Latest 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. 232594 judgments in total.
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs ABDUL REHMAN1987 PLC 768 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Ltd, vs Brig. SAROSH JAL IRANI and others1987 MLD 2083 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LIMITED, KARACHI vs Raja FAIZ MUHAMMAD-1987 PLC 89 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LIMITED vs MUSSARAT ALI KHAN1987 PLD Karachi 86 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of Rs. 10,86,601 across five distinct loan and overdraft facilities. The defendant, having been served via publication, failed to appear, resulting in an ex parte decree. The defendant subsequently moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was allowed, and the decree was set aside. The defendant then applied for leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3. The plaintiffs raised a preliminary objection that the application was time-barred, arguing that the limitation period under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908 runs from the date of service or knowledge. The High Court of Sindh held that the order setting aside the ex parte decree, having not been appealed, was final. It ruled that the 10-day limitation period under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908 runs from the date of service of summons, not from the date of knowledge of the decree. The Court further held that the defendant raised triable issues regarding limitation under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 and the charging of interest. Consequently, the Court granted unconditional leave to defend.
Questions settled- Does an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a summary suit under Order XXXVII?
- Does the limitation period of 10 days for filing an application for leave to defend under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908 run from the date of the defendant's knowledge of the decree or from the date of service of summons?
- Can an application filed under a wrong provision of law, such as Order IX Rule 13 instead of Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, be treated under the correct provision by the court?
- Whether the extension of limitation under Section 4 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 applies to loans outstanding on the commencing day of the Ordinance?
- HABIB BANK LIMITED vs Messrs SPEEDY GASES COMPANY and another1987 MLD 123 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-07Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LIMITED vs INAMUR RAHMAN and another1987 PLD Karachi 593 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LIMITED vs DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE OF PAKISTAN and 5 others1987 CLC 667 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LIMITED and others vs HOTEL METROPOLE LIMITED and others1987 MLD 2341 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-21Read full judgment →
- HABIB AHMED vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1185 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
- H.M. MOINUDDIN ANSARI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1987 SCMR 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition regarding entitlement to pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether the appellant, a retired Railway Guard who had proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement before the promulgation of the Revised Pension Rules, was legally required to be individually notified of the new rules, and whether mere publication in the official gazette constituted sufficient notice. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant was on leave preparatory to retirement and subsequently retired during the currency of the option period, and in light of provisions extending time for those on leave, the penal consequences of failing to opt within the time limit could not be applied without proper individual notice or communication. The ratio is that remedial rules conferring benefits on employees must be construed benevolently, and where an employee is on leave preparatory to retirement, mere gazette publication is insufficient notice, requiring the administration to properly inform and invite options.
Questions settled- Whether publication of the Revised Pension Rules in the official gazette constitutes sufficient notice to an employee who has already proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement?
- Can an employee who is on leave preparatory to retirement during the currency of the option period be penalized for failing to exercise the option under the Revised Pension Rules without being individually notified?
- Do the rules governing the exercise of option for pensionary benefits contemplate an extension of time or exception for government servants who are on leave on the relevant date?
- H A FEEZ U LL A H vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and another1987 CLC 244 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
- GULZAR vs Mst.PARO alias BILQIS and others1987 MLD 2983 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
- GULZAR MASIH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3126 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-29Read full judgment →
- GULZAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1305 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
- GULZAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 960 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
- GULZAR and 4 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1830 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-08Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 48 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD Alias GULZARI vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 2330 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-18Read full judgment →
- GULO vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
- GULAB vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1803 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
- GULAB KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1307 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
- GUL TAYYAZ KHAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2002(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-20Read full judgment →
- GUL QADAM JAN vs SHER AZAM and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 514 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
- GUL NAWAZ vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 71 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-28Read full judgment →
- GUL NAWAZ alias GULLOO vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1916(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-28Read full judgment →
- GUL Muhammadand 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 737 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order disposes of four criminal bail applications filed before the Sindh High Court by three accused persons facing trial under Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code, and the Arms Ordinance 1965, before a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal questions concerned the High Court's jurisdiction to grant bail in such cases, the applicability of delay as a ground for bail under Section 497(1), third proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the bar on successive bail applications, and whether the accused were "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals" under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court held that it possesses jurisdiction to entertain and grant bail in cases before Special Courts, that bail can be granted on the ground of delay, and that a second bail application on delay grounds is not barred before a higher court. It further ruled that mere lists of crime numbers without evidence of roles or convictions are insufficient to classify accused as hardened criminals. Consequently, the High Court granted bail to the applicants on the ground of over two years' delay in trial.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain bail applications for accused persons facing trial before a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Can bail be granted on the ground of delay under Section 497(1), third proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for scheduled offences triable by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Is a second bail application on the ground of delay, previously taken but not pressed before a lower court, barred before the High Court?
- What constitutes sufficient evidence to classify an accused as a "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal" under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, thereby disentitling them to bail on delay grounds?
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs Messrs AMEEJI VALEEJI & SONS, KARACHI1987 PLC 212 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-06Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs MAMAND and others1987 MLD 764 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD1987 CLC 1679 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal appeal by seven convicts against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed their appeals with modifications regarding their conviction and sentences for murder, rioting, and related offences. The appellants, former tenants who had re-occupied land and houses from which they were previously ejected, resisted a police party led by local officials attempting to encircle and evict them, resulting in a clash during which a police constable was killed by a firearm injury and several others sustained simple injuries. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had reliably established individual criminal liability and participation of the appellants in the capital charge under the prevailing circumstances of cross-firing, lack of the original FIR report on record, and aggressive police action involving encirclement and tear-gas. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences, holding that the prosecution evidence was fraught with contradictions regarding the primary aggressors and identification, making it unsafe to maintain convictions on capital charges arising from such an operation.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder and rioting can be sustained when the initial police report justifying the operation is not brought on record?
- Can members of an alleged unlawful assembly be safely convicted on capital charges in a situation of general stone-pelting and conflicting accounts of police encirclement?
- Whether individual criminal liability can be fastened on specific accused persons where the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions regarding the identity of assailants?
- GUL MUHAMMAD And Another vs IBRAHIM1987 PLD Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD alias GULLU vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 196 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
- GUL KHAN vs GHARIBULLAH KHAN1987 CLC 736 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
- GUL AFSAR vs Raja AZRAM, S.H.O.1987 MLD 2202 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
- GUHRAM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1617 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. vs DELITE HOUSE LTD. AND 4 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 51 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-29Read full judgment →
- GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. vs DELITE HOUSE LTD. AND 4 Other1987 PLD Lahore 51 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-29Read full judgment →
- GOVERNOR, N. W.F.P. And Another vs GUL NARAS KHAN1987 SCMR 1709 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of an appeal and two petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a Peshawar High Court judgment concerning the reversion and transfer of employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar. The core legal questions involved whether employees of the Board were 'persons in Corporation service' under Ordinance VIII of 1978, enabling the Governor to revert them, and whether the Governor was competent to transfer an employee to an outside department under section 13(6) of Ordinance XIX of 1961. The Supreme Court held that the Board is an institution controlled by and set up under a statutory direction of the Government, bringing its employees within the definition of Corporation service, and that the Governor validly exercised powers of reversion. Furthermore, the Court held that the non-obstante clause in section 13(6) of Ordinance XIX of 1961 clearly intended the provision to apply to existing employees, rendering the Governor competent to transfer the employee to the Directorate of Education. The petitions of the employees were dismissed, and the appeal of the Governor was accepted.
Questions settled- Whether employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education qualify as persons in Corporation service under Ordinance VIII of 1978?
- Does the Governor possess the authority to revert employees of the Board appointed or promoted between 1-1-1972 and 5-7-1977?
- Whether the Controlling Authority is competent to place the services of a Board employee at the disposal of the Government or an outside institution under section 13(6) of Ordinance XIX of 1961?
- Does the non-obstante clause in section 13(6) of Ordinance XIX of 1961 make the provision applicable to persons who were already in the service of the Board prior to its enactment?
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB vs Rao SHAMSHER ALI KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Six petitions for leave to appeal were filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan against a consolidated judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had allowed appeals regarding the re-fixation of seniority. The respondents had been granted out-of-turn accelerated promotions to Grade-18 in the Executive Branch of the Punjab Province for exceptional service, without considering the comparative merits of others similarly placed. A provisional seniority list later relegated them until their batch-mates became ripe for promotion. The Service Tribunal upheld the respondents' claim that their accelerated promotions entitled them to reckon seniority from the date of promotion. The core legal question is whether out-of-turn promotion granted to an individual in isolation, without comparing merit with others similarly placed, violates the Punjab Civil Servants Act and relevant rules. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the question of law raised is of public importance requiring an authoritative pronouncement, while declining the request to suspend the impugned order.
Questions settled- Whether an out-of-turn accelerated promotion granted to a civil servant in isolation violates the statutory provisions governing promotion?
- Can a civil servant claim seniority from the date of an out-of-turn promotion made without considering the comparative merit of others similarly placed?
- Does the Punjab Civil Servants Act permit making an individual a class by himself for the purpose of promotion?
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Education and another vs Haji WALI MUHAMMAD1987 CLC 909 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF SIND vs Syed ZAHIR HUSSAIN1987 MLD 2863 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-26Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Other vs Messrs HOECHST (PAKISTAN) Ltd. And Others1987 PLC 860 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE vs Dr. KHALID HUSSAIN GILL And Other1987 SCMR 1436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Punjab against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who were recruited to work in research institutions and laboratories under the Agricultural Department, qualified as "field officers" entitled to a Special Research Allowance under paragraph 20 of a Basic Pay Scales scheme sanctioned on 25-8-1983. The Service Tribunal had accepted the respondents' appeals, holding that visiting fields to collect data and conduct tests made them field officers. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised by the Government regarding the proper interpretation and intended scope of the expression "field officer" required examination. The Court granted leave and ordered that the interim order remain in force pending the hearing of the appeals.
Questions settled- Whether research workers employed in research institutions and laboratories can be classified as field officers for the purpose of receiving a Special Research Allowance?
- Does the expression 'field officer' under a government pay scheme encompass civil servants whose primary employment is in research laboratories even if they occasionally visit fields to collect data?
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Irrigation, Lahore and 3 other1987 MLD 197 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Others vs Sh. AKBAR HUSSAIN And. Other1987 SCMR 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions filed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed Intra-Court Appeals and set aside the dismissal of respondents' writ petitions. The Punjab Road Transport Board, established under the Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, was dissolved by a notification issued by the Governor of the Punjab, vesting its assets in the Government and placing employees in a surplus pool. The High Court declared the notification and consequential retirement and termination orders illegal. Upon petitions for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave to examine core legal questions regarding whether the power to establish a corporate body under section 70 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 includes the power to dissolve it, whether an executive fiat used to establish a corporation can be used to end it, and whether such a corporate institution ceases to exist when its members are gone. The Court ordered that the interim stay already granted shall continue.
Questions settled- Whether section 70 of Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, which enables the Government to establish a Road Transport (Corporate Body) confers similar power on the Government to dissolve or abolish the Board?
- Whether the High Court has correctly decided that once the Government establishes a corporate institution through its executive fiat under an enabling provision of the statute, it cannot bring the corporation to an end in the like manner through another executive fiat?
- Whether a Board of the type contemplated by section 70 would, like a corporate aggregate, come to an end when the members constituting the Board are no longer in existence?
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD and others1987 MLD 2902 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-17Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and 7751987 MLD 2709 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB (HEALTH DEPARTMENT) through Secretary Health, Lahore and another- vs NAILA BEGUM1987 PLD Lahore 336 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB (HEALTH DEPARTMENT) Through Secretary Health, Lahore And Another vs NAILA BEGUM1987 PLD Lahore 336 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs SIKANDAR KHAN AND OTHERS1987 PLD Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs SIKANDAR KHAN AND Other1987 PLD Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs SHAHI BOTTLERS LTD.1987 SCMR 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Pakistan against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside orders demanding additional excise duty and imposing a penalty on the respondent company, Shahi Bottlers Limited, a bottler of Coca Cola beverages. The core legal question was whether the authorities could invoke Rule 226(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, to assess and demand duty based on theoretical raw material consumption (concentrate) without establishing a violation of a specific rule requiring the maintenance of accounts for that particular raw material. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the existence of a rule prescribing the maintenance of accounts for the specific raw material and a factual violation thereof are sine qua non for invoking Rule 226(2). The key principle laid down is that discretionary assessment of excise duty based on raw material utilisation cannot be made under Rule 226(2) unless the law or rules explicitly mandate the maintenance of accounts for that specific raw material and such rule has been violated.
Questions settled- Whether the invocation of Rule 226(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, requires a pre-existing rule prescribing the maintenance of accounts for the specific raw material?
- Can excise duty be assessed on the basis of theoretical raw material consumption without proving a violation of the rule requiring account maintenance?
- Is a manufacturer's self-maintained register for a raw material not specified by the Central Board of Revenue sufficient to invoke Rule 226(2)?
- Government of Pakistan vs Shahi Bottlers Limited.PTCL 1987 CL. 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the assessment of excise duty on a beverage manufacturer. The core legal question was whether the excise authorities could invoke Rule 226(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, to demand additional duty based on theoretical yield calculations derived from raw material consumption, specifically Coca Cola concentrate, when no rule mandated the maintenance of accounts for that specific raw material. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petition. The Court held that the power to determine duty under Rule 226(2) is conditional upon the existence of a specific rule requiring the maintenance of accounts for the raw material in question and a finding that such a rule has been violated. Since it was conceded that only Crown Corks, and not the concentrate, were specified by the Central Board of Revenue as raw materials requiring account maintenance, the authorities lacked the legal basis to invoke the discretionary power under Rule 226(2) to demand additional duty based on the concentrate utilization.
Questions settled- Can excise authorities invoke Rule 226(2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 to demand duty based on raw material consumption if no rule mandates the maintenance of accounts for that specific raw material?
- What are the mandatory pre-conditions for an officer to exercise the power to determine duty under Rule 226(2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944?
- Is the discretionary power to demand duty under Rule 226(2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 applicable to raw materials for which no account-keeping rule exists?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND Another vs Sardar MUHAMMAD SAMI AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Peshawar 77 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi And Another vs Kh. IMTIAZ MUHAMMAD1987 SCMR 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the respondent’s compulsory retirement but declared his prior suspension order illegal due to the Auditor-General’s lack of authority at the time. The Government sought to challenge this by producing an office order before the Supreme Court, which allegedly proved the Auditor-General had the necessary approval. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should consider this new evidence, which was not presented to the Tribunal, to overturn its factual findings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal is the exclusive authority for determining questions of fact. The Court emphasized that departmental authorities must present all relevant material before the Tribunal initially. Because the administration failed to do so and conceded the lack of authority during the original proceedings, they could not introduce a new case on appeal. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision, establishing that the Supreme Court will not entertain evidence withheld from the lower forum to upset its findings.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court consider evidence not presented before the Service Tribunal to overturn its findings?
- Is the Service Tribunal the exclusive authority for determining questions of fact in service matters?
- Does the failure of departmental authorities to present relevant evidence before the Service Tribunal preclude them from raising it on appeal?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Another vs DADA AMIR HAIDER KHANPL D 1987 Supreme Court 504 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the government’s refusal to issue a passport to the respondent. The core legal question concerned whether the executive possesses absolute, unbridled discretion to deny a passport or whether such administrative power is subject to constitutional and procedural constraints. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the refusal was unlawful because the authorities failed to provide reasons or grant the respondent an opportunity to be heard. The Court affirmed that while the Passport Act 1974 regulates international travel, the exercise of public power remains subject to judicial review. The key principle laid down is that administrative discretion, even regarding privileges like passports, cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Public functionaries must act fairly, reasonably, and in good faith. Consequently, an affected citizen has a right to be informed of the reasons for an adverse decision and to be heard, unless the state explicitly establishes that disclosure would imperil national security or public interest, in which case that specific sensitivity must be communicated.
Questions settled- Does the government have absolute and arbitrary discretion to refuse the issuance of a passport to a citizen?
- Is an administrative authority required to provide reasons when refusing to issue a passport?
- Does a citizen have a right to be heard before an application for a passport is rejected?
- Can the government refuse to disclose reasons for denying a passport on the grounds of public interest?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Another FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs Junejo1987 PLD Supreme Court 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These five appeals by special leave challenged the orders of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had held that civil servants reinstated in service under Martial Law Order No. 23 were entitled to seniority in the next higher grade over officers who were junior to them at the time of retirement and were promoted while the reinstated officers were out of service. The core legal question was whether a reinstated civil servant is entitled to take seniority in the next higher grade from the date officers junior to him were promoted during his absence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that under section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, seniority is not a vested right and takes effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade, and that a legal fiction cannot override statutory principles and specific policy instructions. The key principle laid down is that reinstated civil servants under Martial Law Order No. 23 are governed by special Establishment Division instructions where promotion seniority runs strictly from the date of regular appointment, without automatic application of the 'next below rule' or back-dated seniority over juniors promoted during the period of absence.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant reinstated in service under Martial Law Order No. 23 is entitled to seniority in the next higher grade over officers who were junior to him at the time of his retirement and were promoted while he was out of service?
- Does section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 confer a vested right to a particular seniority in a service, cadre, or grade?
- Whether seniority in a grade to which a civil servant is promoted takes effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade?
- Are special instructions issued by the Government regarding the seniority of reinstated civil servants applicable over general principles of seniority?
- GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN vs SHABIR AHMAD1987 SCMR 1754(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the interpretation of proviso (b) (ii) of Section 4 of the Baluchistan Service Tribunals Act 1974, specifically in the context of conflicting decisions rendered by the same Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the proper construction and application of the said statutory proviso regarding the jurisdiction or maintainability of appeals before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the correctness of the interpretation, directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents, refused to stay the proceedings before the Tribunal, and vacated the prior interim order that had suspended the operation of the impugned High Court judgment. The Court established that leave is warranted to resolve conflicting interpretations of service tribunal provisions by the tribunal itself, ensuring consistent application of procedural and jurisdictional bars under the service tribunal law.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to resolve conflicting decisions of the Service Tribunal regarding the interpretation of Section 4 of the Baluchistan Service Tribunals Act 1974?
- Can proceedings before the Service Tribunal be stayed while an appeal regarding its jurisdictional interpretation is pending before the Supreme Court?
- Under what circumstances should an interim order suspending the operation of a High Court judgment be vacated by the Supreme Court?
- GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN vs AMIR JAN And Other1987 SCMR 1827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the entitlement of the respondents to be absorbed into the Secretariat Ministerial Service with effect from July 1, 1970. The core legal question presented for consideration is whether the respondents were legally entitled to such absorption, specifically in light of the fact that they were not absorbed into the Secretariat at the time of the formation of the Province of Baluchistan. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, thereby allowing the petitions. The Court directed that the appeals be heard together on the same record, while granting the parties liberty to file additional documents if necessary. The judgment establishes the procedural path for determining the merits of the respondents' claims regarding their service status and absorption rights following the administrative reorganization of the province.
Questions settled- Are respondents entitled to absorption in the Secretariat Ministerial Service with effect from July 1, 1970, if they were not absorbed at the time of the formation of the Province of Baluchistan?
- GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, QUETTA AND 2 OTHERS vs Haji KHUDAI NAZAR1987 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, QUETTA AND 2 Other vs Haji KHUDAI NAZAR1987 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
- GOVEREMFNT OF PUNJAB (HEALTH DEPARTMENT) THROUGH SECRETARY, HEALTH, LAHORE AND Another vs MUSSARAT UZMA USMANI AND OtherPLD 1987 Lahore 166(1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- GOVEREMFNT OF PUNJAB (HEALTH DEPARTMENT) THROU1_4. H SECRETARY, HEALTH, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs MUSSARAT UZMA USMANI AND OTHERSPLD 1987 Lahore 166(1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- H UMAYUN vs The STATE1987 SCMR 914 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerns whether a conviction can be sustained based on motive and medical evidence when the primary ocular testimony has been rejected as unreliable and interested. The trial court and the High Court had disbelieved the prosecution's ocular account regarding the appellant's co-accused, leading to their acquittal, yet maintained the appellant's conviction by relying on the appellant's head injury and alleged motive as corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be maintained. The Court established the principle that motive and medical evidence are merely supporting evidence and cannot serve as corroboration for ocular testimony that has already been deemed entirely unreliable. Furthermore, the Court found the medical evidence regarding the appellant's injury contradictory and the motive evidence insufficient to establish guilt. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that where ocular testimony is rejected as untrustworthy, supporting evidence lacks the necessary corroborative value to sustain a conviction on a serious charge.
Questions settled- Can motive and medical evidence serve as corroboration when the primary ocular testimony has been rejected as unreliable?
- Does the presence of a prior injury on an accused person necessarily corroborate their participation in a subsequent criminal occurrence?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular evidence is found to be untrustworthy and the remaining evidence is insufficient?
- H AJI MU H A MMA D vs ALI BAKHSH SHAH and others1987 CLC 841 · Election Tribunal · 1986-04-10Read full judgment →
- GOERGE MASIH And 5 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2505 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
- GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1987 PLC 447 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
- GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAK) LTD, EMPLOYEES' UNION vs GLAXO LABORATORIES1987 PLC 323 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
- GLADWIN GILL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- GILLAT SHAH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 222 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
- GHULLAM MOHIUDDIN vs SIIAMSUNNISA1987 MLD 233 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAMALI KADERBHOY and 13 others vs Sheikh NASIRUDDIN and 6 others1987 MLD 902 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM YASIN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 5 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM YASIN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 5 Other1987 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM YASIN And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 837 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABIR SHAH and 4 others vs ALLAH DINO SHAH and 11 others1987 CLC 549 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1999 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs FATEH SHAH1987 SCMR 1485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlord against the respondent-tenant under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking eviction from a demised shop on the ground of personal bona fide requirement for establishing a chemist's shop. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that the requirement was not proved in good faith, noting the lack of evidence regarding a licence or business expertise, and the failure to raise personal requirement in prior ejectment proceedings. The Sind High Court dismissed the subsequent appeal in limine. Upon leave being granted by the Supreme Court, the core legal question examined whether the appellant's bona fide requirement was duly proved, particularly considering his retirement from government service. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence and applied the relevant provisions of the 1959 Ordinance, and that omitting the ground of personal requirement in earlier litigation was a valid consideration for assessing bona fides. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to urge personal requirement in previous ejectment applications is a relevant consideration in determining the bona fides of a landlord's current ejectment application?
- Whether retirement from government service alone establishes a bona fide personal requirement for a commercial premises under rent restriction laws?
- GHULAM SHABBIR FAREEDI and 2 others vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND CENTRAL SETTLEMENT CELL, KARACHI and 4 others1987 MLD 2968 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Other1987 SCMR 1440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute concerning an ex parte decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The petitioner initially failed to contest the suit, leading to an ex parte decree. Subsequently, the petitioner unsuccessfully sought to set aside this decree under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging lack of service and fraud. After these proceedings failed, the petitioner filed a fresh application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, reiterating claims of fraud and lack of service, while also denying the execution of the sale agreement. The trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court dismissed these applications. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, holding that the petitioner's claim regarding non-service had already been adjudicated against him in the earlier proceedings. The Court clarified that Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not intended to duplicate proceedings under Order IX, Rule 13, and that the petitioner could not raise issues he failed to contest in the original suit.
Questions settled- Can proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be used to duplicate proceedings under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a party entitled to challenge an ex parte decree on grounds that were already adjudicated in previous proceedings?
- Can a defendant challenge the validity of an agreement to sell in an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after failing to contest the original suit?
- GHULAM SARWAR And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 PCr.LJ 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SADIQ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 607 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SABIR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SABIR vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD And Another1987 PLC (C S.) 446 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SABBIR USMANI And Another vs Messrs SHAHEEN AIRPORT SERVICES1987 PLC 243 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3158 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL vs Mst. FATIMA1987 CLC 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court. They appealed this dismissal to the Additional District Judge, who rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Order XLIII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are mandatory and whether non-compliance necessitates the dismissal of an appeal. The Court held that the provisions of Order XLIII, Rule 3 are indeed mandatory, as indicated by the use of the word 'shall' and the legislative intent to prevent unnecessary litigation and delays. The Court affirmed that an appeal filed without such compliance is not competent or entertainable. Consequently, the High Court upheld the appellate court's decision to dismiss the appeal for failure to serve the required notice on the contesting respondents.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, mandatory?
- Does the failure to comply with the notice requirement under Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, render an appeal incompetent?
- What is the legislative purpose behind the enactment of Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- GHULAM RASUL SHAH vs WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Another1987 SCMR 1951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 29-5-1984, which dismissed the appellant's appeal against his removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question involved the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to interfere with orders passed by WAPDA in respect of its employees in view of the ouster of jurisdiction under Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, a matter previously resolved by this Court in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18). The Supreme Court held that the removal of the appellant from service was justified on merits, given that his service record was fraught with allegations and he had been charge-sheeted and punished on multiple occasions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where an employee's service record justifies disciplinary action and removal under the applicable statutory provisions, and jurisdictional bars are established, the Service Tribunal's intervention is not warranted.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with orders of WAPDA in respect of persons employed under it in view of section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
- Is the removal of an employee under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 justified when the employee's service record is full of allegations and previous punishments?
- GHULAM RASUL and others vs HIDAYAT ULLAH1987 MLD 35 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs Mst. NOOK BIBI and 9 others1987 CLC 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE And Other1987 SCMR 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a Lahore High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition against revenue authorities' decisions in consolidation proceedings. The petitioner challenged an order by the Collector, but the appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner was time-barred by approximately two years. The petitioner sought condonation of delay citing illness, which the Additional Commissioner rejected as unsatisfactory. Consequently, both the appeal and a subsequent revision petition before the Board of Revenue were dismissed. The High Court declined to interfere with these concurrent findings, prompting the current petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with the revenue authorities' discretionary decision regarding the condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Commissioner acted within his competence in rejecting the explanation for the delay, and the Board of Revenue correctly upheld this decision. The Court affirmed that where revenue authorities exercise their discretion reasonably within their competence, the High Court is justified in declining to interfere, thereby upholding the finality of the limitation period.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a discretionary order of revenue authorities regarding the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Is a decision by revenue authorities to reject an explanation for a two-year delay in filing an appeal within their legal competence?
- Does the dismissal of a time-barred appeal by revenue authorities warrant interference under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- GHULAM RASOOL BURDY vs CHIEF MINISTER, GOVERNMENT PROVINCE OF SIND1987 PLC (C.S.) 647 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-03-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL And Others vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two criminal petitions for special leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the High Court concerning a triple murder trial. The core legal questions involved the propriety of the convictions, sentences, and acquittals of the accused persons under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court considered whether to reappraise the evidence or interfere with the High Court's judgment which had acquitted one co-accused, reduced the death sentences of two convicts to imprisonment for life, and confirmed the death sentence of the third. The Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners merely amounted to a request for a reappraisal of evidence on questions of fact and that the High Court was justified in its findings regarding the acquittals and sentence reductions. Consequently, both petitions for special leave to appeal were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily reappraise evidence on questions of fact to reach a different conclusion where the lower courts have properly evaluated the case, and will not interfere with reasoned acquittals or sentence modifications by the High Court without compelling grounds.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence on questions of fact to interfere with concurrent findings of guilt?
- Is the High Court justified in reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life based on the facts and circumstances of a case?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the acquittal of a co-accused?
- GHULAM RASOOL And Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB And Other1987 SCMR 1530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition where the learned counsel submitted that the provisions of the Law Reforms Ordinance concerning the abatement of cases are procedural in nature and possess retrospective effect, thereby avoiding the abatement of the writ petition in the present case. It was noted that leave to appeal had previously been granted by the Supreme Court on this identical legal point in several earlier matters. The core legal question addressed is whether the provisions relating to abatement under the Law Reforms Ordinance apply retrospectively as procedural law. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal is granted to examine this question, directing the matter to be heard along with a connected pending case upon furnishing security. The key principle recognized is that procedural amendments concerning abatement may have retrospective application, warranting a formal authoritative determination by the appellate court when raised.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of the Law Reforms Ordinance dealing with the abatement of cases of a procedural nature having retrospective effect?
- Does a writ petition abate under the Law Reforms Ordinance when procedural amendments apply retrospectively?
- GHULAM RASOOL And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 82 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL alias SOOLA vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1702 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL Alias RASOOLA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 455 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1999 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR KHAN vs NAQIBULLAH KHAN1987 MLD 2386 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →