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.
- Dr. Aman Ul Haq and 2 others vs Punjab Public Service Commission and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 196 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the Punjab Public Service Commission’s decision to exclude the petitioners from a list of recommended candidates for Medical Officer and Demonstrator positions. The petitioners argued that their initial inclusion created a vested right, invoking the principle of locus poenitentiae to prevent subsequent removal. The core legal question was whether administrative errors, such as incorrect mark tabulation or failure to meet minimum qualifying criteria, could create enforceable legal rights for the petitioners. The Court found that the petitioners’ inclusion resulted from factual errors and administrative mistakes, noting that some petitioners had failed the viva voce examination. The Court held that the principle of locus poenitentiae is inapplicable where an order is void, a nullity, or based on an error. It ruled that no legal right can be built upon a void order, and the Court will not exercise its equitable jurisdiction to assist petitioners in benefiting from administrative errors at the expense of others. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, emphasizing that the Commission has the authority to rectify its own mistakes.
Questions settled- Can the principle of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect an order based on a factual error or administrative mistake?
- Does an erroneous inclusion in a list of successful candidates create an enforceable legal right?
- Can a court exercise its equitable jurisdiction to uphold a benefit derived from an administrative error?
- Is it necessary to implead adversely affected parties in a constitutional petition challenging a selection process?
- Dr. Ali Yahyah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1652 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition arises from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansehra, refusing to grant personal appearance exemption to the petitioner, a co-accused facing trial under sections 302, 148, 149, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who resides and works as a medical professor in Libya and suffers from heart disease. The core legal question was whether the trial court could refuse exemption under section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to an accused represented by a pleader when multiple co-accused are standing trial and unnecessary delays are being caused. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court's discretion under section 540-A was not exercised judicially, noting that the presence of the accused was not mandatory at the framing of a charge in a Sessions trial under section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the petitioner was duly represented by counsel. The court set aside the impugned order, granted the exemption, and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person can be granted exemption from personal appearance under section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while being represented by a pleader?
- Is the personal presence of an accused mandatory at the time of framing a charge in a trial before the Court of Sessions?
- Does section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases triable by a Court of Sessions?
- Can a trial court exercise its discretion to dispense with the attendance of an accused when multiple co-accused are facing trial?
- Dr. Akhtar Ali and anothers vs Haji Muhammad Suleman and others1989 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves appeals against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing writ petitions concerning the transfer of evacuee property. The core legal questions were whether the Settlement Authorities acted arbitrarily in classifying the residential portions of a building as one indivisible unit for transfer, and whether the appellants possessed the requisite locus standi to challenge these transfers. The Supreme Court held that the appellants lacked the locus standi to challenge the orders. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact by the Settlement Authorities, based on repeated spot inspections, that the residential portions constituted one indivisible unit. The Court ruled that such factual determinations are not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. The key principle established is that concurrent findings of fact by Settlement Authorities regarding the nature of property are final, and a party who has not filed a valid claim under the relevant settlement scheme lacks the standing to challenge the transfer of property to another claimant.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by Settlement Authorities regarding the nature of evacuee property?
- Does an applicant who has not filed a valid claim under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 have locus standi to challenge a property transfer?
- Is a property consisting of multiple residential portions on different floors considered an indivisible unit for the purpose of transfer under settlement laws?
- Dr. Ahsan Waheed Rathore vs Government of Punjab and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 672 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 707 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad and another vs Momand and another1980 PLJ Supreme Court 252, 1989 SCMR 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the vendees against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether an appellate court is obliged to examine a question of limitation regarding prior physical possession raised for the first time in appellate proceedings when it was not pleaded before the trial court. The Supreme Court held that neither the first appellate court nor the High Court is obliged to examine a question of limitation not raised before the trial court. The key principle laid down is that pleas of limitation involving questions of fact, such as prior physical possession in pre-emption cases, cannot be raised for the first time in appellate forums if omitted before the trial court.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is obliged to examine a question of limitation not raised before the trial court?
