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.
- Irfanullah Khan vs Punjab Public Service Commission And Another1989 CLC 2279 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Muhammad And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2812 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Khan And 9 Others vs Shahid Ullah Beg And Another1989 CLC 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Jahangir Khan vs The N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission and 41989 PLC (C.S.) 448 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Haider vs National Bank of Pakistan and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 713 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Ahsan Baig vs Secretary Education1989 PLC (C.S.) 438 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-09Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Ahmad Naqi vs Qamarun Nisa1989 CLC 1505 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2122 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-04Read full judgment →
- Intizar Hussain Shah And Others vs The State1989 MLD 121 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Intizamuddin vs Muhammad Saleem Chowman, And Other1989 MLD 4739 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
- International Airport Authority of India vs K.D. Bali And Another1989 MLD 2434 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-29Read full judgment →
- Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs L.K. Ratna and others1989 PTD 55 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
- Inspectorgeneral of Police, Sind and 3 others vs Shaikh Muslehuddin1989 SCMR 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which modified a dismissal order against a police officer to compulsory retirement. The respondent, a police officer with 33 years of service, faced multiple disciplinary proceedings for alleged subversive activities, resulting in repeated dismissals and subsequent legal challenges. The Service Tribunal, upon reviewing the protracted history of the case and the respondent's long tenure, exercised its appellate discretion to reduce the penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement, citing non-conformance with relevant police rules. The petitioners challenged this reduction, arguing that the gravity of the charge of subversive activity precluded such leniency. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal, as an appellate authority, possesses the competence to exhaustively examine departmental orders and grant appropriate relief, as recognized in established precedent. Finding that the Tribunal provided valid reasons for its decision and that no substantial question of law of public importance arose, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's authority to modify disciplinary penalties in appropriate circumstances.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have the authority to modify a penalty imposed by a departmental authority?
- Can the Service Tribunal reduce a penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement based on the length of service and procedural history?
- Is a question of law of public importance required for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Inspectorgeneral of Police, N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others vs Muhammad Yousaf1989 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Inspector-General of Police, N.W.F.P., and others against Muhammad Yousaf, concerning the dismissal of the respondent from police service. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court is whether Rule 12 of the N.-W.F.P. Police Rules, 1975 barred the jurisdiction of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal to entertain the service appeal filed by the respondent against his dismissal. Additionally, the court addressed the question of limitation regarding the application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, directing that the appeals be heard together on the existing record with permission for the parties to file necessary additional documents.
Questions settled- Whether Rule 12 of the N.-W.F.P. Police Rules, 1975 barred the jurisdiction of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal to entertain a service appeal against dismissal?
- Whether the delay in filing the appeal ought to be condoned based on the facts and details provided in the application?
- Inham Refrigeration b.v. vs The Owners of _F.T.Parivash_ and _Transocean Holdings Ltd1989 PLD Karachi 65 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Al-Mansoor Ltd. and 61989 PLD Peshawar 191 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 55 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
- Indus Valley Construction Company Limited and others vs Pakistan1989 SCMR 736 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal (I.C.A.) by the High Court. The petitioners, a construction company, had challenged the respondent authorities' decision to award a contract to a selected party, effectively excluding the petitioners from the tender process. While the High Court's Single Judge and the subsequent I.C.A. Bench dismissed the petition on the grounds that the specific contract proceedings had already concluded, the petitioners contended that their challenge extended beyond the individual contract to the broader authority of the respondents to exclude them from the competitive bidding process entirely. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the writ petition and the arguments presented below indeed raised broader issues regarding the legality of the tender process and the exclusion of the petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the I.C.A. Bench erred by failing to address the merits of the petitioners' substantive legal arguments regarding the tender process, rather than dismissing the appeal solely on the basis of the completed contract.
Questions settled- Should an Intra-Court Appeal Bench examine the merits of a petition challenging the legality of a tender process even if the specific contract in question has already been awarded?
- Does a challenge to the authority of a respondent to exclude a party from a tender process survive the completion of the specific contract proceedings?
- Indus Textile Mills Ltd vs Commissioenr of Income-Tax1989 PTD 567 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax reference matter arises from an assessment order for the year 1971-72 wherein the Assessing Officer rejected the appellant cotton yarn manufacturer's book version, deeming the invisible wastage inflated and production suppressed, and made an addition to the income. This rejection was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and subsequently by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The applicants sought a reference to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, questioning the legality of rejecting the account books under sections 13 and 13-A. The Sindh High Court held that while an assessing officer may reject accounts if income cannot be correctly deduced, accounts regularly maintained and accepted in the past should not be rejected without pointing out specific defects or fault, nor can rejection be based on the absence of particular records or data that cannot possibly be maintained in the ordinary course of that specific trade. The reference question was answered in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee.
Questions settled- Whether an assessing officer can legally reject regularly maintained account books without pointing out substantial mistakes, discrepancies, or defects?
- Can account books be rejected solely on the ground of non-maintenance of particulars and data that are not practically possible to maintain in a particular trade or business?
- Whether the assessing officer is justified in rejecting accounts previously accepted in identical circumstances without establishing that income cannot be correctly deduced from them?
- Indopakistan Corporation Limited and anothers vs Mansoor Iqbal1989 SCMR 905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against a company that had been declared an enemy firm under the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971. The core legal question was whether the Custodian of Enemy Property was a necessary party in rent control proceedings involving such a company. The Supreme Court held that the Custodian of Enemy Property was a necessary party. The Court reasoned that because the company's assets had vested in the Custodian and were exempt from seizure, attachment, or sale under the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, any eviction proceedings—which involve the dispossession of property—could not legally proceed without the Custodian's presence. The judgment establishes the principle that where a company's assets vest in the Custodian of Enemy Property, the Custodian is a necessary party to any legal proceedings that may result in the ouster of the company's interest or the seizure of its property. Consequently, the eviction orders were set aside and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller.
Questions settled- Is the Custodian of Enemy Property a necessary party in eviction proceedings against a company declared an enemy firm?
- Does the vesting of a company's assets in the Custodian of Enemy Property under the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, preclude eviction proceedings without the Custodian's impleadment?
- Are assets vesting in the Custodian of Enemy Property exempt from seizure or attachment in execution of a civil court decree?
- Indian Rayon Corporation,Etc vs Collector Of CustomsPTCL 1989 FC. 358 · Calcutta High Court · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
- Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd. vs Raunaq and Company Pvt. Ltd.1989 MLD 1489 · Supreme Court of India · -Read full judgment →
- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Indian Carbon Ltd.1989 MLD 2383 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-06Read full judgment →
- Independent News Corporation Limited and 2 others vs Manzoor1989 PLC 676 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Income-Tax Officer, Calcutta and others vs Radheshyam Ladia1989 PTD 353 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
- Income Tax Officer, Circle Q, Lahore vs Income Tax Officer, Circle Q, LahorePTCL 1989 CL. 1 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
- Income Tax Officer, Calcutta And Other vs Radheshyam LadiaPTCL 1989 FC. 41 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
- Inayat vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1115 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the legality of proceedings initiated against the applicant by the S.D.M./Tribunal under Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal complied with the mandatory procedural requirements for issuing a warrant of arrest and whether the police report provided sufficient notice of the allegations as required by law. The Court held that the proceedings were legally flawed. It emphasized that the issuance of a warrant under the proviso to Section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, is not a mere formality but requires the Tribunal to record specific reasons demonstrating that the act complained of cannot be prevented otherwise than by immediate arrest. Furthermore, the Court held that the police report failed to meet the requirements of Section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, which mandates that the report must detail the specific acts, times, and places of the alleged conduct to ensure the accused has adequate notice of the charges.
Questions settled- What are the mandatory requirements for a Tribunal to issue a warrant of arrest under Section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Does a police report initiating proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, require specific details of time and place of the alleged acts?
- Can proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, be quashed if the police report fails to comply with the requirements of Section 6?
- Inayat Ullah vs Mst. Parveen Akhtar1989 SCMR 1871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner defendant's Regular Second Appeal by the High Court in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by his wife (respondent). The respondent claimed ownership of the suit house on the basis of an oral gift made by the petitioner during wedlock in lieu of her dower (Hibba-bil-Ewaz), which was recorded in their Nikahnama. The trial court, first appellate court, and High Court all ruled in favour of the respondent wife. The core legal question was whether the transfer of immovable property by a husband to his wife in lieu of dower requires registration under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act 1908. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling that a transaction of Hibba-bil-Ewaz can be validly effected orally by delivery of possession under Islamic law without a registered instrument, and an entry in a Nikahnama merely evidences the payment of dower. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a transfer of immovable property by a husband to his wife in lieu of dower constitutes Hibba-bil-Ewaz?
- Does a transaction of Hibba-bil-Ewaz involving immovable property require registration under the Registration Act 1908?
- Can an entry in a Nikahnama serve as evidence of an oral gift made in lieu of dower without being registered?
- Inayat Ullah vs Income-Tax Officer and others1989 PTD 876 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges an inquiry initiated by an Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.) against the petitioner, who sought a tax refund following an assessment order. The core legal question was whether the I.T.O. could lawfully withhold a refund and initiate an inquiry via a miscellaneous letter (Annex. 'D') after an assessment had attained finality, rather than following the statutory procedure for reassessment. The Court held that the I.T.O. acted without lawful authority. It determined that once an assessment is completed, the I.T.O. is under a statutory obligation to issue a refund if due, and cannot bypass the mandatory prerequisites for reopening an assessment—such as possessing definite information and obtaining proper approval—by issuing informal inquiries. The Court established the principle that a statutory functionary must strictly adhere to the prescribed legal procedure for reassessment under the Income Tax Ordinance and cannot use informal correspondence to circumvent statutory duties or unilaterally withhold refunds due to an assessee after an assessment has been finalized.
Questions settled- Can an Income Tax Officer withhold a tax refund due to an assessee by initiating an informal inquiry after an assessment has attained finality?
- What are the mandatory conditions precedent that must be satisfied before an Income Tax Officer can initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
- Is an Income Tax Officer legally obligated to refund tax paid in excess, as determined by an assessment order, regardless of whether the assessee has filed a formal claim?
- Inayat Ullah Shaikh vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi1989 PLC 38 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
- Inayat Masih and another vs Talib Allah Ditta and another1989 P Cr. L J 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
- Inayat Begum and others vs The Additional District and Sessions Judge1989 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed by landlords against a High Court judgment that dismissed their writ petitions, thereby overturning an eviction order previously granted by the Rent Controller. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court involves the propriety of granting leave to appeal in a rent restriction matter where the parties have initiated out-of-court settlement negotiations and where the interests of students in a girls' school, currently occupying the premises as tenants, are at stake. The Court, noting the likelihood of a settlement and the public interest regarding the students' education, granted leave to appeal. The ratio of the decision emphasizes the Court's discretion to facilitate amicable resolutions in tenancy disputes, particularly when broader social or educational interests are implicated. The Court directed the preparation of appeals based on the existing record, permitted the filing of additional documents, and adjourned the proceedings to allow further time for the parties to finalize their negotiations.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal in a rent restriction matter to facilitate out-of-court settlement negotiations?
- Is the potential impact on the education of students occupying rented premises a relevant factor for the Court when considering leave to appeal in an eviction case?
- Inayat Ali vs Shaukat Ali1989 MLD 4380 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
- Inamurrahim Shah, Assistant Entomologist, Agriculture Department, Muzaffarabad vs The State1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 32 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- In Re_ the Passports Act, 1974 S.S.M.No,270 of 1983, , 1989. vs Not1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 39 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- In Re_ the Members of the National Assembly (Exemption from Preventive Detention__p_ _p_and Personal Appearance) Ordinance IX of 1963 vs Not1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 3 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
- In Re_ the Members of the National Assembly (Exemption from Preventive Detention and Personal Appearance) Ordinance IX of 1963. vs Not1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 8 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
- In Re_ the Baluchistan Chief Minister and Provincial Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Privileges) Act III of 1975 vs Not1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
- In Re: Messrs Barisons (Private) Ltd. vs Not1989 MLD 3075 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
- In Re: Constituency No. N.A. 191, Karachi vs Not1989 MLD 4571 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- In Re: Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 vs Not1989 MLD 398 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- In Re: Amin Fabrics Limited vs Not1989 MLD 1861 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-11Read full judgment →
- In re Letters Patent vs Not1989 P Cr. L J 1827 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 2860 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Ahmed vs The State1989 MLD 4010 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 376 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Ahmad vs Binya Amin1989 SCMR 1733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal arising from pre-emption suits where no decree had been passed by the target date of 31-7-1987. The core legal question was whether the right of pre-emption survived in pending suits after the Supreme Court's Shariat Appellate Bench decision in Govt. Of N.-W.F.P. Through Secy. Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 S.C. 360), which rendered pre-emption laws ineffective from that date. The Supreme Court held that the principles established in the Malik Said Kamal Shah case applied to all pending matters where no decree had been passed. Consequently, the Court determined that the plaintiffs' rights to pre-empt did not survive beyond the specified target date. The petitions were dismissed on the basis that they lacked merit as the underlying right of pre-emption had ceased to exist in the absence of a prior decree. The judgment reinforces the principle that pending pre-emption suits without decrees are governed by the cut-off date established in the precedent, effectively extinguishing such claims.
Questions settled- Does the right of pre-emption survive in pending suits where no decree was passed before 31-7-1987?
- Do the principles laid down in Govt. Of N.-W.F.P. Through Secy. Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah apply to pending pre-emption suits?
- Imdad Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1339 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Imdad Ali vs The State1989 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Sind High Court which upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the sanction for prosecution granted by the Deputy Director of Food on 27-12-1978 was valid, given that the Provincial Government of Sind had amended the relevant rules on 2-5-1978, transferring the authority to grant such sanctions to the Chairman of the Anti-Corruption Council or Committee. The Supreme Court held that the sanction granted by the Deputy Director was invalid because, following the 1978 amendment, he was no longer the competent authority to sanction the prosecution. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence. The key principle laid down is that once the rules governing the sanction for prosecution of a public servant are amended to vest authority in a specific body or person, any sanction granted by a previously authorized officer after the effective date of the amendment is legally incompetent and void, rendering the subsequent trial proceedings invalid.
Questions settled- Is a sanction for prosecution granted by an officer who has been divested of that authority by a subsequent rule amendment valid?
- Does the amendment of rules regarding the sanctioning authority under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 render previous delegation of power ineffective?
- Can a trial proceed if the sanction for prosecution was granted by an authority not empowered to do so at the time of the sanction?
- Imam Ud Din vs Qasim1989 CLC 2438 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Imam Shan through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Ullah Khan and others1989 SCMR 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over land ownership following the expiry of a mortgage period. The appellants, successors-in-interest to the original mortgagee, sought a declaration of ownership by prescription, claiming that the mortgage had extinguished after 60 years of possession. The respondents, successors to the original mortgagor, contested this, relying on statutory protections for restitution of mortgaged lands. The core legal question was whether the mortgage ceased to exist upon the expiry of the 60-year period or if statutory extensions under the N.-W.F.P. Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1950 and subsequent legislation preserved the mortgagor's rights. The Supreme Court held that the mortgage was extinguished by operation of law under the relevant statutes. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the appellants could not claim absolute ownership by prescription because the statutory framework for restitution and the repeal of previous acts did not revive or extend rights that had already lapsed. The principle established is that rights accrued under repealed enactments are preserved, and statutory provisions regarding the extinction of mortgages operate independently of subsequent legislative repeals.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of the N.-W.F.P. Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1950 by the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1964 revive mortgages that were already extinguished?
- Does the expiry of a 60-year mortgage period automatically confer absolute ownership by prescription upon the mortgagee despite statutory provisions for restitution?
- How does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 affect proceedings commenced under a repealed enactment?
- Imam Hanif vs Tufail and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 1518 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Imam Din vs Mst. Aisha alias Asia1989 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil dispute concerning the paternity of Mst. Aisha alias Asia, specifically whether she was the daughter of Wali Muhammad. The core legal question revolves around the factual determination of parentage and the extent of interference by appellate and revisional courts in concurrent factual findings. The Supreme Court held that the Additional District Judge properly re-appraised the evidence without misreading or ignoring any part of it, concluding that Mst. Aisha was indeed the daughter of Wali Muhammad, and the High Court correctly declined to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact arrived at by a first appellate court after proper appraisal of evidence, without any legal infirmity, misreading, or non-reading, are not open to interference in revisional or extraordinary appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether findings of fact regarding parentage recorded by an appellate court can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction without showing any legal infirmity?
- Is a re-appraisal of evidence by an appellate court sufficient to establish paternity when supported by the mother's marriage to the putative father?
- Imam Bux Baloch vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 386 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-08Read full judgment →
- Imam Bux Baloch vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 208 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-19Read full judgment →
- Imam Ali vs Muhammad Din and others1989 SCMR 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court, which had upheld a decree concerning easements of street passage and water drainage. The petitioner contended that the law of easements could not apply to properties that were formerly evacuee properties transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that there was no proper determination of the dominant and subservient tenements and that the case did not qualify as an easement of necessity. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding that the law of easements is applicable to evacuee properties transferred under settlement laws. The Court further observed that the lower courts had already established the dominant and subservient nature of the properties as a finding of fact, and that the petitioner's remaining arguments lacked factual support. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision and refused leave to appeal, reinforcing that settlement laws do not preclude the application of easement rights.
Questions settled- Is the law of easements applicable to evacuee properties transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a party challenge the existence of dominant and subservient tenements when lower courts have already established these as findings of fact?
- Ilyas and others vs Niaz Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners could claim adverse possession over land originally purchased when one of the co-sharers was a minor, where mutation for that minor's share was declined and the share was later transferred during consolidation proceedings. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners were originally put into possession by virtue of a sale-deed executed by co-sharers (including the minor's share), their possession was permissive rather than adverse, and all courts below concurrently found against the claim of adverse possession. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that permissive possession cannot ripen into adverse possession against a co-sharer.
Questions settled- Can a purchaser put into possession under a sale-deed claim adverse possession against a co-sharer whose share was excluded due to minority?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts on the question of adverse possession warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does possession originating from a sale-deed constitute adverse possession against other co-sharers?
- Ilyas alias Nasir vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 706(1) · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- Ilyas Ahmad Khan vs Messrs Midway House (Private) Limited1989 PLC 848 · Labour Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Ilam Din and others vs Muhammad Bashir and others1989 SCMR 1632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the effect of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, on pending proceedings concerning agricultural land previously governed by customary law. The core legal question was whether Section 2-A of the said Ordinance rendered void and abated pending suits and execution proceedings based on declaratory decrees obtained under custom by reversioners. The Supreme Court held that Section 2-A of the Ordinance explicitly voids judgments, decrees, and orders affirming reversionary rights under custom and causes all pending suits, appeals, and execution proceedings to abate forthwith, except for past and closed transactions where possession had already been delivered. The key principle laid down is that where statutory amendments by the Legislature categorically extinguish customary reversionary rights and abate pending proceedings, the courts are left with no power of adjudication other than to give effect to the legislative command.
Questions settled- What is the effect of Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, on pending proceedings and decrees based on custom?
- Does Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, render decrees affirming reversionary rights under custom void and inexecutable?
- Can a law promulgated when fundamental rights were not enforceable be challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights to equality and property?
- What constitutes past and closed transactions under the proviso to Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983?
- Ijaz Hussain vs Secretary, Ministry of Health and Population Welfare1989 PLC (C.S.) 522 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Hussain Shah vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases. 62 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Hussain and 12 others vs Mst. Hussan Ara and 6 others1989 PLD Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-04-19Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ali Sheikh vs The State1989 MLD 4963 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ahmad Khan vs The State1989 MLD 830 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ahmad Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 496 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ahmad Alias Jaddoo vs The State1989 MLD 4396 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
- Ihtisham Izhar Khan vs Secretary, Department of Health1989 MLD 923 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-27Read full judgment →
- Iftikharulhassan and 5 others vs Noor Nabi and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 96 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ul Hassan & Other vs Noor Nabi & OtherK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 362 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Alias Doctor vs The State1989 MLD 4724 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-05Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmed And Another vs The Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore And 2 Other1989 CLC 66 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-02Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad vs Zahid Iqbal And 3 Other1989 MLD 778 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4075 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-27Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1918 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-25Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad vs The Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division and another1989 SCMR 1755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the termination of the petitioner's employment. The petitioner had been appointed on a purely temporary basis against a leave vacancy. Upon the return of the original incumbent to duty, the petitioner's services were terminated. The core legal question was whether a temporary employee appointed against a leave vacancy possesses a vested right to retention in service after the original incumbent resumes their position. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having been appointed on a purely temporary basis, had no legal right to be retained on the post once the incumbent reported for duty. Consequently, the Department was justified in terminating the petitioner's services. The Court affirmed the principle that a temporary appointee against a leave vacancy holds no right to continued employment once the vacancy ceases to exist due to the return of the original employee.
Questions settled- Does a temporary employee appointed against a leave vacancy have a right to be retained after the incumbent reports for duty?
- Is the termination of a temporary employee justified when the original incumbent returns to their post?
- Iftikhar Ahmad vs Muhammad Ashraf and others1989 P Cr. L J 2364 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad vs Muhammad Ash Raf EtcK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 527 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad Siddiqi vs Malik Akhtar Ali and others1989 SCMR 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application seeking the restoration of a review petition that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of senior counsel. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient cause was shown for the non-appearance of counsel on the date of hearing. The Supreme Court held that no sufficient cause or valid justification was provided for the absence of the counsel, noting that the Advocate-on-Record was unable to argue the matter and that the excuse regarding counsel being busy before another court was inadequate, especially considering the circumstances of the case. The application for restoration was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of senior counsel due to engagement in another court constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside an order of dismissal for non-prosecution?
- Can a review petition dismissed for non-prosecution be restored when the Advocate-on-Record expresses inability to argue the matter?
- Iftikhar Ahmad Etc vs Distt. Attorney Sialkot EtcK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 27 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad and others vs District Attorney and others1989 P Cr. L J 844 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
- ICI Pakistan Limited vs Federal Government Through Finance SecretaryPTCL 1989 CL. 272 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 202 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim vs Ghulam Qadir and 5 others1989 SCMR 1521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's suit for declaration seeking the annulment of a mutation of exchange on the grounds of fraud. The central legal question addressed was whether the suit for declaration simpliciter was maintainable in light of the factual determination regarding the transfer of possession of the properties involved in the exchange. The petitioner contended that the trial court had initially found possession had not passed, thereby rendering the exchange incomplete and the suit competent. However, the High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, concurrently found as a matter of fact that possession had indeed been transferred between the parties in implementation of the exchange. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding of fact was supported by evidence, free from legal error or misapplication of principle, and thus refused to interfere. The judgment reinforces the principle that concurrent findings of fact, when based on evidence, are generally not subject to interference in revisional or appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a suit for declaration simpliciter be maintained if the underlying transaction requires the transfer of possession?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when they are supported by evidence?
- Is a mutation of exchange rendered inoperative if possession of the properties is not transferred?
- Ibrahim Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and others1989 PLD Lahore 47 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of fifteen writ petitions challenging show-cause notices and recovery orders issued by the Assistant Controller of Customs Valuation under Section 32(2) of the Customs Act 1969. The petitioners had imported man-made fibre and paid customs duty at a reduced rate of Rs. 14 per kilogram, which was proposed in the Finance Bill 1987. The reduction was subsequently withdrawn, and the Customs Department sought to recover the difference at the original rate of Rs. 20 per kilogram, alleging deliberate misstatement under Section 32(2). The High Court held that the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1931 only applies to the imposition or increase of taxes, not to their reduction; hence, the statutory rate remained Rs. 20. However, the Court ruled that Section 32(2) requires proof of deliberate intent or knowledge of falsity, which was absent as the petitioners were misled by the loosely worded declaration in the Finance Bill. The short levy was instead due to inadvertence or error under Section 32(3), for which the limitation period had expired. The recovery orders were consequently declared unlawful and set aside.
Questions settled- Does the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1931 apply to provisions in a Money Bill that reduce or withdraw customs duties?
- What is the effective date of payment for customs duties when cash is deposited in a bank's evening shift but credited on the next working day?
- Can the Customs Department invoke Section 32(2) of the Customs Act 1969 for short-levied duty without proving deliberate intent, knowledge of falsity, or collusion?
- Does the availability of alternative remedies of appeal and revision bar the exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction when the impugned orders are passed without lawful authority and involve heavy advance deposits?
- Ibrahim Gul and others vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary1989 SCMR 2010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, serving as teachers in the Education Department of N.-W.F.P., challenged a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal which dismissed their appeal regarding pay scale entitlement. The petitioners had been transferred to positions of Senior Instructor of Commerce (NPS-17) on their own pay and grade (NPS-14), with the explicit condition that they would not claim permanent absorption and would revert upon the arrival of Public Service Commission selectees. After serving for several years, the petitioners sought regularisation and the pay scale of the higher post (NPS-17). The Service Tribunal rejected their claim, noting the appointments were temporary, ex-cadre, and did not follow the prescribed procedure for BPS-17 appointments. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, holding that the transfer and the accompanying remuneration conditions were lawful under Section 10 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Court ruled that since the petitioners were not formally promoted or selected through the prescribed boards, they were not entitled to the higher pay scale, and their belated challenge to the terms of their transfer was impermissible.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim the pay scale of a higher post when transferred to an ex-cadre position on their own pay and grade?
- Does Section 10 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act 1973 empower authorities to transfer civil servants with conditions regarding remuneration?
- Is a belated challenge to the terms of a transfer order permissible when the order was initially accepted without objection?
- Ibrahim And Others vs Yaqoob Ali Khan And Other1989 MLD 3302 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 178 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim and another vs Messrs Marble Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.1989 PLC 924 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim alias Abbu and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1617 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
- I.C.I. Pakistan Ltd. vs Federal Government And 3 Other1989 MLD 1391 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
- Hyderabad Development Authority vs Shaft Ahmad1989 PLC 876 · Labour Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd., Hyderabad vs State of Andhra Pradesh ,1989 PTD 77 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
- Hussain And Others vs Faizinuhammad And Other1989 MLD 3651 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
- Hussain Ali vs Government of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 4721 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- Humayun Akhtar vs Shamsunnisa1989 MLD 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Hukumuddin Alias Chiri Pehlwan vs The State1989 MLD 654 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Hukum vs The State1989 MLD 655 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →