been proceeded against under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, could be deemed a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, thereby barring the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that the deeming provision in Section 5 of the Ordinance, which classifies certain corporation employees as civil servants, applies exclusively to those against whom action was taken under Section 3 of the Ordinance. Since the petitioner was not proceeded against under the Ordinance, the deeming clause did not apply, and the bar under Article 212 was not triggered. The Court established the principle that the status of a 'civil servant' created by the Ordinance is limited to those specifically subjected to its disciplinary powers, and in the absence of such action, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court remains available.
Questions settled- Does the deeming provision in Section 5 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 apply to all corporation employees or only those proceeded against under Section 3?
- Is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for a corporation employee not proceeded against under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978?
- Does the declaration of 'Service of Pakistan' in the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 automatically confer civil servant status on all corporation employees for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Ma Soom a LI vs Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Government of Pakistan, Lahore1989 PLD Karachi 633 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-29Read full judgment →
- M.Saleem Raza vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Karachi and 2 others1989 PLC 663 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
- M.S. Thariani Through Legal Heirs vs Yousuf1989 MLD 1786 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
- M.S. Siddiqui vs Secretary, Military Finance, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi1989 SCMR 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a decision of the Service Tribunal. The core legal questions presented for examination concerned the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal in light of established Supreme Court precedent, the legal finality and conclusiveness of an earlier Tribunal decision dated 31-8-1976 which the petitioner had not appealed, whether an appeal could be revived on the ground that a government appeal on a non-identical subject had been revived, and whether the admission of the appeal legally amounted to its revival such that the order could not be subsequently undone. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine these specific jurisdictional and procedural questions.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction over a matter where a prior Supreme Court precedent limits or defines such jurisdiction?
- Can a decision of the Service Tribunal attain finality if it is not appealed by the aggrieved party and its conclusiveness is accepted?
- Whether the revival of a service appeal can be obtained on the ground that a government appeal on a non-identical subject stood revived?
- Does the admission of an appeal legally amount to its revival such that the order of admission cannot be subsequently undone?
- M.S. Jagadambal vs The Southern Indian Education Trust And Other1989 MLD 2144 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-02Read full judgment →
- M.R. Sons vs The Income-Tax Officer and others1989 PTD 1010 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the validity of a notice issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, by the Income Tax Officer to reopen an assessment for the 1982-83 tax year. The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, had previously disclosed all relevant financial records, which were scrutinized and accepted by the tax authorities, resulting in a finalized assessment. The core legal question was whether the tax authorities could reopen a concluded assessment based solely on a successor officer's "change of opinion" regarding the valuation of assets, absent any new, definite information. The Court held that the notice was issued without lawful authority. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court ruled that the power to reopen assessments under Section 65 is not a mechanism to revisit settled matters based on subjective suspicion or a mere change of opinion by a successor officer. The key principle laid down is that where an assessee has fully disclosed all material facts and the assessment has been consciously completed, the tax authorities cannot invoke Section 65 to reopen the transaction without new, definite information.
Questions settled- Can an Income Tax Officer reopen a finalized assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, based solely on a change of opinion?
- Does the expression 'reason to believe' in Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, allow for subjective satisfaction without definite information?
- Is a writ petition an appropriate remedy to challenge a notice issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, before the assessment proceedings are finalized?
- What constitutes 'definite information' for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- M.P.E.B. And Others vs Smt T. Basantibai1989 MLD 1107 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
- M.N. Venkatachaliah J Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat1989 PTD 1282 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-03-31Read full judgment →
- M.M. K.A. Zai vs Directorgeneral, F.Ia. and others1989 SCMR 199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petitions by the Sind High Court, which had declined to direct the registration of a criminal case under Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code against a publishing company. The complaint alleged that copies of the Holy Qur'an imported from Italy contained objectionable pictures and nudes used as stuffing in the bindings. The core legal question was whether the Federal Investigating Agency was bound to register a criminal case upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, or if it could lawfully conduct a preliminary inquiry and withhold registration when criminal intent was absent. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Investigating Agency is legally empowered under the Federal Investigating Agency Act, 1974 to conduct preliminary inquiries and that where such an inquiry reveals no prima facie criminal intent, the agency is not obligated to register a case. The court laid down that the constitutional jurisdiction of the high courts cannot be invoked to compel futile investigations when essential elements of an offence are lacking, and noted the availability of an alternative remedy through a private complaint.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Investigating Agency have the power to hold a preliminary inquiry before registering a criminal case?
- Is the Federal Investigating Agency bound to register a case upon the mere disclosure of facts alleged to constitute a cognizable offence without establishing criminal intent?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to compel the registration of a case when a preliminary inquiry reveals the absence of a prima facie offence?
- What is the alternative remedy available to a complainant when law enforcement agencies decline to register a criminal case?
- M.J.A. Gazdar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 832 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- M.D. Tahir vs Federal Government And 12 Other1989 CLC 1369 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of eleven Judges of the Lahore High Court made by the President of Pakistan under Article 197 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner contended that the appointments were illegal because they were made without the advice of a Prime Minister (as there was only a caretaker cabinet following the dissolution of the National Assembly) and without consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine. It held that the record demonstrated the Chief Justice had initiated and recommended the names, satisfying the requirement of "consultation" under Article 193. The Court ruled that Article 193 is a specific provision governing judicial appointments which does not mention the Prime Minister, and thus overrides the general requirement of presidential action on the Prime Minister's advice under Article 48(1). Furthermore, the Court affirmed that caretaker governments are competent to perform day-to-day administrative functions, including filling vacant judicial offices, and that law officers remain qualified as advocates for such appointments.
Questions settled- Does the requirement of consultation with the Chief Justice under Article 193 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 require a specific form, or is the substance of the communication sufficient?
- Does a specific constitutional provision governing judicial appointments override the general provision requiring the President to act on the advice of the Prime Minister?
- Can a caretaker government validly fill vacant judicial offices as part of running the day-to-day affairs of the State?
- Are Law Officers, such as Advocate-Generals and Deputy Attorney-Generals, disqualified from being appointed as High Court Judges under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- M.A. Shore vs Settlement Commissioner (Industries), Board of and Revenue Punjab, Lahore And Other1989 MLD 4092 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-13Read full judgment →
- M.A. Mughni vs The Director Labour and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 729 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
- M. Veerappa vs Evelyn Sequeira And Other1989 MLD 3225 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-01-13Read full judgment →
- M. Sharif vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 30 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- M. Shamim Haider vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore1989 PLC 649 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- M. Shah Muhammad & Sons vs Pakistan and 2 others1989 PTD 561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court regarding a sales tax assessment dispute. The petitioner, a firm, challenged the classification of its goods, arguing that a consignment should have been categorized as "strips" rather than "wire," and contested the validity of chemical and physical tests conducted by the Landhi Small Tools Factory without their direct association. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere in a factual determination made by the tax authorities. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the classification of goods based on physical measurement and chemical testing constitutes a finding of fact. The Court held that the High Court properly exercised its discretion by refusing to re-examine disputed questions of fact that require the recording of evidence, particularly when no jurisdictional defect or mala fides were established. The principle established is that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving factual controversies already adjudicated by competent authorities where no legal error exists.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to re-examine factual disputes regarding the classification of goods for tax purposes?
- Is the presence of an assessee required during the performance of chemical tests on commodity samples by tax authorities?
- Does a finding of fact by tax authorities regarding the nature of goods constitute a jurisdictional defect warranting judicial review?
- M. Rafi Alias Nausha Khan vs The State1989 MLD 2952 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- M. M. Shamune vs Government of Pakistan, Directorgeneral, Posts1989 SCMR 1296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitution petition filed by a former postal clerk. The petitioner, having been transferred in 1959, failed to report for duty, submitted private medical certificates, and refused to undergo an official medical examination. Consequently, he was declared a deserter and dismissed from service in 1960. Following the dismissal of his departmental appeal, the petitioner sought relief through various channels, including the Provincial Service Tribunal, which declined jurisdiction for matters preceding 1969. The petitioner subsequently filed a Constitution petition, alleging he was unaware of the status of his resignation and had been deprived of pensionary rights. The Supreme Court found these contentions misconceived, noting that the petitioner had been dismissed following disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence, a fact of which he was fully aware as evidenced by his previous appeal against the dismissal order. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly, affirming the dismissal from service.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim ignorance of a dismissal order when they have previously filed an appeal against that specific order?
- Does a conditional resignation constitute a valid resignation from service?
- Is a service tribunal competent to entertain an appeal regarding an order passed prior to 1-7-1969?