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.
- URDU TEXT vs URDU TEXT1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 5 · Federal Shariat Court · -Read full judgment →
- UNIVERSITY OF' THE PUNJAB vs SHAHID NAZI R1986 SCMR 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that directed the University of the Punjab to admit the respondent to an engineering program based on reserved seats. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with the University's admission criteria for reserved seats and mandate admission, particularly when the affected candidates who would lose their seats were not impleaded as parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction was improper because the candidates who would be displaced by the respondent's admission were necessary parties who had not been impleaded in the original writ petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, refusing to remand the case or allow the impleading of new parties at the appellate stage, as doing so would cause further confusion regarding academic sessions that had already passed. The Court declined to rule on the validity of the University's admission criteria, as those regulations had since been changed.
Questions settled- Can a court direct the admission of a candidate to an educational institution without impleading the candidates who would be adversely affected by such an order?
- Is a candidate who would lose their seat due to a court order a necessary party in a writ petition challenging admission criteria?
- Should a case be remanded to the High Court to implead necessary parties when the academic session in question has already concluded?
- UNIVERSITY OF BALUCHISTAN Through Registrar vs SAEED MUHAMMAD KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether an employee of the University of Baluchistan qualifies as a civil servant entitled to maintain a service appeal before the Baluchistan Service Tribunal. The respondent, formerly in provincial service, had taken a fresh appointment with the University, subsequently raising a seniority dispute and filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under the Baluchistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The Tribunal had held that since the University is a statutory body corporate connected with the affairs of the Province, its employees are civil servants. The Supreme Court held that working in a statutory body connected with provincial affairs does not automatically make an employee a holder of a civil post or a civil servant under the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Court ruled that the respondent was appointed by the University's Vice-Chancellor, did not hold office during the pleasure of the Government, and was governed by University rules rather than civil servant laws. Consequently, the respondent was not a civil servant, and the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The appeal was accepted and the Tribunal's judgment set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an employee of the University of Baluchistan is a civil servant for the purposes of the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Does employment in a statutory body connected with the affairs of the province automatically confer the status of holding a civil post?
- Does the Baluchistan Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain service appeals filed by university employees?
- Are the terms and conditions of service of a University of Baluchistan employee regulated by the provincial government or university rules?
- UNITED SUGAR MILLS vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL1986 PLC 684 (1) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- UNITED DISTRIBUTORS LTD.s vs MONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY AND 21986 PLD Karachi 452 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- United Bark Ltd. vs Jaffar Flour & Oil Mills Ltd., And 2 OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 56 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK Ltd. vs WAZIR ALI KHAN1986 PLC 1137 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-21Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK Ltd. vs FAIRFAX TEXTILE Ltd. and others1986 MLD 1965 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
- UNION BANK OF THE MIDDLE EAST Ltd. vs SA'AD CARPETS Ltd.1986 MLD 482 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil matter arises from an application filed under Order XXI, Rules 58 and 61 and Order IX, Rule 13 read with section 151, C.P.C. to set aside an ex parte decree and the subsequent attachment of property. The core legal questions involve whether a third party who enters into an agreement to sell after the institution of a suit and passing of a decree has the locus standi to object to the attachment of property and challenge the validity of the decree. The Lahore High Court held that an agreement to sell executed after the institution of the suit and passing of the decree does not pass any valid title to the objector, and such a claim is barred by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as well as by Order XXI, Rule 102, C.P.C. Furthermore, a stranger or third party objector cannot challenge the validity of a decree under Section 47, C.P.C. The key principles laid down are that an agreement to sell creates no title or equitable interest capable of defeating execution proceedings initiated against the judgment-debtor, and strangers cannot question the validity of a decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell executed after the institution of a suit and passing of a decree confer valid title upon an objector to challenge execution proceedings?
- Can a third-party objector question the validity of a decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does Order XXI, Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar objections to attachment where an interest is claimed through a transaction post-dating the suit?
- Whether the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 applies to defeat rights claimed under an agreement to sell executed after a decree?
- UNION BANK OF THE MIDDLE EAST Ltd. vs ADAMJEE INDUSTRIES LIMITED and 141986 MLD 1317 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
- UMRA vs ALLAH YAR And 51 Other1986 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a consolidation scheme dispute in District Jhang. The core legal question was whether the Member, Board of Revenue could lawfully affect a party's property rights in an ex parte remand order without affording them an opportunity of hearing, particularly after having previously deleted their name from the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice by adversely affecting the petitioner's property rights without a hearing. The Court laid down the principle that no party's rights in property can be legally affected without granting them a fair chance of being heard, setting aside both the High Court's judgment and the Board of Revenue's order, and remanding the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue affecting property rights without granting a hearing violates the principles of natural justice?
- Can a party's rights in a consolidation scheme be altered on remand without notice to them?
- UMRA KHAN vs SHIRIN BUHAR And Other1986 SCMR 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to adjudicate disputes within the tribal areas of Swat. The core legal question presented is whether the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, remained applicable and enforceable in the tribal areas following the promulgation of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) Regulation, 1975. The petitioner contends that the 1959 Ordinance ceased to have legal effect upon the enactment of the 1975 Regulation, rendering subsequent notifications regarding the appointment of Rent Controllers and the application of the Ordinance to the area ineffective. The Supreme Court, noting that similar legal points were raised in other pending matters, granted leave to appeal to examine the interplay between the 1959 Ordinance and the 1975 Regulation. The Court directed that the case be heard alongside related petitions and appeals, while simultaneously granting a stay order consistent with the precedent established in the case of Rehmani Gul.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, retain jurisdiction in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas after the promulgation of the PATA Regulation, 1975?
- Can a notification extending the application of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to tribal areas be valid if issued after the 1975 Regulation?
- UMER FAROOQ And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1589 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- UMAR HAYAT vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2374 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-21Read full judgment →
- UMAR HAYAT vs ABDUL AZIZ and others1986 MLD 751 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- UMAR DIN vs CHHAJJU And Other1986 SCMR 1147(2) · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the cancellation of land allotment to a displaced person whose verified claim was reduced following re-verification by the Central Record Office. The appellant challenged the cancellation, arguing he was denied the right to exercise a choice in surrendering excess land under Paragraph 23 of the Supplementary Rural Scheme No. 1, and that the cancellation occurred without notice. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant was entitled to exercise such a choice and whether the relevant scheme applied to his case. The Court held that the appellant had, in fact, already been granted and exercised the choice regarding his allotment. Furthermore, the Court determined that Paragraph 23 of the Supplementary Rural Scheme No. 1 was inapplicable as it pertained to land abandoned in non-agreed areas, whereas the appellant's case was governed by the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Court affirmed that in the absence of specific statutory provisions, an allottee cannot claim a right of choice to retain specific land, as doing so would allow beneficiaries of erroneous allotments to profit from their own irregularities.
Questions settled- Does Paragraph 23 of the Supplementary Rural Scheme No. 1 grant an allottee the right to choose which excess land to surrender in all cases?
- Is the right to purchase excess land on payment of price available to allottees in the Punjab province?
- Under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, does an allottee have a legal right to choose which portion of land to surrender when an excess allotment is cancelled?
- UMAR DIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH And Other1986 SCMR 1580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging an ejectment order concerning a commercial shop. The core legal questions involve the determination of title in rent proceedings, the shifting of the onus of proof regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, and whether the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the appellate court and the High Court that the respondents established their title and landlord-tenant relationship based on documentary evidence including a Permanent Transfer Deed and mutation. The Court affirmed the principle that a Rent Controller may examine questions of title incidentally, while leaving ultimate establishment of disputed title to a civil court after surrendering possession.
Questions settled- Whether the matter of determination of title in an ejectment petition falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Courts?
- Whether a Rent Controller has the authority to decide a question of title incidentally in rent proceedings?
- Whether documentary evidence such as a Permanent Transfer Deed and mutation is sufficient to establish title and the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- UMAR DIN and others vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE and others1986 MLD 2386 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-03Read full judgment →
- UMAR DIN And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1519 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
- UMAR DIN AND 2 OTHERS vs GHULAM KADIR1986 PLD Rev. 96 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-03-24Read full judgment →
- UMAID KHAN and others vs MURAD and others1986 MLD 760 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-24Read full judgment →
- U. NAIMAT MOULVI ADVOCATE vs KHALID M. ISHAQ, ADVOCATE And 6 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1033 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-07Read full judgment →
- TUFAIL MUHAMMAD and others vs SHER MUHAMMAD and others1986 MLD 555 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
- TUFAIL And Another vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 1504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed against the concurrent conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, which were upheld by the High Court. During the pendency of the main petition, the petitioners filed an application seeking the grant of bail. The core legal question addressed is whether bail should be granted to convicts whose appeal against a murder conviction is pending before the Supreme Court after concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts. The Supreme Court dismissed the bail application, holding that no case is made out for the grant of bail when the petitioners stand convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 with their conviction upheld by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that evidence will not be reappraised at the interim bail stage following concurrent findings of guilt, and bail is ordinarily declined in murder cases after conviction by two courts.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted during the pendency of a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence at the interim bail stage after concurrent findings of guilt by the courts below?
- TUFAIL AHMED vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and others1986 MLD 2205 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
- TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI And Others vs Messrs ZAMIR LIMITED And Other1986 SCMR 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two cross-petitions for leave to appeal arising from a common judgment of the Sind High Court concerning the transit trade of goods through Pakistan to Afghanistan under the Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Agreement of 1965. An Afghan importer imported a consignment of polyester textured yarn and filed a Bill of Entry, but the Customs Authorities refused to allow transit without the production of a Letter of Credit pursuant to executive instructions and circulars. The importer challenged this requirement through a constitutional petition, contending that the administrative instructions lacked statutory force under the Customs Act, 1969. The High Court held that the authorities were empowered to examine Letters of Credit, but nevertheless directed the issuance of a delay certificate to exempt the importer from demurrage charges. The Trustees of the Port of Karachi and the importer both filed petitions for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave in both matters, holding that the complex legal questions regarding statutory authority, bilateral transit agreements, and the legality of administrative instructions required detailed examination.
Questions settled- Whether the Customs Authorities have the lawful authority under the Customs Act, 1969 to require the production of a Letter of Credit for goods in transit to Afghanistan?
- Do administrative instructions and circulars issued by customs authorities possess statutory force to regulate transit trade without rules framed under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Can a High Court direct the issuance of a delay certificate to waive demurrage charges when an importer fails to produce required import documentation?
- Whether the requirement to produce a Letter of Credit and Jawaznama violates the terms of the bilateral transit trade agreement between Pakistan and Afghanistan?
- TRADE CONTACT LIMITED, LAHORE And Others vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 1960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's Regular Second Appeal in a bank loan recovery case. The respondent Bank had instituted a recovery suit before the Special Court Banking, Lahore, which was decreed after the defendant's counsel made a statement withdrawing the contest and agreeing that the bank's claim be satisfied through the sale of pledged stocks. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the statement made by the defendant's counsel before the trial court amounted to an admission of the bank's claim and the withdrawal of the defense. The Supreme Court held that the language of the statement clearly conveyed the intention that the bank's claim be satisfied from the sale proceeds of the pledged goods, thereby precluding any further contest. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the interpretation of the courts below regarding counsel's binding statement.
Questions settled- Does a statement by a defendant's counsel agreeing to the satisfaction of a bank's claim through the sale of pledged goods amount to an admission of the claim and withdrawal of the defense?
- Can an appellate court interfere with the concurrent interpretation of a counsel's statement made before the trial court?
- TIRATHDAS vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 2 others1986 MLD 1455 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
- TILLA MUHAMMAD And ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF NORTH WEST FRONTIER1986 CLC 1429 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
- THEPROJECT MANAGER, PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND GOLA KHEL COLLIERIES, DISTRICT MIANWALI vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE And 2 Others1986 PLC 521 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition concerns the applicability of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to an employee of a hospital maintained by the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation. The respondent, a dispenser, challenged his termination before the Labour Court, which initially held that the Ordinance did not apply due to the exclusionary provisions of Section 1(3)(f). The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal subsequently reversed this decision, ruling that the hospital was merely an adjunct to the collieries and not a separate entity. The core legal question was whether a hospital maintained by an industrial establishment falls under the exclusion provided by Section 1(3)(f) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the exclusionary clause, introduced by the 1979 amendment, was intended to protect establishments maintained for the treatment and care of the sick and infirm from industrial action. Consequently, the hospital constitutes an establishment to which the Ordinance does not apply, regardless of its connection to the collieries.
Questions settled- Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 apply to employees working in a hospital maintained by an industrial corporation?
- Is a hospital attached to an industrial establishment considered a separate entity for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- What is the scope of the exclusion provided under Section 1(3)(f) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 regarding hospitals?
- THE WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Its Chairman vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1986 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) challenging an order related to the removal of an employee. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an appeal is competent against orders for the removal of employees passed by the petitioner Authority under the provisions of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The Supreme Court, relying on its own recent authoritative precedent established in a series of similar petitions, including WAPDA v. Aftab Ahmad Warsi (1986 SCMR 18), held that the matter was already settled. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the legal position regarding the competency of appeals against such removal orders had been definitively resolved in previous rulings. The judgment underscores the principle of stare decisis, confirming that where a specific legal question regarding the statutory powers of the Authority has been authoritatively decided by the Court, subsequent petitions raising identical issues must be dismissed in accordance with that established precedent.
Questions settled- Is an appeal competent against orders for the removal of employees passed by the Water and Power Development Authority under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
- THE WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Another vs MUHAMMAD YASIN And 2 Others1986 PLC 771 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
- THE TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI vs MARATHON SHIPPING AND TRADING CO. Ltd1986 MLD 1454 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-23Read full judgment →
- THE TREASURER OF CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS FOR PAKISTAN vs CENTRAL1986 MLD 1731 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-29Read full judgment →
- THE TEXTILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN HYDERABAD vs PAKISTAN TEXTILE1986 SCMR 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan following the issuance of a show-cause notice to the appellant for failing to deposit the required security for costs. The core legal question was whether an appeal should be dismissed when the appellant fails to appear in response to a show-cause notice or deposit the necessary security. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's failure to appear or respond to the show-cause notice indicated an intention not to prosecute the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, making no order as to costs. The key principle laid down is that an appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant fails to comply with procedural requirements, such as depositing security for costs, and subsequently fails to appear in response to a show-cause notice.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant fails to deposit the security for costs and fails to appear in response to a show-cause notice?
- What is the consequence of an appellant's failure to respond to a show-cause notice regarding procedural non-compliance?
- The State. vs M. Ashraf.PTCL 1986 CL. 209 · Lahore High Court · 1985-08-02Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ZULFIQAR AHMAD-1986 P Cr. L J 1612 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-28Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ZAMIN HUSSAIN1986 MLD 2150 · Custodian Evacuee Property · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ZAHID HUSSAIN1986 MLD 2688 · Special Court · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs YARA and 3 others1986 P Cr. L J 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs WILAYAT HUSSAIN and others1986 P Cr. L J 2977 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs TAHIR MAHMOODSTATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, SIALKOT1986 P Cr. L J 1375 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs Syed MUSTAFA ABBAS and 5 others1986 P Cr. L J 1283 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs Syed AFAQ ALI AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of prosecution sanctions required for public servants under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the 'appropriate Department' or the 'appropriate Government' (specifically the Interior Division) is the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution, and how the Rules of Business, 1973, apply in the absence of specific rules framed under Section 12(2)(a) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the Interior Division of the Federal Government is the sole competent authority to grant such sanction. The Court rejected the contention that the concerned administrative department (e.g., the Ministry of Finance) was the competent authority. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of specific rules delegated under Section 12(2)(a) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, the Rules of Business, 1973, govern the allocation of functions, and the Interior Division is the designated authority for Anti-Corruption laws, as the 'appropriate Government' is the entity responsible for sanctioning prosecution.
Questions settled- Which authority is competent to grant sanction for the prosecution of a public servant under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
- Does the 'appropriate Department' or the 'appropriate Government' have the authority to grant sanction for prosecution under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
- In the absence of specific rules framed under Section 12(2)(a) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, which authority is responsible for granting prosecution sanction?
- Do the Rules of Business, 1973, determine the competent authority for granting prosecution sanction in the absence of rules under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
- THE STATE vs Sh. ABDUL AZIZ1986 MLD 2192 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs Sardar MUHAMMAD ZAMAN SALEEM KHAN DURRANI-1986 P Cr. L J 1488 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs NAZIR AHMAD QURESHI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS1986 MLD 2493 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs NASIR AHMAD And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1986 P Cr. L J 743 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD SULLEMAN And Another1986 P Cr. L J 131 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD NAEEM QURESHI1986 MLD 2792 · Special Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD MAZHAR and 4 others1986 MLD 2463 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1986 P Cr. L J 2730 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 282 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And Others1986 P Cr. L J 712 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR BHATTI1986 MLD 2172 · Special Court · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM1986 P Cr. L J 913 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs Mst. NASIM AKHTAR1986 MLD 2465 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MIAN KHAN And 3 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1989 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-28Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MASROOR AHMAD QURESHI And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2320 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs M. ASHRAF1986 P Cr. L J 136 · Lahore High Court · 1985-08-03Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs IRSHAD AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs IQBAL And 3 Others1986 P Cr. L J 215 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs HAJJAN And Another1986 P Cr. L J 93 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs GHULAM QADIR1986 P Cr. L J 90 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs BAKHTA And 6 Others1986 P Cr. L J 246 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs AMIR MUHAMMAD And 3 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2608 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ALLAH YAR1986 P Cr. L J 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs AIZAS AHMAD and another1986 P Cr. L J 561 · Special Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ABDUS SATTAR1986 MLD 2200 · Special Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ABDUL WAHID1986 PLD Karachi 347 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
- THE STATE Through Collector, Central Excise And Land Customs Lahore vs ZULFIQAR ALI and others1986 P Cr. L J 1374 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
- THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATEGENERAL, N.W. F. P. Petitioner vs ZUBAIR AND 4 OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition by the State sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment granting bail to respondents accused of murder and assault. The core legal question concerned the propriety of a second bail application being heard by a different High Court Judge than the one who dismissed the initial application. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the petition due to the importance of this question. The Court held that a salutary and well-established principle dictates that all subsequent bail applications in the same case, by the same or co-accused, should be heard by the same Single Judge who heard the previous application. Exceptions exist only if the original judge is absolutely unavailable, in which case the Chief Justice may assign it. Counsel have a duty to disclose previous bail applications and their results, with concealment amounting to professional misconduct. A subsequent bail application must be based on fresh grounds not available or pressed previously. The Court found the High Court's departure from this rule to be improper, converted the petition into an appeal, and cancelled the bail granted to the respondents.