- Can a plea of limitation involving a question of fact like prior physical possession be raised for the first time in the High Court?
- Is a party entitled to amend its written statement at the appellate stage to raise a new plea of limitation?
- Dost Muhammad and 4 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1602 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2736 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad alias Dosa vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1784 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Don Basco High School vs The Assistant Director, E.O.B.I. and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court decision dismissing the petitioner school's writ petition. The petitioner challenged the application of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976, arguing that a school is not an 'establishment' under Section 2(e) of the Act and invoking the doctrine of ejusdem generis to contend that the word 'organization' should be restricted to entities similar to clubs, hostels, or messes. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976 is a beneficial and remedial statute intended to provide old-age security, which must be liberally construed rather than strictly interpreted like a fiscal statute. The Court held that the use of the word 'includes' expands the definition of 'establishment', and that the doctrine of ejusdem generis does not apply where a broader legislative intent is evident. Consequently, educational institutions operating as organizations fall within the purview of the Act regardless of whether they are run for profit.
Questions settled- Whether an educational institution falls within the definition of 'establishment' under Section 2(e) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976?
- Does the doctrine of ejusdem generis apply to restrict general terms in a statute when a broader legislative intent is manifested?
- Should welfare and beneficial statutes, such as the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976, be strictly construed as fiscal statutes or liberally interpreted to advance their remedial purpose?
- Does the statutory word 'includes' in an interpretation clause expand or restrict the meaning of defined terms?
- Divisional Superintendent, Railways, Multan vs Mst. Zarina Tasneem1989 PLC 382 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Workshop Division, Lahore and 2 others vs Muhammad Inam Elahi1989 PLC 654 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi vs Muhammad Akram1989 PLC 683 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Peshawar vs 'Muhammad Siddique and 2 others1989 PLC 718 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan vs Shamsur1989 PLC 747 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan vs Raziq Bakhsh1989 PLC 653 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan vs Khuda Buksh1989 PLC 922 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan vs Abdul Aziz1989 PLC 87 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-29Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan Division, Multan1989 PLC 381 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Tariq Zia1989 PLC 74 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Rukan Din1989 PLC 959 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Muhammad1989 PLC 595 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-23Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Muhammad1989 PLC 685 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Bashir Ahmad1989 PLC 684 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Ahmed Khan1989 PLC 172 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-09-07Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Abdul Hamid1989 PLC 883 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-16Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi and 2 others vs Syed Hassan Abbas1989 PLC 733 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-16Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways vs Muhammad Akhtar1989 PLC 427 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways vs Hakim Ali1989 PLC 255 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Multan Division, Multan1988 PLC 377 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railway vs Khuda Bakhsh1989 PLC 243 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-26Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent Railways vs Abdul Aziz1989 PLC 380 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-10Read full judgment →
- Divisional Mechanical Enigneer, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi and 21989 PLC 956 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Evacuee Trust Property Committee, Hyderabad vs Deputy Commissioner and another1989 SCMR 1610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the court arose from proceedings initiated by the Divisional Evacuee Trust Property Committee seeking a declaration that a certain property in Hyderabad was an evacuee trust property. The application and subsequent appeal were dismissed by the lower authorities and the High Court on the ground that mere entries in the City Survey Record showing the property attached to a Mandir were insufficient to establish its trust character without further evidence. The core legal question was whether, in the absence of a trust deed, official revenue and survey entries describing a property as attached to a religious institution are sufficient to declare it an evacuee trust property. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that official revenue and survey entries carry a presumption of correctness under the relevant land revenue laws, and such unrebutted evidence is sufficient on a preponderance of probabilities to establish the property's character as a religious and charitable trust. The court laid down the principle that official record entries indicating attachment to a religious institution suffice to prove trust character unless rebutted by contrary evidence.
Questions settled- Whether in the absence of a trust deed, official record entries describing a property as attached to a religious institution are sufficient to declare it an evacuee trust property?
- Do entries in the City Survey Record carry a presumption of correctness under the land revenue laws?
- Can a new question of fact regarding the location of a temple be raised for the first time at the appellate stage without affording an opportunity to produce evidence?
- Divisinal Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and 2 others vs Shah Nawaz Khan1989 PLC 373 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
- District Manager, Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore vs Muhammad Aslam1989 PLC 414 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- District Manager P.R.T.C. (I.C.) R.R. Faisalabad vs Muhammad Aslam1989 PLC 225 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-09-02Read full judgment →
- District Gurdaspur Mahajareen Co Operative House Building Society1989 MLD 938 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- District Evacuee Trust Property Committee, Hyderabad vs Sarfraz Khan and 7 others1989 SCMR 1753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from an order of the High Court dated 21-2-1973, which dismissed the appellant's constitutional petition against the order of the Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question was whether, in the absence of a trust deed, the mere production of record-of-rights or city survey entries describing a property as a 'dharamsala' or similar expression is sufficient to declare it attached to a religious, charitable, or educational trust under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that unsupported and vague survey entries, without positive and authentic evidence establishing the existence of the institution and the trust character of the property, are inadequate. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that assertion of trust property status under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 requires tangible, positive evidence beyond vague or unsupported revenue or city survey record entries.
Questions settled- Whether mere production of extract from record-of-rights describing a property as a dharamsala can be declared as attached to a religious trust without a deed of trust?
- Is a city survey entry sufficient evidence to establish the character of a property as a trust property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- District Evacuee Trust Committee vs Mashraf Khan and 3 others1989 SCMR 1636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from proceedings under section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, concerning whether properties recorded in City Survey records as 'Dharamshala Charitable' were attached to a religious and charitable trust in the absence of a formal trust deed. The Settlement Commissioner and the High Court had dismissed the appellant's claim, holding that survey entries alone were insufficient to prove trust status and that the notation 'by inheritance' indicated private ownership. Reversing the lower forums, the Supreme Court held that dedication for a Dharamshala is a recognized religious and charitable purpose under Hindu law, and the succession reference applied merely to the office of trusteeship. The Court laid down that entries in the revenue record of rights carry a presumption of truthfulness and constitute presumptive evidence of title sufficient to shift the burden of proof, thereby establishing the property as an evacuee trust property subject to the protections of Section 10 of Act XIII of 1975.
Questions settled- Can an evacuee property be declared attached to a religious or charitable trust under Section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 based on revenue or City Survey entries describing it as a 'Dharamshala' in the absence of a formal trust deed?
- Does the phrase 'by inheritance' in survey records regarding a Dharamshala denote private ownership of the property or the succession to the office of trusteeship?
- Are entries in the official record of rights sufficient presumptive evidence of title to shift the onus of proving the contrary in an inquiry concerning evacuee trust properties?
- District Evacuee Trust Committee vs Bashiruddin and another1989 SCMR 1897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The District Evacuee Trust Committee appealed against a High Court judgment that affirmed the Settlement Commissioner's refusal to declare certain properties as evacuee trust property. The core legal question was whether the properties in question, recorded as 'Tikano' in the City Survey Record, constituted evacuee trust property attached to a religious or charitable institution under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the City Survey Record entries, which explicitly described the properties as 'Tikano (Charitable)' and imposed restrictions on alienation, mortgage, or disposal by the manager, provided sufficient evidence of their religious and charitable character. Consequently, the Court reversed the lower courts' findings, declaring the properties to be evacuee trust property. However, the Court clarified that the existing transfer to the respondent was subject to validation provisions under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, and could not be automatically dislodged without further administrative action by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board.
Questions settled- Does an entry in the City Survey Record describing property as 'Tikano (Charitable)' with restrictions on alienation constitute sufficient evidence to establish the property as an evacuee trust property?
- Can a property be declared as evacuee trust property if the record of rights explicitly restricts the manager from alienating, gifting, or mortgaging the property?
- Does the declaration of a property as evacuee trust property automatically invalidate a prior transfer made to a third party under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- District Bar Association, Lahore vs S.M.Samiuzzamir Advocate And 41989 MLD 1864 · Pakistan Bar Council · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
- Director-General, Directorate of Pakistan National Centre, Islamabad and 2 others vs Faiz Muhammad1989 PLC 746 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Director, Medical Services, K.M.C. and another vs Riaz Ahmad1989 PLC 175 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-21Read full judgment →
- Director Operation, Karachi Transport Corporation vs Abdul1989 PLC 252 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-03Read full judgment →
- Director of School Education And Another vs Muzammil Hussain Khan1989 MLD 2206 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- Director Administration, Lahore Developmentauthority and another1989 PLC 884 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Director (0 & M) WASA, Faisalabad Development Authority and another1989 PLC 384 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- Din Muhammad and others vs Administrator, Thal Development1989 SCMR 1245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from a dispute involving the Administrator, Thal Development. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to relief on the basis of similar points already adjudicated by the court in a prior precedent, namely Rab Nawaz Khan and others v. Administrator, Thal. The Supreme Court, having considered the arguments from both sides—including the respondents' statement that no effective relief was claimed against their client—granted leave to appeal, holding that the case warrants further examination in light of the cited precedent. The key principle laid down is that where similar points of law and fact have been settled in prior judgments, leave to appeal may be granted to ensure consistency in judicial determination.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when similar points have been raised and settled in a prior precedent?
- Can a petition succeed on the basis of points decided in earlier judgments between similar parties or subject matters?
- Din Muhammad and others vs Abdul Rehman Khan1989 SCMR 1207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the defendants against the decision of the High Court, which allowed the respondent's civil revision, set aside the rejection of the plaint, and remanded the suit to the trial court for a fresh decision. The suit had originally been dismissed by the trial court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of preliminary objections raised by the petitioners. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that the controversy between the parties was already concluded by decisions of the Custodian/Settlement Authorities and under the Rent Restriction Law, which explicitly barred fresh proceedings before civil courts. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by the relevant settlement and rent laws. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the issue regarding the bar of jurisdiction and other points raised, while ordering a stay of proceedings in the interim.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by previous decisions of the Settlement Authorities and rent restriction laws?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to examine the maintainability of a civil suit following the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Dilwash vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1137 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
- Dildar Hussain vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways and 2 others1989 PLC 686 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Dilawar Hussain and 2 others vs Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 2138 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
- Dilawar Ali vs Senior Superintendent of Police, District East, Karachi1989 P Cr. L J 814 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
- Dil Ara Begum vs Shaukat Ali Beg And Other1989 CLC 991 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
- Di Angelo Tomasoo Italian vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 840 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns an Italian national convicted by the Special Judge, Customs, Lahore, for attempting to smuggle three kilograms of heroin out of Pakistan, an offence under section 156(1)8 of the Customs Act, 1969. The appellant was originally sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees ten thousand, with a default clause for non-payment. Upon appeal, the appellant did not challenge the conviction but sought a reduction in the sentence, citing his status as a foreign national, his prolonged detention as an under-trial and convict, his inability to pay the fine due to destitution, and the likelihood of further penalization upon his return to Italy. The Court, finding no reason to disturb the conviction, focused solely on the quantum of the sentence. Considering the appellant's circumstances, including his language barrier and the time already served, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and halved the fine, stipulating a reduced default sentence of one month of simple imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can a court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone for a foreign national convicted of smuggling?
- Does the appellate court have the discretion to reduce a fine imposed under the Customs Act 1969 based on the appellant's financial destitution?
- Is a conviction under the Customs Act 1969 subject to sentence mitigation if the appellant does not challenge the conviction itself?
- Dhani Bux and others vs The State1989 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Sind High Court, which refused to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case involving murder and arms offenses under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, including their nomination in the First Information Report, specific attribution of roles, supporting statements of eyewitnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a clear motive related to a matrimonial dispute. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings and the view taken by the High Court refusing bail were unexceptionable. The Court laid down that where a prima facie case is established through prompt reporting, specific identification, supporting eyewitness accounts, and a discernible motive for an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life, post-arrest bail is rightly declined.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused are specifically named in the FIR with attributed roles for an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
- Is the existence of a strong motive and supporting statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the refusal of bail?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent refusal of bail by the lower courts when no illegality or perversity is shown in their orders?
- Dewan Jetharam Dharamdas Trust vs Government of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 1962 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
- Deputy Collector. of Customs and 2 others vs Muhammad Tai R and anot er s1989 PLD Supreme Court 627 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was filed with a delay of 101 days. The petitioners, representing Government functionaries, sought condonation of delay on the grounds of misconduct and lack of vigilance by subordinate officials, against whom departmental action was being initiated. The core legal question was whether the negligence or misconduct of lower-level government functionaries can constitute a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal involving public interest. The Supreme Court held that while Government functionaries are treated at par with ordinary citizens, the court can examine the conduct of subordinate functionaries over whom higher policy-makers have remote control. The Court determined that the misconduct of lower functionaries, coupled with the Government's bona fide action against them, constituted a fit ground for condonation. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay and granted leave to appeal due to the public importance of the questions raised and the high value of the property involved.
Questions settled- Can the misconduct or lack of vigilance of subordinate government functionaries constitute a valid ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal?
- How should the courts balance the requirement of treating government functionaries at par with ordinary citizens against the practical realities of administrative control when deciding applications for condonation of delay?
- Does the initiation of departmental action against negligent lower-level officials demonstrate bona fides sufficient to support an application for condonation of delay?
- Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Lahore and 21989 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Deputy Collector and Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, challenging judgments of the Lahore High Court. The underlying dispute arose after the petitioners raided the respondents' premises and seized articles under the Customs Act without obtaining search warrants. The High Court allowed the respondents' writ petitions, holding that the search was illegal and without lawful authority because sections 162 and 163 of the Customs Act mandate that search warrants from a Magistrate are required before conducting a search for goods liable to be confiscated. The petitioners sought leave to appeal, arguing that the High Court's order effectively dropped proceedings and raising the legal question of whether seized articles lose their evidentiary value solely due to the absence of search warrants. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the absence of search warrants renders the recovery of seized goods inadmissible as evidence, directing that these petitions be heard alongside similar pending cases.
Questions settled- Are search warrants from a Magistrate required under the Customs Act before conducting a search for goods liable to be confiscated?
- Does the absence of a search warrant during a raid render the seized articles inadmissible as evidence?
- Department vs AssesseePTCL 1989 CL. 594 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
- Deep Chandra Co. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur1989 PTD 445 · Allahabad High Court · 1974-12-02Read full judgment →
- Deen Carpets Limited vs Iqbal Ghuman I.T.O. and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a petition for leave to appeal that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner's counsel sought restoration, claiming an oral adjournment had been granted. The core legal question was whether the restoration should be allowed given the procedural lapse by counsel in failing to file a formal written application for adjournment, and whether the underlying petition had merit. The Court held that the restoration application should be dismissed. It emphasized that counsel must file formal written applications for adjournments, even if oral requests are initially granted, to avoid procedural complications and protect clients' interests. Furthermore, the Court examined the merits of the original petition and found it liable to be dismissed due to the petitioner's conduct. The Court affirmed that both the High Court's writ jurisdiction and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal are discretionary, and a petitioner who does not approach the court with clean hands is not entitled to relief.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner who fails to approach the court with clean hands entitled to discretionary relief?
- Does the failure to file a formal written application for an adjournment, despite an oral request, constitute a valid ground for dismissal of a restoration application?
- Are both the High Court's writ jurisdiction and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal discretionary in nature?
- Daya Ram vs The State (Delhi Administration)1989 MLD 1105 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-01-19Read full judgment →
- Dawood Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 177 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
- Daulat Ali vs Barkat AliK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 6 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-06-14Read full judgment →
- Darya Khan vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 115 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application has been filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge imposing a penalty on the applicant as a surety due to the accused's absence in a case under the Hudood Ordinance. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court has revisional jurisdiction over Hudood cases in light of Article 203-DD of the Constitution and whether a second revision application amounts to an impermissible review of an earlier order. The court held that revisional jurisdiction in Hudood cases exclusively vests in the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-DD, with jurisdiction barred under Article 203-G, and that criminal courts lack the power of review in the absence of statutory provision. The key principles laid down are that the Federal Shariat Court holds exclusive revisional jurisdiction over cases arising out of Hudood laws, and a High Court cannot review its own earlier order or entertain a second revision amounting to a review.
Questions settled- Does the High Court retain revisional jurisdiction over cases arising out of the Hudood Ordinance in view of Article 203-DD of the Constitution?
- Whether a second revision application against the same order amounts to an impermissible review of judgment in criminal cases?
- Does a criminal court have the power of review in the absence of an express conferment by statute?
- Darshan Singh And Another vs The State of Punjab1989 MLD 1931 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-01-29Read full judgment →
- Dalloomal through His L.Rs, vs Nasir Hussain and others1989 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing a constitutional petition against the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the auction of a disputed property. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had been transferred the property on an L.H. Form, but faced a cancellation of transfer and subsequent auction due to non-payment of the disputed transfer price within the stipulated time, whilst his representation for price reduction remained pending. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of a transfer and auction of property for non-payment of a transfer price is lawful when a representation regarding the price is pending and statutory cancellation procedures are bypassed. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation and resumption of transferred property without observing the prescribed procedure or while a proper adjudication of the transfer price is pending is void ab initio, and delay in payment does not justify auctioning the property. The Court laid down the principle that void cancellation orders cannot be sustained on the ground of laches or third-party interests created subsequently.
Questions settled- Whether the cancellation of a transferred property for non-payment is lawful when a representation for the reduction of the transfer price is pending?
- Does a delay in the payment of a transfer price entitle the Settlement Department to cancel the transfer and put the property to auction?
- Can a void order of cancellation or resumption of a property be upheld on the ground that third-party interests have intervened?
- Dadi Associates (Pvt.) Limited And Others vs Pakistan Defence Officers1989 MLD 3070 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Dadabhoy Cement Industries Ltd. [M/s.] vs Central Board Of Revenue AndPTCL 1989 CL. 608 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-10Read full judgment →
- Dada Enterprises, Limited vs The Deputy Director Octroi (Admn)1989 MLD 935 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
- D.K. Soni vs P.K. Mukherjee And Other1989 MLD 2059 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
- D. Navinchandra & Co., Bombay And Another Etc. (M/s.) vs Union Of IndiaPTCL 1989 FC. 7 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Cynamide (Pak) Employees' Union vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal , .1989 PLC 482 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
- Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan1989 SCMR 1425(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon petitions for special leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court, which followed its earlier ruling in Lahore Textile and General Mills Ltd v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns the correctness of the legal view adopted by the High Court regarding the underlying dispute affecting state revenue. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the said High Court judgment, ordered the appeals to be heard together on the present record with permission to file additional documents, directed early listing of the appeals due to the involvement of substantial state revenue, and ordered that during the pendency of the appeals the existing bank guarantees shall continue to be renewed but not encashed. The holding establishes that leave to appeal is warranted to review conflicting or contentious interpretations adopted by the High Court involving state revenue matters, ensuring interim protection through the continuation and non-encashment of bank guarantees.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to examine the correctness of a High Court judgment determining state revenue matters?
- Can bank guarantees be ordered to remain in force without being encashed during the pendency of appeals before the Supreme Court?
- Crescent Jute Products Ltd. vs Muhammad Yaqub and others1989 PLC 499 · Labour Court · 1978-05-13Read full judgment →
- Controlling Authority/Collector, Sialkot vs Chairman, Arbitration1989 MLD 145 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Continental Construction Co. Ltd. vs State of Madhya Pradesh1989 MLD 1209 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-07Read full judgment →
- Communications and 2 others vs Iqbal Sharif1989 SCMR 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an interlocutory order of the High Court of Sind, which granted a temporary injunction in favor of a Karachi Port Trust employee who had been retired by the Government of Pakistan. The core legal questions were whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was competent in this context and whether the grant of a temporary injunction was legally permissible in light of established Supreme Court precedents. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent had already continued in service for seven years due to the interim order. Given the significant passage of time, the Court declined to examine the merits of the interim order, noting that the respondent had already enjoyed its benefits for too long. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without interfering with the interim relief, with a directive that the High Court should dispose of the main constitutional petition on its merits within six months. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of timely adjudication in service matters to avoid prolonged interim arrangements.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 competent to challenge a retirement order of a government employee?
- Can an appellate court decline to interfere with an interim injunction when the respondent has already enjoyed the benefits of that order for a significant period?
- Commissioner, Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution, Lahore1989 SCMR 2008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the liability for social security contributions for an establishment previously nationalized by the Federal Government. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government or the private respondent (the entity to which the establishment was returned) was liable for social security contributions accrued during the period the establishment was under government control. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that the Federal Government was liable for the disputed contributions. The Court reasoned that under the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance 1965, the definition of 'employer' includes a 'manager' or 'agent.' Given that the Federal Government controlled the establishment during the relevant period, it functioned as an employer, and the High Court's direction for the government to pay was legally sound. The Court clarified that this holding did not preclude the Federal Government from seeking recovery of the paid amount from other parties, including the respondent, if such recovery is permitted under mutual liabilities governed by relevant laws.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'employer' under the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance 1965 include a government entity acting as a manager or agent?
- Can the Federal Government be held liable for social security contributions accrued during the period an establishment was under its control following nationalization?
- Does the discretionary power under Article 8 of the Protection of Economic Reforms (Protection of Industries) Order 1979 absolve the government from liability for social security contributions?
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and others vs Chander Sen and others1989 PTD 116 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bhopal vs Abdul Hussain Mulla1989 PTD 688 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs A & B Food1989 PTD 605 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Central Zone 'A' Karachi vs Messrs PakistanPTCL 1989 CL. 215 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P. vs S.N. Brother, Kanpur (M/s.)PTCL1989 FC. 201 · Supreme Court of India · 1972-11-02Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Sales Tax Central Zone `A', Karachi vs A & B Food1989 PTD 594 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Sales Tax Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs Hercules1989 PTD 126 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-15Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone B', Karachi vs Sterling Products1989 PTD 766 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone 'B', Karachi vs Sandoz (Pak.) Ltd.1989 PTD (Trib.) 607 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal-III vs Lalit Mohan Deb1989 PTD 1328 · Calcutta High Court · 1975-07-10Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P.II, Lucknow vs Bazpur Co-Operative1989 PTD 705 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P. vs N.L. Laxmi Sugar and Oil Mills Ltd.1989 PTD 169 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lucknow vs Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd.1989 PTD 533 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-15Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lucknow vs Bazpur Co-Operative1989 PTD 1311 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-05-01Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore vs Kamran Steel Re-1989 PTD 521 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three reference applications under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal questions concerned whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee re-rolling mill carried out work on behalf of others based on past history, and whether the cancellation of penalties imposed under section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was legally valid. The Lahore High Court held that the Tribunal's findings regarding the nature of the business and the existence of re-rolling for third parties were pure questions of fact based on the assessee's past history and proper evaluation of evidence. Furthermore, the Court held that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, requiring independent cogent evidence of concealment, which the Department failed to provide once the primary assessment basis was set aside. Consequently, the Court ruled that no questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order and dismissed all reference applications.
Questions settled- Whether a finding by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the bifurcation of a business's production based on past history constitutes a question of law or a question of fact?
- Can a penalty under section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 be sustained when the foundational finding regarding the concealment of income has been reversed by the Tribunal?
- What is the standard of evidence required to establish concealment of income for the imposition of penalties in tax proceedings?
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi vs Wilh1989 PTD 769 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kanpur vs Dr. R.S. Gupta1989 PTD 238 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kanpur vs Behari Lal Ram Charan Ltd.1989 PTD 164 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat-III vs Steel Cast Corporation1989 PTD 938 · Gujarat High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →