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.
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2274 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and 3 others-1986 P C r. L J 2913 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1986 SCMR 1554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two petitions for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging orders of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' writ petitions as well as their subsequent review petitions. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the significant delay in filing the petitions for leave to appeal against the original judgments, as well as the delay in filing the review petitions before the High Court, could be condoned. The petitioners' counsel contended that the review applications were filed late due to an erroneous belief that the limitation period was 90 days and argued that the petitions for leave to appeal were within time regarding the dismissal of the review petitions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in refusing to condone the delay in the review petitions as no plausible explanation was offered. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit or valid grounds for condonation of the 449-day delay and dismissed both petitions for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an erroneous impression of counsel regarding the limitation period constitutes a valid ground for condonation of delay?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal against an order dismissing a time-barred review petition can revive limitation for challenging the main judgment?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two civil petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against a single judgment of the High Court dismissing his civil revisions. The core legal controversy concerned a dispute over 31 marlas of land gifted by a common donor, where the High Court had divided the land equally between the two competing claimants. Both parties sought sole entitlement to the entire property. The Supreme Court considered whether leave to appeal should be granted to re-evaluate the factual evidence already assessed by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that no important question of law was raised and declined to undertake a reappraisal of evidence on record. The Supreme Court established the principle that leave to appeal will not be granted merely for a reappraisal of evidence when no substantial question of law of public importance arises from the impugned judgment.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely for the purpose of reappraising evidence?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie when no substantial question of law is raised?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs SAEED AHMAD1986 CLC 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs GHULAM KHAN and others1986 MLD 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)/1986 MLD 1006 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL KARIM And Other1986 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the transfer of a plot measuring 17 Marlas and 3 Sarsais by the Administrator (Residual Property) and Deputy Administrator (Residual Property) under the reconstituted Settlement Scheme No. 8. The petitioner had contested the findings of the Settlement Authorities, alleging misreading of evidence and facts. The High Court, after a detailed examination, found no legal infirmity or misreading of evidence that would justify interference under its constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the High Court rejected the petitioner's request for a remand for further inquiry or demarcation, reasoning that such action would lead to frivolous, protracted litigation and a waste of public time. The Supreme Court, upon review, affirmed the High Court's findings, noting that the issues raised were purely factual and lacked any significant question of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, reinforcing the principle that constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked to re-examine factual findings absent a clear legal error.
Questions settled- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to challenge factual findings of Settlement Authorities where no legal infirmity is established?
- Is a court justified in refusing a remand for further inquiry when such a request would lead to frivolous and protracted litigation?
- Does a petition raising only questions of fact warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD MEMON And Another vs THE STATE And Another1986 SCMR 1676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, which had partially allowed an appeal filed by the petitioner, Asad Mujtaba. The High Court had maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life. The petitioners sought leave to appeal this decision before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Upon reviewing the record and considering the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court determined that the impugned judgment of the High Court required further examination to ascertain whether it was based on the correct principles of criminal justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave in both petitions, directing that the resulting appeals be heard together. The judgment essentially serves as an order granting leave to appeal, identifying that the legal reasoning applied by the High Court in maintaining the conviction while modifying the sentence warrants a comprehensive review by the apex court to ensure adherence to established criminal jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Does a High Court judgment maintaining a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while reducing the sentence to life imprisonment warrant further review by the Supreme Court?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal based on the need to determine if a High Court judgment is founded on correct principles of criminal justice?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD LUTFEE vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1236 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court challenges the judgment of the Special Court of Sind (Banks) at Karachi, which convicted the appellant under Sections 408 and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. The principal legal questions before the High Court were whether an altered charge can be sustained without re-examining previously recorded witnesses under Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether distinct offences of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts involving multiple transactions can be combined into a single joint charge under Section 234 of the Code. The High Court held that the trial court committed grave procedural illegalities by failing to re-examine witnesses following the alteration of the charge and by misjoining separate offences of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction, allowed the appeal, and remanded the case back to the trial court to re-commence proceedings from the framing of charges strictly in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether multiple distinct charges of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts can be legally joined together under Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether witness evidence recorded under an earlier charge can be relied upon without re-examination after the charge is altered or added under Sections 227 and 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the legal effect of combining separate instances of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts exceeding the statutory limit into a single charge?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ALLAH DITTA1986 MLD 682 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD DOSSAL & Co. vs VULCAN COMPANY Ltd. And another1986 MLD 886 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD ARIF And Other1986 SCMR 1187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code, alongside a connected petition by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question involves the reliability of related eye-witness testimony and material discrepancies regarding whether relatives accompanied the deceased to the hospital as opposed to the police bringing the body. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding discrepancies in the medical evidence vis-a-vis the First Information Report and the interested nature of the eye-witnesses necessitate a thorough re-appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted in both the convict's petition and the complainant's enhancement petition. The key principle laid down is that where material contradictions exist between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding crucial facts like the presence of relatives at the hospital, a re-appraisal of evidence is warranted to determine safe administration of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Whether material discrepancies between the First Information Report and medical evidence warrant a re-appraisal of evidence in a murder case?
- Can the testimony of close relatives be safely relied upon without corroboration when contradictions exist regarding the transportation of the deceased to the hospital?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of conviction in a criminal matter?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD And ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD YOUNIS1986 CLC 500 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal was brought by the defendants-appellants against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below, which decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of agricultural land. The core legal questions involved were whether the pre-emptor's suit was collusive or barred by waiver, estoppel, partial pre-emption, or the Benami nature of the transaction, and whether the right of pre-emption is predatory in nature. The Lahore High Court held that the right of pre-emption is not predatory or piratical, aligning with established Supreme Court jurisprudence, and that waiver or estoppel is a question of fact requiring positive proof of active participation, which the appellants failed to establish. The Court further held that mere presence at a sale or being a relative of the vendor does not constitute waiver unless active inducement or conscious relinquishment of the right is proved. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the lower appellate court's decree.
Questions settled- Whether the right of pre-emption in Pakistan is predatory or piratical in nature?
- Does the mere presence of a pre-emptor at the time of a sale transaction amount to a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- What standard of proof is required to establish waiver or estoppel against a pre-emptor?
- Does the doctrine of partial pre-emption apply when a pre-emptor omits certain structures or auxiliary rights associated with the land?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD And ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD KHAN And ANOTHER1986 CLC 1948 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2719 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 12 others vs MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1986 MLD 670 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHYUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR QURESHI And Other1986 SCMR 779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns a dispute over the transfer of a residential house in Lahore among four occupants under settlement laws. The primary legal question revolved around whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the settlement authorities' findings regarding the divisibility of the property and the mode of division among the occupants. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion on divisibility or interfere unless statutory authorities act arbitrarily or violate the law, the Division Bench of the High Court correctly restored the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's original division of the property. The Court reasoned that the house was clearly divisible and out of four occupants, only the petitioner remained dissatisfied, while the others accepted the arrangement. The key principle laid down is that the High Court may interfere with a settlement authority's mode of division if the authority acted arbitrarily, but where the property is divisible and the division based on possession is just, such arrangement warrants no interference.
Questions settled- Can the High Court substitute its own opinion as to the divisibility of a house or the mode of division adopted by settlement authorities?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with the findings and decisions of statutory settlement authorities?
- Does the failure of co-occupants to challenge a settlement order affect the validity of a property division?
- GHULAM KHABIB vs GHULAM SADIQ And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 1423 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JAFFAR vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1864 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HYDER vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1831 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 457 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs Mst. ROSHAN BIBI1986 SCMR 1714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner-tenant's appeal against an ejectment order. The petitioner was directed under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, to deposit arrears and future rent, but failed to do so in the designated ejectment proceedings, claiming instead to have deposited rent in separate miscellaneous proceedings. The Rent Controller struck off the petitioner's defence under Section 16(2) of the Ordinance due to non-compliance and ordered ejectment. The High Court upheld the order, finding the petitioner negligent and noting that the premises had since been demolished after possession was handed over. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that the tenant was bound to deposit the rent in accordance with the specific directions of the tentative rent order, and that failure to do so justified the striking off of the defence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant's deposit of rent in separate miscellaneous proceedings satisfies the requirement of a tentative rent order passed under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Is the Rent Controller justified in striking off the defence of a tenant who fails to deposit rent in terms of the order passed under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the subsequent demolition of demised premises after execution of an ejectment order affect the validity of the underlying default determination?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs Mst. KALL00 BIBI And OTHER1986 CLC 2782 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs CRESCENT BOARDS LIMITED, FAISALABAD1986 PLC 479 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs ASHIQ HUSSAIN1986 CLC 2153 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1029 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN And Others vs SHER MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 1416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a civil revision petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a High Court judgment regarding the restoration of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of the limitation period for filing an application to restore a suit dismissed for non-prosecution. Specifically, the Court must determine whether the limitation period under Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 commences from the date of the dismissal of the suit or from the date the plaintiff acquires knowledge of such dismissal. The petitioners contend that the High Court erred by applying a 'date of knowledge' standard, arguing that Article 163 explicitly prescribes a thirty-day limitation period starting from the date of dismissal, whereas the 'date of knowledge' standard is reserved for defendants under Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court misconstrued the statutory limitation provisions applicable to plaintiffs versus defendants in cases of default dismissal, thereby necessitating a definitive interpretation of the commencement of limitation under the relevant articles.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for an application to restore a suit dismissed for non-prosecution under Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 commence from the date of dismissal or the date of knowledge?
- Is the 'date of knowledge' standard applicable to plaintiffs seeking restoration of a suit dismissed for default under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 govern the limitation period for plaintiffs or defendants in the context of suit restoration?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN And Others vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN And OTHER1986 CLC 2346 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN and others vs INAYAT HUSSAIN and others1986 MLD 2285 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN And Others vs GHULAM HAIDER KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' (vendees/defendants) revisions concerning the rejection of a plaint. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondents' plaint should have been rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to an alleged deficiency in the court-fee paid, specifically regarding the statement of net profits. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that even if the correct statement of net profits had been produced, the court-fee paid would have remained proper. The Court dismissed the petitioners' argument regarding the reliance on certain documents as hyper-technical and concluded that no contravention of law had occurred that would warrant the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11. Relying on the precedent established in Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan, the Court found no justification for interference and refused leave to appeal, thereby affirming the lower court's dismissal of the revisions.
Questions settled- Does a failure to produce a statement of net profits automatically necessitate the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court refuse to reject a plaint if the court-fee paid would have been sufficient regardless of the statement of net profits?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 864 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another vs MIRAN Alias MIR MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 1861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had allowed revision applications filed by the respondent. The dispute originated from suits for specific performance of contracts of sale regarding survey No. 271 in Jacobabad, involving both written and oral agreements. While the trial court initially decreed the suits in favor of the respondent, the Additional District Judge dismissed them, ruling they were barred by limitation under the Limitation Act. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, finding that the petitioners failed to prove the suits were filed beyond the three-year limitation period from the date of refusal of performance. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the High Court and determined that the factual determination regarding the limitation period was sound and unexceptionable. Consequently, the Court held that no substantial question of law existed to warrant interference, and the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, thereby affirming the High Court's restoration of the trial court's decrees.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for specific performance is barred by limitation if the plaintiff fails to prove the suit was brought within three years of the refusal of performance?
- Does a finding of fact regarding the limitation period by the High Court in revision constitute a question of law justifying leave to appeal?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another vs GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1986 PLC 312 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN And 3 Others vs THE CUSTODIAN, A.J. K. GOVERNMENT And 4 OTHER1986 CLC 2983 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2831 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs Mst. SOOBAN BIBI and others1986 MLD 1952 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs Mst. GHULAM JANNA T1986 SCMR 1537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which decreed the respondent's pre-emption suit based on being a co-sharer and collateral. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court and the High Court erred in their concurrent factual findings regarding the right of pre-emption and co-sharership, and whether there was any misreading or non-reading of evidence, particularly regarding revenue records. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the three lower forums regarding co-sharership and pre-emption rights did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, misreading, or non-reading of evidence that would warrant interference by the apex court in civil revision or leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of a material illegality, jurisdictional defect, or glaring misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts in a pre-emption suit?
- Can a plea of being a co-sharer raised in arguments be entertained when it was not urged in the written statement?
- Does a misreading of revenue evidence warrant interference in civil revision if no jurisdictional error is established?
- GHULAM HAIDER vs ALLAH YAR And Another1986 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a criminal matter where an accused was charged under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Following a complaint filed under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Sessions Judge, after an inquiry, concluded that a case under Section 304 was prima facie made out and directed the trial to proceed before a Magistrate. The High Court set aside this order, holding that the Sessions Judge was mandatorily required to conduct the trial personally once an offence was disclosed. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Judge, upon taking cognizance, is legally compelled to try the case themselves or if they may entrust it to a competent Magistrate. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Sessions Judge is not required to personally try every case where an offence is disclosed. The Court established that a Sessions Judge possesses the power to entrust a case to a competent Magistrate for trial, rejecting the view that the complainant could dictate the forum by inflating allegations.
Questions settled- Is a Sessions Judge mandatorily required to personally try a case once an offence is disclosed in a complaint?
- Does a Sessions Judge have the legal authority to entrust a trial to a competent Magistrate after taking cognizance of a complaint?
- Can a complainant dictate the forum of trial by inflating allegations in a complaint?
- GHULAM HAIDER And ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2057 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER and 3 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER alias HAIDRO and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2774 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR) vs Mst. RAJ BHARRI AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court declaring a second appeal to have abated due to the failure of the deceased appellant's legal representatives to apply for substitution within the prescribed period. The core legal questions were whether the appeal had abated, whether the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 applied retrospectively to pending proceedings, and whether the High Court erred in refusing to condone the delay in substitution, particularly regarding minor and Pardahnashin heirs. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's refusal to condone the delay was a judicious exercise of discretion. The Court affirmed that the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 is not retrospective and does not revive proceedings that had already abated prior to its enforcement. Furthermore, the Court established that where a decree is indivisible, abatement against one legal representative results in the abatement of the entire appeal. Consequently, the Court held that once an appeal abates, the court lacks jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money, as the legal representatives lack locus standi to pursue the matter.
Questions settled- Does the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 apply retrospectively to appeals that had already abated prior to its enforcement?
- Can a court extend the time for depositing pre-emption money after an appeal has abated?
- Does the abatement of an appeal against one legal representative result in the abatement of the entire appeal when the decree is indivisible?
- Is the right of pre-emption a personal right or one that survives to legal representatives?
- GHULAM HABIB vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 141 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FATIMAH vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HAFIZABAD1986 PLC 432 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FATIMA vs Mst. ANWAR BEGUM And OTHER1986C L C 2841 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID vs NOOR MUHAMMAD And OTHER1986 CLC 2507 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM DASTGIR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD MANSOOR1986 CLC 2479 · Election Tribunal · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM DASTGIR And Others vs HIDAYAT And Other1986 SCMR 979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of fact regarding the succession to the tenancy of a State land originally allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The respondents filed a declaratory suit claiming a one-third share in the suit land as heirs of the deceased original tenant, which was decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court and the High Court in civil revision. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the respondents to succession as heirs of the original propositus. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were unexceptionable and declined to interfere, thereby dismissing the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not normally interfere with concurrent findings of fact on matters of succession unless a compelling justification is made out.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding succession to a tenancy?
- Does a civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 lie against concurrent decrees on a question of fact?
- GHULAM and others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2626 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI and 4 others vs KABIRUDDIN1986 MLD 1583 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AKRAM AND 5 OTHERSs vs Syed SHABBIR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 101986 PLD SC (A J & K) 56 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-02-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AKBAR vs IQBAL AHMAD1986 CLC 2169 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2161 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2296 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS And Others vs NIAZ MUHAMMAD And OTHER1986 CLC 2082 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS And Others vs IMTIAZ MASRUR (DC) And OTHER1986 CLC 2847 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- GHOUS MUAMMAD vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1986 MLD 997 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- GHAZI KHAN And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1110 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding their conviction under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether interference with concurrent findings of fact through a reappraisal of evidence was warranted in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charges against the petitioners beyond any shadow of doubt, and the Court declined to reopen findings of facts or reappraise the evidence as requested by the petitioners' counsel. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, establishing that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily reappraise evidence to interfere with concurrent factual findings when guilt is proven beyond doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence to interfere with concurrent findings of fact of lower courts?
- Is leave to appeal granted where the prosecution has proved charges beyond doubt?
- GHAZANFAR ALI and 3 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2619 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
- GHAYASUDDIN KAMALI vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., MIRPURKHAS And Another1986 PLC 103 · Labour Court · 1985-09-21Read full judgment →
- GHAUS vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Other1986 SCMR 1459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding the allotment of land. The dispute arose when the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled an allotment previously granted to the private respondents, citing misrepresentation and fraud regarding the calculation of Produce Index (P.I.) Units. The respondents successfully challenged this cancellation in the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1956, arguing they were denied a fair hearing. The petitioner, who was subsequently granted the disputed land following the initial cancellation, sought leave to appeal, contending that the respondents failed to implead him as a party in the Constitutional petition, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal, determining that the petitioner's complaint regarding the lack of opportunity to be heard in the proceedings affecting his interest in the land required further examination. The Court directed an expedited disposal of the appeal, allowing the parties to present additional documentation while relying on the existing record.
Questions settled- Does the failure to implead a subsequent allottee in a constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of a prior allotment violate the principles of natural justice?
- Is a party whose rights are affected by a court order entitled to be heard in the proceedings?
- GHAUS BAKHSH And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- GHARA And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2276 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- GHALLO vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 700(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-14Read full judgment →
- GHAGAI TRIBAL TRANSPORT Co. vs THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT1986 PLD Quetta 264 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
- GHAFOOR And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 195 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- GHAFOOR And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 369 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- GEORGE Alias KAKA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1086 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
- GENERAL SECRETARY, REFINERY EMPLOYEES UNION RAWALPINDI And 17 Other1986 PLC 702 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, KUNDIAN NUCLEAR COMPLEX vs IRFAN ASHIQ1986 P Cr. L J 2552 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, HOTEL INTERCONTINENTAL, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs BASHIR A. MALIK AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses whether a Shift Engineer employed at a hotel is a 'workman' under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The respondent was dismissed for misconduct after a domestic inquiry and challenged his dismissal before the Punjab Labour Court, which held he was not a workman due to his supervisory role over other staff. The Lahore High Court, via a Single Judge and a Division Bench, reversed this finding, ruling that his duties involved physical and mental toil and occasional manual work during emergencies, thus making him a workman. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the nature of his duties, holding that the primary and substantial part of an employee's work determines their status, not incidental, occasional, or emergency manual tasks, nor purely mental toil. The Court concluded that the respondent's role as a qualified engineer required expert technical knowledge rather than manual labour. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, recalled the High Court's writ, and restored the Labour Court's order.
Questions settled- Whether a Shift Engineer whose primary duties involve technical expertise and supervision qualifies as a 'workman' under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Does the performance of occasional or emergency manual tasks convert an otherwise supervisory or technical employee into a workman?
- Is mental toil encompassed within the expression 'manual labour' as defined in labour legislation?
- What is the correct test to determine whether an employee is a workman under industrial and labor statutes?
- GENERAL MANAGER OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS KARACHI vs KHALID1986 SCMR 1331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the reversion order of a civil servant and granted him back pay. The respondent-department challenged the Tribunal's decision, primarily arguing that the respondent's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred and that the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal correctly applied the law of limitation, specifically regarding the theory of a "continuous wrong" as a basis for condoning delay in service matters. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal's application of the "continuous wrong" theory, if accepted, would effectively render the statutory period of limitation for filing appeals to the Service Tribunal meaningless. Finding that the submissions regarding the misconstruction of limitation law and the erroneous application of the continuous wrong theory deserved deeper examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the legal issues raised regarding the proper interpretation of limitation provisions in service appeals required a formal hearing on the merits.
Questions settled- Can the theory of a continuous wrong be applied to bypass statutory limitation periods for filing appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Does an adverse order against a civil servant constitute a continuous wrong for the purposes of limitation?
- Under what circumstances can delay in filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal be condoned under the Limitation Act 1908?
- GENERAL INVESTMENT LIMITED vs DUBAI BANK LIMITED1986 SCMR 1312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Dubai Bank Limited filed a recovery suit against the petitioner company and its directors under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. The trial court decreed the suit, and the petitioner's appeal to the High Court faced stay rejection, leading to previous Supreme Court proceedings and a remand order directing the High Court to evaluate the sufficiency of mortgage security. The High Court appointed the Nazar as a commissioner to assess valuation, and a dispute arose over whether the plot was commercialized and whether the Karachi Development Authority or the Karachi Municipal Corporation was the competent authority for commercialization sanction. The High Court rejected the Nazar's valuation, held the security insufficient, and ordered fresh security without determining the exact shortfall as mandated by the Supreme Court's remand order. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the High Court properly considered the evidence regarding commercialization and whether it failed to follow the remand directions regarding the shortfall determination, suspending the operation of the impugned order.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is bound to determine the exact shortfall in mortgage security when a case is remanded for that specific purpose under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Which authority is competent under the law to sanction the conversion of a residential plot for commercial purposes in Karachi?
- Can a High Court reject a commissioner's valuation report regarding mortgage security without proper reference to evidence and without determining the proper valuation?
- General Bark Of Netherland Ltd. Central, Karachi. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1986 CL. 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns six petitions for leave to appeal filed by a foreign banking company against a judgment of the High Court of Sind. The core legal question is whether interest earned on dollar securities deposited by the petitioner's Head Office in New York is taxable as income accruing or arising from a business connection in Pakistan under Section 42(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The High Court had ruled against the petitioner, determining that the securities constituted capital assets transferred to Pakistan under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and related rules, thereby rendering the interest taxable. The Supreme Court, noting the petitioner's contention that the High Court erred in using regulatory banking laws to determine the place of income accrual and that interest accrues based on ownership and location of issuance rather than the mere deposit of securities, found that these issues were of general public importance. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative interpretation on the nexus between regulatory banking asset requirements and the taxability of foreign-sourced income.
Questions settled- Does the deposit of securities by a foreign bank in a local bank for regulatory compliance constitute a transfer of capital assets to Pakistan for the purposes of Section 42(1) of the Income Tax Act 1922?
- Can the provisions of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 and Banking Companies Rules 1963 be used to determine the place of accrual of income for tax purposes?
- Does interest income on securities accrue at the location of the securities' issuance and encashment, or at the location of the bank's business connection?
- GENERAL BANK OF NETHERLAND Ltd. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, KARACHI1986 SCMR 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns six petitions for leave to appeal filed by a foreign banking company, General Bank of Netherland Ltd., challenging the taxability of interest earned on dollar securities deposited in New York. The core legal question is whether interest income earned by a non-resident company on securities held outside Pakistan constitutes income accruing or arising from a business connection in Pakistan under Section 42(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The High Court had previously ruled against the petitioner, holding that the securities were assets transferred to Pakistan under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and thus taxable. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petitions, identified significant questions of law regarding whether the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and Banking Companies Rules, 1963, are relevant to determining the place of income accrual for tax purposes, and whether interest accrues based on ownership or the location of the securities. Finding these issues to be of general public importance, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the territorial scope of income taxation.
Questions settled- Does the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and the Banking Companies Rules, 1963, determine the place of accrual of income for tax purposes?
- Is interest income from securities taxable in Pakistan if the securities are deposited outside Pakistan?
- Does the deposit of securities as a regulatory requirement constitute a transfer of capital assets within the meaning of Section 42(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- GEEDO And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2192 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-30Read full judgment →
- GAMOON And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P C r. L J 6 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-01Read full judgment →
- G.T.S. LABOUR WELFARE UNION REGISTERED (C.B.A.) vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB ROAD1986 PLC 768 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
- FORMICA CORPORATION vs PAKISTAN FORMICA Ltd.1986 MLD 362 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-14Read full judgment →
- FIDA-UR-RAHMAN DARKHWASTI vs M. SARWAR KHAN and 5 others1986 MLD 2240 · Election Tribunal · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- FEROZE vs BAKHSHA And 14 Other1986 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment acquitting six respondents previously convicted of murder. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in applying an inflexible rule requiring independent corroboration for the testimony of "interested" witnesses, thereby disregarding other circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was based on artificial and superficial grounds, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Court set aside the acquittal, restored the convictions, and modified the sentences to life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that there is no inflexible rule that the statement of an "interested" witness can never be accepted without independent corroboration. Instead, corroboration may be sufficiently afforded by the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the attack, the number of culprits involved, and the probability of the named persons participating in the crime. The Court emphasized that the totality of evidence, including motive and ocular testimony, must be considered to satisfy the judicial mind regarding the truthfulness of the witnesses.
Questions settled- Is there an inflexible rule that the testimony of an interested witness requires independent corroboration?
- Can circumstances such as the nature of an attack and the number of culprits serve as sufficient corroboration for the testimony of an interested witness?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused due to lack of motive automatically invalidate the conviction of other accused persons where evidence is otherwise sufficient?
- FEROZE DIN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, GUJRAT and another1986 MLD 2070 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- FEROZE ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2604 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-23Read full judgment →
- FEROZ DIN And Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And OTHER1986 CLC 2445 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, Through Secretary Ministry Of Works Islamabad1986 CLC 1853 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs THE STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KARACHI1986 PLD Karachi 409 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This winding up petition was filed by the Federation of Pakistan under Sections 162, 163, and 166 of the Companies Act 1913 against The Standard Insurance Company Limited. The petitioner sought winding up based on the respondent's refusal to honor an Insurance Guarantee Advance Payment Bond issued for a highway rehabilitation contract. The petitioner contended that the respondent had undertaken an unconditional obligation to pay upon demand, while the respondent asserted that the guarantee was issued for a joint venture including foreign constituents, whereas the underlying contract was executed exclusively with a local entity, raising substantial triable issues. The High Court observed that winding up proceedings are intended to address commercial insolvency rather than serve as a debt recovery mechanism. The Court held that where a company's denial of liability is raised in good faith and supported by substantial triable grounds, a winding up order cannot be issued. The petition was accordingly dismissed, leaving the petitioner at liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies for debt recovery.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for winding up can be maintained where the underlying debt is disputed on substantial and bona fide grounds?
- Whether an unconditional insurance guarantee bond can be enforced via winding up proceedings under the Companies Act 1913?
- Under what circumstances will a court refuse to issue a winding up order against a company alleged to be unable to pay its debts?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs NAZIR AHMAD SWATI And Another1986 SCMR 2001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Federation of Pakistan challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal which had directed the reinstatement of the respondent, Nazir Ahmad Swati, into government service with full consequential benefits. The respondent had been retired from service under Martial Law Regulation No. 114. The core legal question was whether the respondent's retirement was justified based on the record, specifically regarding an adverse entry in his annual confidential report from 1969 while serving under the Government of N.-W.F.P. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding the order of reinstatement unexceptionable. The Court held that there were no valid grounds to justify the respondent's retirement, noting that the respondent had successfully completed his probation in the Ministry of Commerce and that no adverse reports were recorded against him during the remainder of his service. The Court concluded that it could be assumed the respondent had rectified the earlier reported defect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that retirement actions must be supported by valid, substantiated grounds rather than stale or rectified adverse remarks.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be retired based on an adverse annual confidential report entry that was subsequently rectified or not followed by further adverse reports?
- Does the successful completion of a probationary period imply the removal of prior defects in service record?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal empowered to adjudicate appeals regarding retirement under Martial Law Regulation No. 114?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs GHULAM AKBAR BHUTTO1986 SCMR 1199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a direct appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the judgment of the Service Tribunal which had set aside the reversion of the respondent, Ghulam Akbar Bhutto, from Grade-19 to Grade-18 under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act. The core legal questions examined were whether the exercise of power by the President or his nominee under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act is reviewable by the Service Tribunal on grounds of non-existence or insufficiency of public interest, and whether the powers reserved under section 12-A were rightly invoked in this case. The Supreme Court held that orders passed under section 12-A are reviewable by the Service Tribunal only on limited grounds such as coram-non-judice, mala fide in fact, or mala fide in law. The Court found that the respondent's Grade-19 appointment resulted from political maneuvering and extraneous influence rather than lawful policy, and therefore the Service Tribunal erred in setting aside the competent authority's order of reversion. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the Service Tribunal's judgment was reversed.
Questions settled- Whether the exercise of power by the President or his nominee under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act is reviewable by the Service Tribunal on the ground of non-existence or insufficiency of public interest?
- On what grounds can an order passed under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act be reviewed by the Service Tribunal?
- Whether an appointment procured through political influence and non-statutory interference justifies the reversion of a civil servant under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary Ministry Of Health And Others vs NISARUDDIN KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, brought with the leave of the Supreme Court, arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal which partly accepted an employee's appeal and directed payment of gratuity for service rendered under the defunct Provincial Malaria Eradication Board. The core legal question concerned the construction of the saving provisions of the Malaria Eradication Board (Repeal) Act, 1975, specifically whether the liabilities and obligations of the repealed Board, including fringe benefits such as gratuity agreed upon via a Board resolution, devolved upon the Federal Government. The Supreme Court held that upon the repeal of the Malaria Eradication Board Ordinance, 1961, all liabilities and obligations of the Board became those of the Federal Government by virtue of section 2(2)(b) of the Repealing Act, and the Government could not disown them. The Court laid down the principle that statutory savings clauses transferring liabilities of a dissolved body bind the successor government to honor accrued employee benefits and financial obligations created under prior resolutions.
Questions settled- Whether the liabilities and obligations of the repealed Malaria Eradication Board devolved upon the Federal Government under the Malaria Eradication Board (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Is an employee entitled to claim gratuity benefits conferred by a resolution of the defunct Malaria Eradication Board after its repeal?
- Whether the Federal Government is bound to honor financial obligations and liabilities created by the erstwhile Malaria Eradication Board?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary Establishment Division vs ARBAB MUKHTAR AHMAD1986 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, regarding the fixation of seniority of a civil servant in the Police Group. The core legal question was whether a civil servant's seniority in a promotional grade should be counted from the date of his continuous officiation or from the date of his regular appointment/confirmation. The Supreme Court held that under the relevant statutory provisions and rules, seniority takes effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade rather than the date of continuous officiation. Consequently, the Court set aside the Service Tribunal's decision granting seniority from the date of officiation, while accepting the alternative plea that seniority should be reckoned from the date of confirmation. The key principle laid down is that seniority in a grade for a civil servant is to be determined from the date of regular appointment and substantive confirmation, and not from provisional or officiating service.
Questions settled- Whether seniority of a civil servant in a promoted grade takes effect from the date of continuous officiation or from the date of regular appointment?
- Does an officiating service as a Superintendent of Police confer a right to seniority from the initial date of officiation under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Can a civil servant claim seniority from the date of confirmation when regular appointment occurred on that date?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Others vs HASHIM SHAH QURESHI1986 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the termination of the respondent's service. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon reviewing the impugned judgment and hearing the Deputy Attorney-General, granted leave to appeal to examine significant legal questions regarding the status of civil servants. The core legal issues concern whether the expiry of a probation period results in automatic confirmation or requires an express order, whether a temporary employee becomes permanent simply by the passage of time, and whether termination under Section 11(3) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, necessitates a finding of public interest. The Court suspended the operation of the Tribunal's judgment pending the final disposal of the appeal. The judgment serves as a procedural order framing the legal questions to be settled by the Court regarding the interpretation of service rules and the statutory requirements for the termination of temporary civil servants.
Questions settled- Does the expiry of a probation period result in the automatic confirmation of a civil servant, or is an express order required?
- Can a civil servant who has not received an express order of confirmation be considered permanent merely because their probation period has expired?
- Is it a statutory requirement that an order of termination for a temporary employee under Section 11(3) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 must be based on public interest?
- Can a civil servant expressly appointed on a temporary basis be legally treated as a permanent civil servant?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND Others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Other1986 SCMR 916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the refusal of the Federation of Pakistan to issue import permits for 126 Isuzu truck chassis under the 'Gift Scheme' for overseas Pakistanis. The core legal question was whether the government could retrospectively apply a revised, restrictive definition of 'new' vehicles—requiring them to be of the latest model and purchased directly from manufacturers—to deny permits for vehicles already contracted for under the prior policy. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had fully complied with the requirements of the scheme in force at the time of application. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, ruling that the government could not unilaterally and retrospectively alter criteria to frustrate vested rights acquired through bona fide compliance with existing regulations. The Court laid down the principle that executive discretion must be exercised reasonably and fairly, and that administrative authorities are bound by the specific grounds initially provided for their decisions. Furthermore, vested rights cannot be overridden by subsequent policy changes unless expressly authorized by law.
Questions settled- Can an administrative authority retrospectively apply a new policy definition to deny import permits for goods contracted under a previous policy?
- Does an applicant acquire a vested right to an import permit upon satisfying the conditions of a government scheme in force at the time of application?
- Is an executive agency bound by the specific grounds it initially provides for refusing an administrative request?
- Does the principle of promissory estoppel apply to prevent the government from frustrating rights created under an export/import promotion scheme?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others vs Captain ANWAR KHAN and another1986 MLD 1800 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Others vs AMJAD HUSSAIN DILAWARI And Other1986 SCMR 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan filed three separate petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which followed a previous decision on a question of law in M. Afzal & Sons v. Federal Government of Pakistan and allowed the constitutional petitions filed by the respondents. The core legal question involved the correctness of the legal proposition determined in the earlier Lahore High Court judgment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since leave to appeal had already been granted in connected petitions involving the identical question of law, leave to appeal should be granted in the present matters as well so that the cases may be heard together. The key principle laid down is that where identical questions of law are pending adjudication before the apex court in connected matters, leave to appeal is appropriately granted for consolidated hearing.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when an identical question of law is already pending adjudication in connected petitions before the Supreme Court?
- Can constitutional petitions be decided following a precedent established in earlier reported judgments of the High Court?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Another vs Rao MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN1986 SCMR 1409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether the Federal Service Tribunal possessed the legal authority to issue a direction declaring that the first respondent should be deemed to have continued in N.P.S. 19 following his reversion from the Northern Areas, including the entitlement to all consequential benefits, despite the admitted fact that the respondent had not been regularly promoted to Grade 19. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the Tribunal's powers in service matters regarding deemed promotions and the granting of consequential benefits in the absence of a regular promotion. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Court modified the interim order by suspending the operation of the Tribunal's direction concerning the respondent's appointment to the higher post. The Court further directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record, while granting the parties liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Is the Federal Service Tribunal legally empowered to direct that a civil servant be deemed to have continued in a higher grade after reversion, despite the absence of a regular promotion?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal grant consequential benefits for a higher post to which a civil servant was not regularly promoted?
- FAZLE MABOOD vs IHSANULLAH And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 1864 · Election Tribunal · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
- FAZALURREHMAN AND ANOTHER vs Haji MUHAMMAD YAQOOB1986 PLD Peshawar 163 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil revision petitions challenging the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, which dismissed the plaintiffs' suits for pre-emption regarding the sale of occupancy rights in agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of merger applied to the sale of occupancy rights, effectively converting them into full ownership rights, thereby allowing the pre-emptors to assert superior rights based on co-sharership, contiguity, and participation in immunities, rather than the status of a landlord. The Court held that the principle of merger was inapplicable because the vendors held distinct and separate rights—ownership of a share and occupancy tenancy of the remainder—which remained independent and were transferred as such. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that the pre-emptors could not claim superior rights based on grounds applicable to full ownership when the subject matter of the sale was specifically occupancy rights. The judgment establishes that merger does not occur where ownership and occupancy rights remain distinct and are transferred as separate interests.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of merger apply to the sale of occupancy rights where the vendor holds both ownership and occupancy interests in the same land?
- Can a pre-emptor claim superior rights of pre-emption based on co-sharership when the subject of the sale is limited to occupancy rights?
- Are ownership rights and occupancy rights considered distinct and separate interests that do not automatically merge upon transfer?