Questions settled- Can a subsequent bail application be heard by a different judge of the same High Court?
- What is the duty of counsel when filing a subsequent bail application after a previous one was dismissed?
- Under what circumstances can a second or subsequent bail application be filed in the same court?
- Does a judge's observation that 'no case has been made out for their release on bail' mean the application was not disposed of on merits?
- Who decides which judge hears a subsequent bail application if the original judge is absolutely unavailable?
- THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB EXCISE AND TAXATION1986 SCMR 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent after his appointment as an Excise and Taxation Officer was revoked. The core legal question was whether an appointment made by the Governor in relaxation of recruitment rules constituted an ad hoc appointment under Article 3 of Martial Law Instruction No. 21, thereby subjecting it to review and revocation. The Supreme Court held that the appointment, having been made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment, fell squarely within the deeming clause of Article 3 of Martial Law Instruction No. 21. Consequently, the appointment was legally classified as ad hoc, and the subsequent revocation by the competent authority was valid. The Court further ruled that administrative minutes could not override the clear language of a legal instrument and that actions taken under Martial Law Instruction No. 21 were not subject to challenges regarding locus poenitentiae or the right to a hearing. The appeal was allowed, and the Service Tribunal's judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Does an appointment made by the Governor in relaxation of recruitment rules fall under the definition of an ad hoc appointment pursuant to Article 3 of Martial Law Instruction No. 21?
- Can administrative minutes be used to interpret or enlarge the scope of a legal instrument?
- Is an action taken under Martial Law Instruction No. 21 immune from challenge on the grounds of lack of hearing or locus poenitentiae?
- The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE vs EHSANUL HAQ SETHI And Other1986 SCMR 1454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the respondent for the period between January 1, 1981, and June 9, 1981. During the pendency of the service appeal before the Tribunal, the impugned adverse remarks were expunged by the competent authority, rendering the main grievance infructuous. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal as infructuous while briefly discussing the competency of the appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, and repelling the contention that Article 203 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan barred such an appeal. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the underlying issue was no longer alive and the appeal had rightly been disposed of as infructuous by the Tribunal, any further consideration of the constitutional and legal questions would amount to a purely academic exercise. The Supreme Court accordingly declined to examine the merits of the legal questions and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal becomes infructuous when the impugned adverse remarks are expunged during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Should the Supreme Court adjudicate upon academic legal questions when the primary issue in the case is no longer alive?
- THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Punjab, Lahore And Others vs Messrs AGRO MARKETING CORPORATION Ltd. And Other1986 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN And Others vs Brig. (Rtd.) ABDUL RASHID1986 SCMR 708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the President of Pakistan and others against Brig. (Rtd.) Abdul Rashid. The core legal questions involve determining whether a civil servant proceeding on leave with pay is entitled to full pay during leave based on increments and revisions of pay scales arising from enforcement of new schemes, whether the Service Tribunal was competent to hold that Fundamental Rule 17 and the Revised Leave Rules 1980 were overridden by para 27 of the Basic Pay Scales and Fringe Benefits scheme of 1983, whether Section 17 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 governs leave pay determinations, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in its construction of rule 32 of the Revised Leave Rules 1980. The Supreme Court held that the points raised are of considerable legal importance and granted leave to consider them, while directing that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents. The key principle laid down relates to the interpretation of statutory leave rules, pay scale revisions, and the jurisdictional limits of the Service Tribunal regarding rule interpretation.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant proceeding on leave with pay is entitled to full pay during leave sanctioned for the post as raised by increments and revision of pay scales?
- Is the Service Tribunal competent to hold that Fundamental Rule 17 and Revised Leave Rules 1980 have been overridden by subsequent pay scale schemes?
- Does section 17 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 cover the determination of leave pay for a civil servant?
- Whether the literal construction of rule 32 of the Revised Leave Rules 1980 can be extended by the Service Tribunal to give the benefit of pay enhancement to a civil servant on leave?
- THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., Hyderabad vs Agha SHAHABUDDIN and 7 others1986 MLD 952 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-06Read full judgment →
- THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. vs JUNEJO ZIAUDDIN AHMAD and another1986 MLD 176 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-17Read full judgment →
- THE MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT NO. 6, HYDERABAD And 25 Others1986 PLC 893 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-30Read full judgment →
- THE MANAGER,DEAN's HOTEL vs CHAIRMAN, LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL And 2 Others1986 PLC 537 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
- THE KATHIAWAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY Ltd. vs ASSISTANT1986 MLD 1322 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-24Read full judgment →
- THE KARACHI STEVEDORS CONFERENCE Ltd. And 20 Other vs KARACHI1986 PLC 894 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
- THE KARACHI STEVEDORES CONFERENCE Ltd. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE1986 PLC 113 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
- THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION vs NASEER AHMAD1986 P Cr. L J 1684 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application was filed by the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (K.E.S.C.) challenging a Special Magistrate's order that acquitted the respondent, Naseer Ahmed, under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The respondent had been charged with theft of electricity under Section 39 of the Electricity Act 1910. The trial court acquitted the accused based on a supplementary electricity bill produced by the defense, which the court interpreted as evidence that the dispute was civil in nature and that the criminal prosecution was merely a pressure tactic. The High Court held that the trial court erred by acquitting the accused without conducting a trial or allowing the prosecution to address the document. The Court established the principle that a Magistrate cannot rely on documents not part of the police report or formally introduced into evidence to grant an acquittal under Section 249-A, especially after a charge has already been framed. Consequently, the acquittal order was set aside, and the case was remanded for trial in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a document not part of the police report or formally introduced into evidence?
- Is a Magistrate required to provide reasons when passing an acquittal order under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the framing of a charge create a presumption that a prima facie case exists against the accused?
- THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Through SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE And Others vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1986 CLC 842 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
- THE GENERAL MANAGER, LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD vs Rao1986 PLC 326 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs YAHYA BAKHTIAR AND 31986 PLD Quetta 138 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
- THE EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD And Another vs Haji GHULAM RASUL1986 SCMR 1474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the status of certain property as evacuee trust property. The core legal questions involve determining whether the conduct of the concerned evacuees prior to March 1, 1947, constituted a valid dedication of the property, thereby rendering it evacuee trust property, and whether specific transactions involving the property required the approval of Custodian authorities. Additionally, the Court identified the need to examine the legal effect of Section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, on the cases, should the property be determined to be trust property. The Court granted leave to appeal to address these issues, allowing the parties to proceed on the existing record with the liberty to file additional documentation. The decision highlights the necessity of interpreting historical documents and conduct to establish the nature of property under the relevant evacuee trust legislation.
Questions settled- Does the conduct of evacuees prior to 1-3-1947 constitute a valid dedication of property as evacuee trust property?
- Do transactions involving property require the approval of Custodian authorities?
- What is the effect of Section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, on property disputes?
- THE EMPLOYEES' OLD-AGE BENEFIT INSTITUTION vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL1986 PLC 899 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
- THE ELECTRIC LAMP MANUFACTURER OF PAKISTAN vs THE ASSISTANT1986 SCMR 604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed by an electric bulb manufacturing company against a High Court judgment dismissing its constitutional petition. A notice was issued by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, directing the petitioner to show cause regarding alleged tax evasion on Glass-Shells used as raw material. The petitioner challenged both the liability to pay sales tax and the jurisdiction of the excise authorities to issue demands or recover sales tax for a period prior to 1 July 1981, when powers of Sales Tax Officers were newly conferred upon Customs and Central Excise officers via Central Board of Revenue Circular No. 7 of 1981. The High Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, holding that recovery provisions are liberally construed and the demand arose upon adjudication after 1 July 1981. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the legal question regarding whether the notification conferred retrospective powers on Customs/Central Excise officers to assess and recover sales tax for prior periods was a matter of general importance likely to affect numerous cases.
Questions settled- Whether notification conferring powers of Sales Tax Officers upon Customs and Central Excise officers under Section 5(2) of the Sales Tax Act 1951 can be given retrospective effect?
- Whether Deputy Collectors or Assistant Collectors of Customs and Central Excise have jurisdiction to assess and recover sales tax for periods prior to 1 July 1981 where proceedings were not pending before them on that date?
- THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT And ANOTHER vs HABIBULLAH KHAN1986 CLC 792 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
- THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSI1Y OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE And 3 Others vs SHAMIM AKBAR1986 SCMR 1526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal, highlighting a divergence of judicial opinion regarding whether a candidate benefiting from an academic malpractice or tampered record can be presumed responsible for it without specific evidence. The Court notes conflicting precedents, wherein one line of authority holds that being a sole beneficiary is insufficient to prove wrongdoing, while another view suggests that such benefit raises a presumption of involvement. Finding it desirable to settle this cleavage of opinion through an authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench, the Court grants leave to appeal. Furthermore, the Court directs that the appeal be fixed for hearing before a bench of five judges at an early date, while rejecting the petitioners' prayer for the suspension of the operation of the impugned High Court order.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate who benefits from a tampered academic record can be presumed ipso facto to be responsible for the malpractice?
- Does the circumstance of benefiting from an examination malpractice constitute sufficient proof of a candidate's wrongdoing without specific evidence?
- How should conflicting judicial precedents regarding the presumption of responsibility in examination malpractices be reconciled?
- THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX vs MESSRS SHAIQ CORPORATION LIMITED1986 PLD Supreme Court 731 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the High Court concerning the taxability of raw material used in the manufacture of electric fans under the Sales Tax Act, 1951. Leave was granted to examine whether sales tax could be retrospectively imposed on raw material incorporated into finished electric fans after the abolition of sales tax on fans by a notification issued under section 7 of the Act. The core legal question revolved around whether raw materials imported tax-free by a licensed manufacturer and assimilated into finished goods prior to the exemption notification could be subjected to sales tax upon the exemption of the end-product. The Supreme Court held that once raw materials are assimilated into finished goods in the manufacturing process, and the end-product subsequently receives unconditional exemption from sales tax under section 7, the constituent raw materials lose their separate identity and cannot be retrospectively taxed in the absence of a specific statutory taxable event. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that tax payability is strictly governed by prescribed taxable events under the statute rather than general leviability.
Questions settled- Whether sales tax can be retrospectively imposed on raw material incorporated into finished goods when the end-product is exempted from sales tax?
- Does the assimilation of raw materials into finished goods constitute a taxable event under the Sales Tax Act, 1951 without an explicit statutory provision?
- What is the distinction between the leviability of goods and the payability of tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
- Whether raw material exempt at the time of import loses its status and becomes taxable once the end-product is granted exemption under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, EAST ZONE, KARACHI vs MESSRS IQBAL ENGINEERING WORKS AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Supreme Court 556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals concern the interpretation of income tax provisions regarding the set-off of losses incurred by a partner in an unregistered firm against their income from other sources. The core legal question was whether the second proviso to Section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, operates as an independent substantive provision that prohibits an assessee from setting off their share of loss from an unregistered firm against their income from other business sources. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the second proviso is not an independent provision but is restricted to the scope of Section 24(1), which only governs the set-off of losses under one head against profits under a different head. The Court established the principle that because the losses and profits in question fell under the same head of business, Section 24(1) was not attracted. Consequently, the set-off is permissible under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which allows for the computation of income by lumping profits and losses from sources under the same head, regardless of the firm's registration status.
Questions settled- Does the second proviso to Section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, operate as an independent substantive provision?
- Can a partner set off their share of loss from an unregistered firm against their income from other business sources under the same head?
- When is Section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, attracted in the computation of income?
- Is the set-off of business losses permissible under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, when the loss and profit arise under the same head?
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE vs Messrs SHAIKH1986 SCMR 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax reference appeal concerns the deductibility of interest paid on borrowed capital under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, where a company simultaneously provided interest-free loans to its Managing Director. The Income-tax Officer had disallowed the interest deduction, alleging the borrowed funds were diverted to the Director. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal deleted these additions, finding no evidence that the borrowed capital was used for the Director's loans. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that the High Court was strictly bound by the Tribunal's finding of fact, as that finding was not specifically challenged as perverse or unsupported by evidence in the reference application. The Court emphasized that the High Court's advisory jurisdiction under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is confined to the questions referred and cannot disturb factual findings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the 1922 Act lacked provisions prohibiting companies from advancing interest-free funds to directors, a lacuna later addressed by the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.
Questions settled- Can the High Court disturb a finding of fact recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in a reference under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Is interest paid on borrowed capital deductible under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, if the company advances its own funds to a director?
- Does the Income-tax Act, 1922, contain a provision prohibiting a company from advancing interest-free loans to its directors?
- The Commissioner Of Income Tax, East Zone, Karachi. vs Messrs Iqbal Engineering Works And AnotherPTCL 1986 CL. 326 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two appeals arise from judgments passed by the High Court on references under the Income Tax Act, 1922, concerning the set-off of losses incurred by an assessee as a partner in an unregistered firm against income from a registered firm or individual business under the same head of income. The core legal question was whether the second proviso to section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, operates as an independent substantive provision or only as a proviso to the main enacting provision regarding set-off of losses under different heads. The Supreme Court held that the second proviso to section 24(1) is not an independent substantive provision and is attracted only when a set-off of loss under one head is sought against profits under a different head. Where the loss and profits fall under the same head of income, such as 'business', the computation is governed by section 10 of the Act, allowing deductions and set-offs from various sources under the same head independently of section 24(1). Consequently, the appeals by the Department were dismissed, affirming the assessees' right to set-off.
Questions settled- Whether the second proviso to section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, operates as an independent substantive provision?
- Can a loss suffered by an assessee as a partner in an unregistered firm be set-off against profits earned from a registered firm or individual business under the same head of income?
- When does section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, get attracted for the purpose of setting off losses against profits?
- The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Atta Muhammad Faiz East Zone, KarachiPTCL 1986 CL. 91 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- The Commissioner Of Income Tax Lahore, Zone, Lahore. vs Messrs SheikhPTCL 1986 CL. 321 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves civil appeals arising from tax assessments where a private company engaged in cotton ginning paid interest on bank overdrafts while simultaneously advancing interest-free loans to its Managing Director. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the interest deductions proportionately, concluding the borrowings were diverted for personal use, a decision initially reversed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and upheld by the High Court on the basis that no evidence demonstrated the bank borrowings were directly diverted for personal loans. The core legal question concerned whether interest paid on bank borrowings could be disallowed under the Income Tax Act, 1922 when the company advanced interest-free funds to its director. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals, holding that an assessee is entitled to interest deductions on capital borrowed for business purposes unless it is established that the borrowed money was not used in the business. The Court laid down the principle that findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal regarding the utilization of capital are final and binding in a reference unless expressly challenged as perverse, and that the High Court's advisory jurisdiction under section 66 is strictly confined to answering the specific questions referred to it.
Questions settled- Whether interest paid on bank borrowings can be disallowed under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 when an assessee company advances interest-free loans to its director?
- Can the High Court go behind or disturb a finding of fact recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal when no question challenging it as perverse or without evidence has been framed?
- What is the scope of the High Court's advisory jurisdiction under section 66 of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
- THE ADMINISTRATOR THAL DEVELOPMENT_ CHIEF SECRETARY And Another vs MAHBOOB ALI KHAN1986 SCMR 1927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal by the Administrator of the Thal Development Authority against a High Court judgment directing the reinstatement of a civil servant and payment of salary arrears following a declaratory decree. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of an Intra-Court Appeal, the propriety of using constitutional jurisdiction to enforce a declaratory decree, and whether the dissolution of the Authority extinguished its liabilities. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional petition was maintainable as it sought redress against the Authority's failure to perform statutory duties, rather than mere execution of a decree. The Court affirmed that the dissolution of the Authority did not absolve it of legal liabilities, which transferred to the Administrator. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a wrongfully dismissed civil servant is entitled to arrears of salary, subject to set-off for other earnings. The Intra-Court Appeal was correctly dismissed as incompetent under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, because the underlying service order was appealable under the relevant service rules. The principle established is that statutory authorities cannot evade legal obligations through dissolution, and constitutional jurisdiction is available to compel performance of statutory duties.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition be maintained to enforce a declaratory decree where the authority fails to perform its statutory duties?
- Does the dissolution of a statutory authority extinguish its existing legal liabilities and obligations?
- Is a civil servant entitled to arrears of salary upon reinstatement following a declaration that their dismissal was illegal?
- When is an Intra-Court Appeal barred under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?