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.

• NEWKHURSHID ALI Versus MIANGUL ADNAN AURANGZEB (deceased)2025 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-17Read full judgment →
• NEWALL PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES BPS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (APUBTA) Versus The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Federal Education and Professional Training, Islamabad2025 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• NEWMAZHAR ALI Versus State2025 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-24
  post-arrest bailabscondenceidentification paradeevidentiary valueacquittal of co-accuseddelay in FIRcriminal appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case involving charges under Sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought to set aside the High Court's order denying him bail in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps, the acquittal of co-accused facing identical allegations, and the petitioner's long-term abscondence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the FIR was delayed without sufficient explanation, the alleged eye-witnesses were not mentioned in the initial report despite being present, and the identification parade's sanctity was questionable given the petitioner's prior nomination. Crucially, the Court observed that the co-accused, facing the same evidence, had already been acquitted by the trial court. The Court reaffirmed the principle that mere abscondence, while a relevant factor, does not automatically disentitle an accused to bail if the case otherwise merits relief on its merits, particularly when the prosecution evidence has already been disbelieved against co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence entitle the remaining accused to bail?
  • Is mere abscondence of an accused sufficient ground to refuse post-arrest bail?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted after the accused has already been nominated in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL through Chairman, Lahore2025 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-07Read full judgment →
• NEWABID SHAHID ZUBERI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2025 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-17Read full judgment →
• NEWChaudhary GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus SAUDI PAK COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED, LAHORE2025 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
• NEWABDUL HAYEE and ABDULLAH alias GHAZALI Versus State2025 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-21
  criminal appealchance witnessidentification paradebenefit of doubtSection 342 statementterrorismacquittalFIR delay
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences imposed on the petitioners for the murder of eight police officials and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the subsequent identification of the petitioners relied on questionable evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The Court found that the FIR was registered with a fabricated time to suggest promptness, the eye-witnesses were "chance witnesses" who failed to provide a credible explanation for their presence at the crime scene, and the identification parades were procedurally flawed, particularly due to the joint identification of accused without specific roles attributed. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that recoveries not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used as evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the petitioners, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the motive and the case beyond a shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence, such as recoveries, to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render that evidence inadmissible?
  • Is an identification parade conducted jointly for multiple accused without attributing specific roles to each valid in the eyes of the law?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is found to have been registered with a fabricated time to create an impression of promptness?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWPAKISTAN TEHREEK-I-INSAF, through authorized person Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, through Special Secretary, Islamabad Nemo , Syed Ahmed Hassan Shah2025 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• NEWMUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED Versus The PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE2025 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• NEWINTER QUEST INFORMATICS SERVICES Versus The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX2025 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• NEWThe EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (P&GS) STATE LIFE, PRINCIPAL OFFICE KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD NISAR, AREA MANAGER, STATE LIFE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, PESHAWAR ZONE, PESHAWAR2025 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-16Read full judgment →
• NEWGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Irrigation and Power Versus KUNJAH TEXTILE MILLS LTD2025 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-08Read full judgment →
• NEWTASSAWAR HUSSAIN Versus The REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, MULTAN2025 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• NEWTAJ WALI KHAN Versus HUKAM KHAN2025 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
• NEWAYAZ Versus MUSTAFA SAEED2025 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
• NEWAMJAD ALI Versus ANWAR SHAH2025 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-21Read full judgment →
• NEWBASHIR AHMED ANJUM Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Minister Punjab, Lahore2025 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-04Read full judgment →
• NEWDr. KHALID IQBAL TALPUR Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH2025 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE2025 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-16Read full judgment →
• NEWCHAIRMAN/DEAN SHEIKH ZAYED HOSPITAL, LAHORE Versus AMJAD MEHMOOD KHAN2025 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• NEWNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President, Karachi Versus ROZ-UD-DIN2025 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• NEWSECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, FINANCE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR2025 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-12Read full judgment →
• NEWAHMAD SIKANDER Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, AEOI ZONE, LAHORE2025 SCMR 140 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NEWPROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore Versus QASIM MEHMOOD2025 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-09Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD HASSANULLAH (OMG/B-18), ACTING ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BALOCHISTAN Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA2025 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
• NEWNAEEM SAJID Versus State2025 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-17
  post-arrest bailQatl-i-Amdrule of consistencyprohibitory clausetentative assessmentcriminal procedurebail refusal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail in a case of Qatl-i-Amd, where the petitioners were accused of murdering the complainant's father. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail, particularly in light of the rule of consistency and the existence of a cross-version. The Supreme Court, in this dissenting opinion, held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail. The Court observed that the petitioners were expressly nominated in the FIR with specific roles attributed to them, and the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case. The Court held that the rule of consistency is only applicable when the case of the accused is at par with a co-accused who has already been granted bail, which was not established here. Furthermore, the Court determined that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and no grounds for further inquiry existed. The principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the Court must tentatively assess evidence without conducting a deeper appreciation of merits, and bail should be refused where prima facie evidence connects the accused to a serious offence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the rule of consistency in bail matters applicable when the role of the accused is not identical to that of a co-accused who has been granted bail?
  • Does an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the scope of the Court's assessment of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Under what specific grounds can post-arrest bail be granted for offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF APPRAISEMENT (WEST), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI Versus K. S. SULEMANJI ESMAILJI AND SONS (PVT.) LTD. KARACHI2025 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-18Read full judgment →
• NEWMOHSIN RAZA GONDAL Versus SARDAR MAHMOOD2025 SCMR 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-13Read full judgment →
• NEWZULFIQAR ALI Versus State2025 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  embezzlementquantum of sentencereduction of sentencebreach of trustrestitutionjudicial discretioncriminal appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner, an employee of the Utility Stores Corporation, challenged his conviction and sentence for embezzlement under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. Following his conviction by the Trial Court and the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court, the petitioner sought a reduction in sentence, citing the restitution of the embezzled funds and personal hardship regarding his ailing wife. The core legal question was whether the Court could exercise its discretion to reduce the quantum of sentence despite the petitioner's conviction for breach of trust. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction was justified, the Court possesses the discretion to ensure complete justice based on the specific facts of a case. Given that the financial loss to the exchequer was repaired and the petitioner had served a significant portion of his sentence, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentences to the period already undergone and significantly mitigated the fines imposed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court exercise discretion to reduce a sentence where the embezzled amount has been fully deposited by the convict?
  • Does the deposit of embezzled funds and a plea of no-contest entitle a convict to a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone?
  • Is a court empowered to reduce the quantum of fine imposed under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWThe COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, LARGE TAXPAYERS OFFICE, LAHORE Versus MAYFAIR SPINNING MILLS LTD.2025 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE Versus EAGLE CABLES (Pvt.) LTD., LAHORE2025 PTD 635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-16Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CORPORATE ZONE, RTO PESHAWAR Versus FLYING KRAFT PAPER MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, CHARSADDA2025 PTD 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
• NEWBASHIR AHMAD Versus DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS), FBR, PESHAWAR2025 PTD 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (SPECIAL ZONE FOR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS) REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, ISLAMABAD Versus KHUDADAD HEIGHTS, ISLAMABAD2025 PTD 582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• NEWCHAWALA FOOTWEAR, LAHORE Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE2025 PTD 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-14Read full judgment →
• NEWADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF APPRAISEMENT (WEST), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI Versus K.S. SULEMANJI ESMAILJI AND SONS (PVT.) LTD. KARACHI2025 PTD 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-18Read full judgment →
• NEWAHMAD SIKANDER Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, AEOI ZONE, LAHORE2025 PTD 231 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NEWThe COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, LARGE TAXPAYERS OFFICE, LAHORE Versus MAYFAIR SPINNING MILLS LTD.2025 PTD 180 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NEWThe COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX Versus KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE (G) LTD.2025 PTD 96 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-03Read full judgment →
• NEWTAHIR NAWAZ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Amjad Hayat , Zafar Hussain2025 PTD 656 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-12Read full judgment →
• NEWThe COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus ROHAIL ENTERPRISES2025 PTD 645 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
• NEWThe COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS through Deputy Collector of Customs Law Versus BILAL METALS PRIVATE, LTD.2025 PTD 508 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-13Read full judgment →
• NEWASG METALS LIMITED Versus The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-IV2025 PTD 459 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
• NEWORIENT ENERGY SYSTEMS (PVT.) LTD. Versus The ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (AUDIT-II) INLAND REVENUE2025 PTD 431 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• NEWUNITED CARPETS LTD. Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary (Revenue Division) Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad2025 PTD 267 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• NEWARSHAD ALI KHAN Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Raj Ali Wahid Kunwar2025 PTD 248 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
• NEWQAZI CARPETS Versus The ITO, SERVICE UNIT NO.2, CIRCLE 4, HYDERABAD2025 PTD 174 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
• NEWSURFACTANT CHEMICAL COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad2025 PTD 10 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE CORPORATE ZONE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, PESHAWAR Versus AL-HAJ STEEL FOUNDARY, DISTRICT KHYBER2025 PTD 662 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
• NEWRED CO. ENTERPRISES Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE2025 PTD 556 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
• NEWNORTHERN BOTTLING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. Versus The APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR2025 PTD 433 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-10Read full judgment →
• NEWIMTIAZ TEXTILE BARA, DISTRICT KHYBER Versus The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Finance and Revenue Division, Islamabad2025 PTD 301 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-12Read full judgment →
• NEWKOT ADDU POWER COMPANY LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICER, MULTAN2025 PTD 77 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus MASOOD-UL-HASSAN2025 PTD 58 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE Versus ARCO PLASTICS (PVT.) LIMITED LAHORE Barrister Pirzada Aurang Zaib , Shahbaz Butt2025 PTD 552 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-21Read full judgment →
• NEWDEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY Versus The FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE2025 PTD 530 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, FAISALABAD Versus BE BE JAN FIBRES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD Amjad Hussain Malik and Ijaz Mehmood Chaudhry , Shahbaz Butt2025 PTD 51 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
• NEWAMIR KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION)2025 PTD 490 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-29Read full judgment →
• NEWD.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE2025 PTD 424 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
• NEWThe COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL DIVISION, RTO, LAHORE Versus WIRE PRODUCTS (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE Imran Rasool , Shahbaz Butt, Ahsan Mahmood, Khurram Shahbaz Butt, Muhammad Usman Zia and Muhammad Ibraheem Hassan2025 PTD 386 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-02Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus STANDARD ICE AND COLD STORAGE, LAHORE Ali Asad Gondal , M. Ijaz Ali Bhatti2025 PTD 35 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
• NEWMrs. SHEHLA TARIQ SAIGOL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance2025 PTD 313 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-26Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ZUBAIR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2025 PTD 274 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-25Read full judgment →
• NEWPAK GULF CONSTRUCTION (PVT.) LIMITED Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2025 PTD 255 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-13Read full judgment →
• NEWD.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED Versus The FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE2025 PTD 199 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-27Read full judgment →
• NEWThe COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, GUJRANWALA Versus GUJRANWALA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (GEPCO), GUJRANWALA Mian Yousaf Umar , Shahbaz Butt and Ahsan Mahmud2025 PTD 166 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
• NEWMEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance2025 PTD 16 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• NEWFATIMA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE2025 PTD 148 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-08Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, DISTRICT ZONE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, RAWALPINDI Versus Sh. IKRAM ELLAHI2025 PTD 137 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE-LTO, LAHORE Versus RASOOL NAWAZ SUGAR MILLS, LTD. Syed Zain-ul-Abidein Bokhari , Waseem Ahmad Malik2025 PTD 121 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-26Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, SIALKOT Versus CHAUDHRY STEEL MILLS S.I.E., DASKA2025 PTD 101 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• NEWFAIZA BASIR SYED Versus CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL2025 PTD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• NEWSHAH ZAMAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2025 PTD 586 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20Read full judgment →
• NEWGUARANTEE SALEX THALES JOINT VENTURE Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division2025 PTD 544 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-11Read full judgment →
• NEWFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Versus PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN, SECRETARIAT (PUBLIC) AIWAN-E-SADDAR, ISLAMABAD2025 PTD 495 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-22Read full judgment →
• NEWMASUD REZA Versus The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2025 PTD 451 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• NEWKHYBER TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED Versus The FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE2025 PTD 297 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20Read full judgment →
• NEWCOCA-COLA EXPORT CORPORATION PAKISTAN Versus COMMISSIONER APPEALS, BALOCHISTAN REVENUE AUTHORITY2025 PTD 638 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2024-04-26Read full judgment →
• NEWFAISALABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., FAISALABAD Versus The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LARGE TAXPAYERS' OFFICE, FAISALABAD2025 PTD 602 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
• NEWKHADIJA WASEEM BUTT, LAHORE Versus The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE RTO, LAHORE Ahmed Nauman , Umair Khan2025 PTD 566 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2024-08-28Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CORPORATE ZONE, RTO, PESHAWAR Versus G.A. POLYMER (PVT.) LTD.2025 PTD 540 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2023-07-10Read full judgment →
• NEWINSAF TEXTILE PRINTING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD Versus The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CORPORATE ZONE, RTO, FAISALABAD2025 PTD 418 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
• NEWIRFAN ULLAH, IRFAN TRADERS Versus The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, UNIT-41, RANGE-1, (D.I. KHAN ZONE), RTO, PESHAWAR2025 PTD 380 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2024-01-30Read full judgment →
• NEWMURTAZA A HASSAN Versus The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ENFORCEMENT II CTO, KARACHI2025 PTD 292 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2022-08-29Read full judgment →
• NEWSUI NORTHERN GAS PIPE LINES LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTO, LAHORE2025 PTD 153 · INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
• NEWNORTEX CORPORATION Versus The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOM (ADJUDICATION-I) CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI2025 PTD 465 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• NEWQUETTA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad2025 PTD 480 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• NEWCHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB, Islamabad Versus ADEEL AHMED2026 PLD 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-07-24
  Federal Constitutional Courtappellate jurisdictionNational Accountability Ordinancepost-arrest bailancillary jurisdictionconstitutional amendmentjurisdictional transferharmonious construction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns the jurisdictional competence of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to entertain criminal petitions for leave to appeal and bail applications in cases arising under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, following the enactment of the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025, and the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2026. The core legal question is whether the Supreme Court retains appellate and ancillary jurisdiction in NAB matters, or if such jurisdiction now vests exclusively in the newly established Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate these matters. The ratio decidendi is that the Constitution and the amended National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, have effectively transferred appellate jurisdiction to the FCC. Consequently, all pending petitions and appeals stand transferred to the FCC by operation of law. The Court affirmed that jurisdiction is not inherent but must be affirmatively conferred by the Constitution or statute; that appellate jurisdiction inherently includes ancillary powers like bail; and that the doctrine of harmonious construction precludes overlapping jurisdiction between apex courts. The Court emphasized that it cannot assume jurisdiction through consent or legislative silence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court retain jurisdiction to hear bail applications in NAB cases following the establishment of the Federal Constitutional Court?
  • Does the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the Federal Constitutional Court inherently include the power to adjudicate ancillary matters like bail?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction in a matter where the Constitution and statute have transferred such authority to another court?
  • Does the phrase 'subject to' in a constitutional provision establish a legal hierarchy?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWNAZAR ABBAS, ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) PRESENTLY OSD SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN Versus State2026 PLD 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-09-23
  contempt of courtjudicial immunitysitting judgesConstitutional Benches26th Constitutional AmendmentSupreme Judicial Councilesprit de corpsfunctus officio
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This intra-court appeal arose from contempt proceedings initiated by a regular three-member bench of the Supreme Court against the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for failing to fix part-heard petitions challenging the vires of Section 221-A(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. Although the regular bench subsequently discharged the notice against the official, it referred the matter to the Chief Justice to convene a Full Court for contempt proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution against members of the administrative and Constitutional Bench Committees (fellow sitting Judges). The core legal issues concerned whether sitting Judges of the Supreme Court can be proceeded against for contempt of court under Article 204 by fellow Judges, and whether a regular bench retains jurisdiction over matters transferred by operation of the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings, holding that judicial immunity and comity ('esprit de corps') bar a Judge from issuing contempt process or directions against fellow Judges of the same court. Allegations of misconduct against sitting Judges fall exclusively within the domain of the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 209(7). Furthermore, pursuant to Article 191A(3) and (5), petitions challenging statutory vires forthwith stand transferred to the Constitutional Benches, rendering regular benches functus officio.

  Questions settled

  • Can sitting Judges of the Supreme Court or a High Court be proceeded against under Article 204 of the Constitution for contempt of court by their fellow Judges?
  • Does Article 209(7) of the Constitution exclusively bar other forums, including benches of the same court, from inquiring into alleged misconduct of sitting superior court judges?
  • Whether, by operation of Article 191A(3) and (5) of the Constitution, constitutional matters pending prior to the 26th Constitutional Amendment automatically stand transferred to Constitutional Benches, rendering regular benches functus officio?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWGOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary and Ombudsperson, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Versus SHABEER KHAN2026 PLD 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-01-02
  locus standiaggrieved personOmbudspersonquasi-judicial authorityfunctus officiopro forma partymaintainability
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was instituted by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ombudsperson against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had converted a writ petition into a statutory appeal and set aside an order of the Ombudsperson under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Enforcement of Women Property Act, 2019. The Supreme Court considered the preliminary question of maintainability, specifically whether the statutory adjudicatory body and the provincial government possess the requisite locus standi to appeal an adverse judicial decision setting aside the Ombudsperson's order. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were not 'aggrieved persons'. A quasi-judicial authority, such as an Ombudsperson, becomes functus officio after rendering a decision and cannot actively defend its determinations or assail judicial reversals before appellate courts without compromising its statutory neutrality and institutional impartiality. Furthermore, the provincial government, having no direct legal prejudice, proprietary interest, or vires challenge involved, lacks locus standi to revive an order arising out of a private dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ombudsperson or quasi-judicial authority possess locus standi to challenge a superior court judgment that sets aside its adjudicatory order?
  • Can a provincial government maintain an appeal merely to defend or revive an order passed by a statutory forum in a private dispute where no statutory vires are challenged?
  • Does the mere inclusion or retention of an entity as a pro forma respondent confer substantive standing to invoke appellate jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWQAISER ABBAS Versus State2026 PLD 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-05-13
  consecutive sentencesconcurrent sentencesdouble murderSection 35 Cr.P.C.doctrine of precedentproportionality of punishmentSupreme Courtlife imprisonment
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner, convicted of two counts of murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to consecutive life imprisonments, sought to have the sentences run concurrently. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, concerning consecutive versus concurrent sentences, particularly the applicability of proviso (a) to sentences awarded by Sessions Courts, and the binding nature of conflicting precedents. The Court upheld the convictions and dismissed the petition for concurrent sentences. It was held that proviso (a) to Section 35(2) Cr.P.C. is confined to courts of limited sentencing jurisdiction and does not control sentences passed by a Sessions Court in an original trial; in such cases, Section 35(1) Cr.P.C. applies, and sentences run consecutively unless expressly directed otherwise. The Court reaffirmed the principle that punishment must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense, and multiple murders warrant independent penal recognition, rejecting the notion that an offender should "kill two or three, pay for one."

  Questions settled

  • Does proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to sentences awarded by a Sessions Court in an original trial?
  • When do sentences of life imprisonment run consecutively or concurrently in a single trial by a Sessions Court?
  • Can an observation in a later larger bench decision displace an earlier, consciously reasoned determination by another larger bench on the same statutory question if the earlier decision was not noticed or distinguished?
  • Does the principle of proportionality in sentencing require independent penal recognition for each life unlawfully taken in cases of multiple murders?
  • What constitutes a binding precedent under Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. ASMA BEGUM Versus ABDUL HAMEED (deceased)2026 PLD 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-03-06
  execution of decreecompromise orderjudicial undertakingenforceability of orderscivil revisionexecuting court
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns the enforceability of a judicial order based on a compromise and an undertaking given before the High Court. The core legal question was whether an order disposing of proceedings in terms of a compromise, where no formal decree is drawn, is enforceable through execution proceedings, and whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Executing Court's order. The Supreme Court held that an order passed on the basis of a compromise remains binding and operative between the parties, possessing full legal force. It affirmed that, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the provisions relating to the execution of decrees apply equally to the execution of orders. The Court established the principle that a party who voluntarily undertakes an obligation before a court cannot subsequently resile from it, and the Executing Court cannot go behind the order sought to be executed. Consequently, the High Court's judgment dismissing the execution petition was set aside, and the Executing Court was directed to proceed with the execution.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed on the basis of a compromise, where no formal decree is drawn, enforceable through execution proceedings?
  • Does the Executing Court have the authority to go behind the order sought to be executed?
  • Can a party who voluntarily gives an undertaking before a court subsequently resile from that obligation?
  • Do the provisions relating to the execution of decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the execution of orders?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWABBAS ASIF ZAMAN Versus State2026 PLD 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-10-15Read full judgment →
• NEWJAMIL AHMED Versus Mst. ZARINA BIBI2026 PLD 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-10-15
  leave to appealnon-party appeallis pendenstransfer pendente liteimpleadmentspecific performancelimitation
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arose from applications filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by non-parties seeking leave to appeal against a High Court revisional order that decreed a suit for specific performance based on a compromise. The applicants had entered into an agreement to sell pendente lite concerning the suit house without court permission, kept the transaction concealed during trial, and only sought impleadment at the appellate stage after filing a separate, belated suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether non-parties who purchased property pendente lite could be granted leave to appeal against an order passed in proceedings where they were not parties. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal by a non-party requires establishing that they could properly have been made a party. While transferees pendente lite may ordinarily be joined, joinder may be declined where alienation lacks bona fides or aims to undermine justice. Because the applicants concealed the transaction, were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, and based their claim on an ex-facie time-barred suit, they possessed no standing to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What test applies when determining whether a person who was not a party to the proceedings may be granted leave to appeal?
  • Can a transferee pendente lite be refused joinder in proceedings where the alienation lacks bona fides or is intended to defeat or undermine legal process?
  • Does a transferee pendente lite whose separate suit for specific performance is barred by limitation possess standing as a necessary or proper party entitled to seek leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance, Finance Division, Islamabad Versus FARID ULLAH2026 PLD 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2026-02-12
  condonation of delaylimitationservice tribunaladministrative inefficiencysufficient causeequal before the law
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner, the Federation of Pakistan, impugned a judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 26.06.2025 through a civil petition which was barred by 20 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed, attributing the delay to internal departmental procedures, administrative bottlenecks, committee scheduling constraints, and staff transfers. The core legal question was whether internal administrative delays and bureaucratic processes constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the application and the petition as time-barred, holding that internal administrative inefficiencies, bureaucratic red tape, and procedural inconveniences of State functionaries do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay. The Court established the principle that the State and its institutions must be held to the same standards of legal compliance and timeline adherence as ordinary litigants, and that administrative routine cannot override statutory limitation periods or undermine rule-based governance and the constitutional guarantee of equality.

  Questions settled

  • Does internal administrative delay or bureaucratic routine constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a petition?
  • Is the State required to meet the same standards of statutory limitation and timeline adherence as ordinary litigants?
  • Can administrative inconveniences and staffing shortages justify the failure to file a civil petition within the prescribed period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSAJID HUSSAIN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI2026 PLD 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-10-27
  dowernikahnamabona fide purchaserfamily court decreefraudulent transferrecovery of dowerproperty rights
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition challenged the dismissal of a writ petition regarding a family court decree for the recovery of dower. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who purchased land previously designated as dower in a Nikahnama, could claim the status of a bona fide purchaser to defeat the wife's claim. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not a bona fide purchaser, noting that he had knowledge of the wife's dower claim through the Nikahnama entries before completing the purchase of a significant portion of the disputed land. The court observed that the series of land transfers between the husband, his family members, and the petitioner appeared to be a collusive effort to deprive the wife of her rightful dower. The ratio established is that property designated as dower in a Nikahnama creates a binding obligation on the husband to reserve such property for the wife, and subsequent transfers made to defeat this claim are ineffective against the wife's rights, especially when the purchaser has notice of the encumbrance. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a purchaser of land claim the status of a bona fide purchaser if they had prior knowledge of a dower claim on the property?
  • Does the designation of property as dower in a Nikahnama create a binding obligation on the husband to reserve that property for the wife?
  • Are land transfers made between family members and third parties to defeat a wife's dower claim effective against the wife's rights?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWALLAH BAKHSH Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ2025 PLD 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• NEWGHULAM SARWAR Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector, Lodhran2025 PLD 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
• NEWAURANGZAIB ALAMGIR Versus MUHAMMAD SAJID2025 PLD 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-15
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powersabuse of processcognizanceillegal dispossessionremand
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard an appeal arising from a criminal petition against the Sindh High Court's dismissal of a quashment application filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, arguing that civil litigation was pending over the property title and that the complaint was an abuse of process. The High Court summarily dismissed the application solely on the ground that the Trial Court had already taken cognizance. The legal issue was whether a quashment application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. can be dismissed merely because the trial court has taken cognizance without considering whether a prima facie case of abuse of process exists. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case, holding that the taking of cognizance by a trial court is neither a lawful justification nor a sufficient ground to dismiss a quashment application summarily without examining the substantive grounds raised to prevent an abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court dismiss a quashment petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground that the trial court has already taken cognizance of the case?
  • What constitutes an 'abuse of process' warranting the invocation of the High Court's inherent curative jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be directly filed without exhausting remedies under Section 249-A or Section 265-K of the Code in extraordinary circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWGUL SADEM KHAN Versus Mst. HALIMA2025 PLD 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-22Read full judgment →