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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• M/s. Dr. Mubin Akhtar Hospital and Dr. Syed Abdur Rehman vs Syed2025 SHC 12 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Dr. Mubib Akhtar Hospital & another vs Syed Muhammad Salahuddin2025 SHC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. BBJ Steel Limited vs M/s. Cargill International Trading Pte. Ltd2025 LHC 4959 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
• M/s. Auto Craft vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore and another2025 LHC 2906 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-12Read full judgment →
• M/s. Amal Steel vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2114 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-25Read full judgment →
• M/s. Almoiz Industries Ltd vs Amir Riffat Siddiqui2025 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-11Read full judgment →
• M/s. Abbott Laboratories Pakistan Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2025 SHC KHI 1731 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-18Read full judgment →
• M/s Waheed Jewellers vs Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board2025 YLR 772 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-10Read full judgment →
• M/s UBL vs Shirimati Pushpa Bai2025 SHC LAR 2247 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-09Read full judgment →
• M/s Trio Industries (Pvt) Limited vs Babu Sher & others2025 SCP 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-02
  industrial closurelabour lawcompensation in lieu of reinstatementStanding Ordersstatutory interpretationdeemed permissionwrongful terminationlabour tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment affirming an order by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which awarded compensation to employees in lieu of reinstatement following the closure of the petitioner's industrial establishment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had lawfully closed its establishment under Standing Order 15 of the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act 2015, specifically concerning the proper authority for submitting a closure application and the validity of the 'deemed granted' provision. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to follow the mandatory procedure by addressing the application to the Labour Department rather than the Government of Sindh (the Cabinet). Consequently, the closure was unlawful, and the 'deemed granted' provision did not apply. The Court affirmed that Labour Courts and Tribunals possess the jurisdiction to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement when reinstatement is impractical due to an establishment's closure. The judgment emphasizes that no party can benefit from their own wrong, and statutory procedures for closure must be strictly followed to protect workers' rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer claim that a closure application is 'deemed granted' under the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act 2015 if the application was submitted to an incorrect authority?
  • Does the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal have the jurisdiction to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement when an establishment has been closed?
  • Is the Secretary of the Labour Department the competent authority to approve the closure of an establishment under the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act 2015?
  • Can a party take advantage of their own failure to follow statutory procedures to claim a legal benefit?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Taiga Apparel (Pvt) Ltd. vs M/s International Fabrication Company2025 LHC 1247, 2025 PLJ Lahore 483 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
• M/s Sunrise Industries vs Fed. of Pakistan and others2025 SHC 736 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-12Read full judgment →
• M/s Sind Lab (Private) Limited vs Government of Sindh &others2025 SHC 402 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-14
  maintainabilityconstitutional petitionalternative remedypayment of wagesstatutory appealpre-deposit of decretal amountlabor laws
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order passed by the authority under the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, directing the deposit of a decretal amount. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable when an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available, and whether the requirement to deposit the decretal amount as a precondition for appeal justifies bypassing the appellate forum. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the availability of an adequate statutory remedy of appeal bars the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction, and that bypassing the appeal merely to avoid the pre-condition of depositing the awarded amount constitutes a mala fide attempt to circumvent the law. The court laid down the principle that parties cannot bypass statutory appellate forums and utilize constitutional petitions to evade mandatory pre-deposit requirements, and that beneficial and remedial labour legislation must be construed to advance its legislative intent.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable when an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available under the Payment of Wages Act?
  • Does the requirement to deposit the decretal amount as a precondition for filing a statutory appeal justify invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can a party bypass the appellate forum provided under labour legislation to avoid pre-deposit conditions without establishing a total lack of jurisdiction?
  • Whether the Payment of Wages Act is a beneficial legislation that must be construed to prevent the nullification of its statutory objectives through constitutional petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Shamsi Builders Limited Karachi through its Authorized2025 PHC 186 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Saif Nadeem Electro (Private) Limited and another vs Federal Board of2025 IHC 316 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Saif Enterprises vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 338 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Raz Textiles through its Authorized Attorney vs The Federation of2025 IHC 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Rafhan Maize Products Co. Limited vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland2025 SCP 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-27
  sales taxfurther taxtaxable suppliesunregistered personstrict interpretationcharging sectionfiscal statutetaxation lawregistered personsuspended registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerned the levy of further tax under Section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, on M/s Rafhan Maize Products Co. Limited for supplies made during tax periods in 2013-2014. The core legal question was whether entities whose registration was suspended or blacklisted could be considered as persons who had "not obtained registration number" for the purpose of levying a 1% further tax. The Supreme Court, converting the petition into an appeal, allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that Section 3(1A) must be strictly interpreted, and only applies where a person has genuinely not obtained registration. It ruled that a person whose registration was merely suspended or blacklisted, but not cancelled, had indeed obtained registration, and therefore, the further tax under Section 3(1A) was not applicable to supplies made to such persons. The judgment emphasized the principle of strict construction for charging sections in fiscal statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Can an entity whose sales tax registration is suspended or blacklisted be treated as a person who has "not obtained registration number" under Section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Does Section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, apply to supplies made to persons who had obtained a registration number, but whose registration was subsequently suspended or blacklisted?
  • What is the proper interpretation of a charging section in a fiscal statute, particularly regarding the levy of further tax?
  • Is it permissible to apply an amendment to Section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, retroactively to tax periods prior to the amendment's enactment?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s R.P. Corporation (Pvt.) Limited, Syed Zaheer Hussain Naqvi vs Syed2025 IHC 34 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s R-SC Internet Services Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. through Assistant Manager2025 YLR 266 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-21Read full judgment →
• M/s PSRM (Pvt) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 SHC KHI 1927 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-17Read full judgment →
• M/s Porsche Middle East and Africa Fze vs M/s. Performance Automotive2025 SHC KHI 1515 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Payoneer Inc., through its authorized officer vs Federation of Pakistan2025 SCP 116, 2025 SCMR 952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-09
  writ jurisdictiontax noticeexhaustion of remediesnon-resident entitydouble taxation treatyshow-cause noticeintra court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by a non-resident entity, M/s Payoneer Inc. The petitioner challenged tax notices issued under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, asserting protection under a double taxation treaty and denying any digital presence in Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere with show-cause notices issued by tax authorities, or whether the petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies. The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a show-cause notice does not constitute an act without jurisdiction, and the petitioner is required to exhaust the efficacious statutory remedies provided within the revenue hierarchy of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner failed to file an Intra Court Appeal against the single-judge decision. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate when statutory forums are available to resolve tax disputes, and procedural hierarchies must be respected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere with the issuance of a show-cause notice by tax authorities?
  • Is a taxpayer required to exhaust statutory remedies within the revenue hierarchy before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the registration of a non-resident entity under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, constitute a coercive action justifying immediate judicial intervention?
  • Is an Intra Court Appeal a necessary procedural step before challenging a single-judge High Court decision in tax matters before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakmaco (Pvt) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan etc2025 LHC 4972 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Railways Advisory & Consultancy Services vs Al-Barka Islamic2025 LHC 2051 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan National Shipping Corporation & another vs Muhammad2025 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court
  contractual employmentsecond appealservice disputeworkman statusmisreading of evidencetermination of contractcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for salary arrears, benefits, and damages filed by a former contractual employee of the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent, as a contractual employee, was entitled to benefits reserved for permanent staff and whether the lower courts erred in their findings. The High Court held that the respondent was a contractual employee whose services automatically terminated upon the expiration of the contract. The Court found that the lower courts failed to properly interpret the contract terms, misread the evidence regarding the respondent's status, and erroneously granted claims without legal justification. The Court emphasized that contractual employees cannot claim permanent status or benefits as a matter of right. Furthermore, it reiterated that the High Court may interfere in a second appeal where lower fora have misread evidence or reached illegal conclusions. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and dismissed the suit, ruling that the respondent failed to establish entitlement to the claimed amounts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual employee claim permanent status or benefits reserved for permanent employees as a matter of right?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal if the lower courts misread the evidence?
  • What criteria determine whether an employee qualifies as a 'workman' for the purposes of the Sindh Payment of Wages Act 2015?
  • Do the services of a contractual employee automatically terminate upon the expiration of the contract term?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Fruit Juice Company Private Limited Regarding Deceptive2025 CLD 651 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• M/s Pak Telecom Mobile Limited, Islamabad vs Commissioner Inland2025 IHC 28 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• M/s Olympia Chemical Ltd. through Mr. Azhar Hussain Shamim General2025 LHC 2291 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
• M/s New Allied Electronics Industries (Private) Limited through its Chief2025 SHC KHI 2019 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Neutro Pharma Lahore (Pvt) Ltd. vs The State through Drug Inspector2025 PHC 150 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Mumtaz Ghani Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. & others vs Federation of Pakistan &2025 LHC 115, 2025 PLD Lahore 502 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-21Read full judgment →
• M/s Muhammad Faisal Prop, F.A. Traders, Lahore vs Commissioner Inland2025 SCP 85, PTCL 2025 CL. 603, 2025 SCMR 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-04
  limitationcondonation of delayincome tax referenceoffice objectionsvested rightspeaking orderremandunexplained incomeprovisional assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a civil petition for leave to appeal challenging an order of the Lahore High Court in an Income Tax Reference (ITR). The core legal question was whether the High Court erred by deciding the ITR on the merits without explicitly adjudicating a pending application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, where office objections had been removed after the statutory limitation period expired. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition and remanded the matter to the High Court, holding that limitation is not a mere technicality, as the expiry of limitation creates a vested right in favour of the opposing party that cannot be extinguished by implication. The Court laid down that failure to dispose of a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay vitiates the final decision. Consequently, the High Court was directed to pass a speaking order determining the mixed question of law and fact regarding limitation as a preliminary issue.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal or reference become time-barred if office objections are removed after the expiry of the statutory limitation period?
  • Can a court impliedly condone a delay in filing without passing an express, speaking order on a pending application for condonation of delay?
  • Does the non-disposal of a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 vitiate the final order passed on the merits?
  • Can a vested right created by the expiry of limitation be taken away by implication rather than through express statutory authorization?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Mehmood Brothers vs Yousuf Ali & others2025 SHC 218 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• M/s L'oreal Pakistan PSRM (Pvt) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and other2025 SHC KHI 1938, 2025 SHC KHI 1939 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-23Read full judgment →
• M/s Karamullah Construction Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr.2025 IHC 392 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Karachi Port Trust vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue2025 SHC KHI 2022 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
• M/s Jubilee Life Insurance Company Limited vs Office of the President of2025 IHC 360 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Global Pharmaceutical and others vs Assistant Commissioner Rural2025 IHC 452 · Islamabad High Court
  Payment of Wages Actdefinition of workmanmanagerial capacityjurisdiction of Authorityindustrial relationsmaster and servantwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses a set of writ petitions filed by M/s Global Pharmaceutical against orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, ICT, Islamabad, which allowed complaints for unpaid wages filed by former employees who held managerial or supervisory designations (Assistant Manager, Senior Sales Promotion Officer, and Admin Officer). The core legal question was whether employees holding such managerial, supervisory, or administrative positions fall within the definition of 'workman' or persons covered under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the Authority. The court held that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 applies only to persons engaged in skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical labour, and when read with the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, excludes individuals employed mainly in a managerial, administrative, or supervisory capacity. The court concluded that respondents No.3 did not qualify as workmen, and the Authority therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain their complaints. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee holding a managerial or administrative position falls within the definition of workman under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed by employees who are not engaged in manual or clerical labour?
  • How is the scope of 'person employed' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 interpreted in conjunction with the definition of workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s GHC International Pvt. Ltd (Engineers & COntractors), Peshawar vs2025 PHC 236 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s GB Security Services (Pvt) Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan and 42025 LHC 2854 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Frontier Foundry Steel (Pvt.) Ltd vs National Electric Power Regulatory2025 MLD 26 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-23Read full judgment →
• M/s Food Axis Pvt Ltd. and others vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2025 SHC KHI 2164, 2025 SHC KHI 2165, 2025 SHC KHI 2166 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Fly Dubai vs Syed Yawar Hussain2025 SHC KHI 1558 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• M/s Elite Screener vs M/s G-One Enterprises and others2025 SHC 204 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →
• M/s Ejaz Brothers vs Federation of Pakistan, National Tariff Commission etc2025 LHC 3058 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-06Read full judgment →
• M/s Dawat-E-Islami Trust vs The Land Acquisition Collector Islamabad2025 IHC 134 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Dandot Cement Company Limited vs Securities and Exchange2025 IHC 412 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Crescent Star Insurance Limited vs Eduljee Dinshaw (Private) Limited2025 SHC 386 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Chawala Footwear, Lahore vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore,2025 SCP 39, PTCL 2025 CL. 332, 2025 PTD 574, 2025 SCMR 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-14
  withholding taxSection 161Income Tax Ordinance 2000prescribed persontax defaultburden of prooftax referenceobjective test
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Association of Persons engaged in manufacturing footwear, filed an appeal against the opinion recorded by the Lahore High Court under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2000. The core legal question concerned the foundational requirements for initiating proceedings under Section 161 read with Section 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2000, specifically regarding whether the Revenue must possess objective information before issuing a notice for default in withholding tax. The Supreme Court held that to initiate proceedings under Section 161, the Revenue must possess objective reason or information that would satisfy a reasonable person that a failure to deduct tax occurred. Only after crossing this initial threshold and issuing a valid notice does the burden shift to the taxpayer to establish non-default. Upon examining the notice issued to the appellant, the Court found that it provided detailed transaction head breakdowns and specific discrepancy comparisons rather than being a fishing expedition. Finding the tax demand well-founded, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What threshold of objective information is required for the Revenue to initiate tax default proceedings under Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2000?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to a taxpayer to prove non-default only after the Revenue issues a notice satisfying objective criteria under Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2000?
  • Whether a notice under Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2000 is valid if it contains specific comparisons and breakdowns of declared versus verified purchases?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Chaudhary Steel Furnace vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Sialkot2025 SCP 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-22
  Sales Tax ActRectification of mistakeAppellate Tribunal Inland RevenueReference jurisdictionTax liabilityJurisdiction of Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a tax dispute where the petitioner sought to reopen a concluded appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue. After the Tribunal initially disposed of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for fixation and rectification to address an unanswered question of law. The Tribunal subsequently modified its original order in the petitioner's favor. The respondent challenged this in the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal's modification. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction under Section 57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, to re-adjudicate or substantively alter a previously disposed-of appeal under the guise of rectifying a mistake. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s action was unsustainable. The Court ruled that the power of rectification is strictly limited to correcting mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be utilized to enlarge the scope of the Tribunal's authority to render a new, independent decision. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's order, emphasizing that the Tribunal cannot act as an appellate forum over its own final orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power of rectification under Section 57 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 allow the Appellate Tribunal to re-adjudicate issues not decided in the original order?
  • Can the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue act as an appellate forum over its own previously disposed-of orders?
  • Is a fixation application a valid legal mechanism for an Appellate Tribunal to reopen a closed appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s CH. A. Latif & Sons [Private] Limited and others vs National Highway2025 IHC 368 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Azgard Nine Limited and others vs Government of Punjab, etc.2025 LHC 4809 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-12
  social security contributionminimum wagestatutory interpretationsubordinate legislationconstitutional petitionbenchmark wageProvincial Employee's Social Security Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of government notifications that mandated the computation of social security contributions based on minimum wages fixed under the Punjab Minimum Wage Act 2019, rather than the mechanism prescribed in the Provincial Employee's Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question was whether these notifications, by bypassing the statutory procedure for determining wage limits, were legally conformist. The Court held that the notifications were invalid to the extent they directed contribution computation based on external minimum wage rates, as this rendered Section 71 of the Ordinance redundant. The Court emphasized that the Ordinance provides a specific, mandatory mechanism for determining benchmark wages for contribution purposes. It rejected the argument that Rule 4(3) of the Provincial Employees Social Security (Contributions) Rules, 1966, could substitute this statutory requirement, affirming that subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute. The Court reiterated the principle that when the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be strictly followed, and judicial review cannot cure government inaction by validating illegal notifications.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Government mandate the computation of social security contributions based on minimum wages fixed under the Punjab Minimum Wage Act 2019?
  • Does Rule 4(3) of the Provincial Employees Social Security (Contributions) Rules, 1966, override the statutory mechanism for determining wage limits under Section 71 of the Provincial Employee's Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Is the determination of benchmark wages for social security contributions subject to the procedure prescribed in Section 71 of the Provincial Employee's Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Azgard Nine Limited and others vs Government of Punjab, etc2025 LHC 4809 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-12
  social security contributionminimum wagesbenchmark wagestatutory interpretationconstitutional petitionvires of notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses constitutional petitions challenging notifications issued regarding the revision of minimum wages and their application as a benchmark for computing contributions under the Provincial Employee's Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question is whether minimum wages fixed under the Punjab Minimum Wage Act 2019 can be directly imported and treated as the benchmark wage for computing social security contributions, bypassing the specific statutory mechanism provided under Section 71 of the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned notifications, to the extent they direct computation of contributions based on wage rates fixed outside the Ordinance, are nonconformist, invalid, and of no legal effect. The court laid down the principle that subordinate legislation and executive notifications cannot override the clear statutory mandate of a parent statute, and that contributions and wage limits under the Ordinance must strictly adhere to the mechanism prescribed under Section 71 of the Ordinance rather than being substituted by minimum wage determinations under separate enactments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minimum rates of wages fixed under the Punjab Minimum Wage Act 2019 can be treated as the benchmark wage for computing contributions under the Provincial Employee's Social Security Ordinance, 1965 without following Section 71 of the Ordinance?
  • Can executive notifications alter or override the statutory mechanism prescribed for determining wage limits and rates of contribution under Section 71 of the Provincial Employee's Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Does Rule 4(3) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security (Contributions) Rules, 1966 authorize the substitution of the wage determination process required under Section 71 of the parent Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Astral Constructions (Pvt.) Limited vs Province of Punjab, etc2025 LHC 2040 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• M/s Artistic Fabrics & Garments & Ors vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC KHI 2191, 2025 SHC KHI 2192, 2025 SHC KHI 2193, 2025 SHC KHI 2195, · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Ali Sher Traders vs Commissioner Inland Revenue etc2025 LHC 4279 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Ubaid Associates vs The Federation Of Pakistan, Through Secretary,2025 IHC 96 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Al-Qadir Seed Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. through its Director vs Federation2025 LHC 1188, 2025 PLJ Lahore 576 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Ados Pakistan Limited, Islamabad vs The Commissioner Inland2025 IHC 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• M/s 5H Insaat Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi vs Secretary etc.2025 LHC 3570 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-29
  writ petitionvested rightspublic procurementalternative dispute resolutionmandatory mediationarbitrationfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the validity of termination notices issued under a contract agreement for the improvement of the Water Supply System in Rawalpindi, and sought the release of mobilization advances and work commencement orders. The core legal questions involved the protection of vested rights of a winning bidder in a public contract, the availability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration, and the promotion of mandatory mediation in public-sector commercial disputes. The Lahore High Court held that the termination notices were illegal given the creation of vested rights in favor of the petitioner, and set them aside. Emphasizing a pro-mediation ethos and the importance of alternative dispute resolution supported by judicial precedent and statute, the Court referred the matter to the Secretary of the Local Government & Community Development Department to act as a neutral facilitator for mandatory mediation between the stakeholders. The key principle laid down is that courts must adopt a pro-mediation bias to resolve commercial and public interest disputes efficiently and amicably before resorting to adversarial litigation or arbitration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution with termination notices issued under a public works contract when vested rights have been created in favor of a winning bidder?
  • Can disputes arising from a public infrastructure contract containing arbitration clauses be referred to mandatory mediation by the court?
  • What is the statutory role and responsibility of a departmental Secretary under the Punjab Government Rules of Business 2011 in facilitating amicable dispute resolution?
  • Whether delay in executing public welfare and foreign-funded infrastructure projects violates fundamental rights to trade and business under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzammal Khan vs Inspector General of Police, Lahore and others2025 SCP 34, 2025 PLJ SC 145, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 767, 2025 PLJ SC 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-04
  Dismissal from serviceWillful absence from dutyDisciplinary proceedingsRegular inquiryService appealProportionality of punishmentArticle 212(3) ConstitutionSubstantial question of lawService Tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition challenged a judgment by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service. The petitioner, a police officer, was dismissed for willful absence from duty from October 2017 to March 2018, claiming he lost his passport abroad. He argued that his absence was not willful and that dismissal was harsh, especially without a regular inquiry. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a regular inquiry is not required when absence from duty is an admitted fact. The Court emphasized that government officers, particularly in disciplinary forces, are responsible for adhering to leave rules and informing authorities of their whereabouts. The petitioner's failure to appear in departmental proceedings, appeal, and revision demonstrated a disregard for the process. The Court reiterated that the Service Tribunal is the final forum for factual determination and punishment modification, and no substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution arose to warrant interference with the impugned judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular inquiry necessary in disciplinary proceedings when a government officer admits to absence from duty?
  • Can a government officer's dismissal for willful absence be challenged on the grounds that the punishment is harsh, particularly when the officer failed to participate in departmental proceedings?
  • What constitutes 'willful absence' from duty for a government officer?
  • Under what circumstances does the Supreme Court exercise its jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution in service matters?
  • Is the Service Tribunal the final forum for the determination of facts and modification of punishment in service appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzafar Ali & others vs Government of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2140 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-19Read full judgment →
• Mustajab vs The State2025 IHC 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-28
  narcotic possessionchain of custodycriminal appealreasonable doubtinvestigating officer biasforensic report contradictionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 3100 Ecstasy pills. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery and possession of the narcotics beyond reasonable doubt. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing multiple fatal infirmities. Specifically, the Court noted that the complainant and the investigating officer were the same person, creating a risk of bias. Furthermore, the Court identified significant gaps in the chain of custody regarding the transmission of samples to the forensic laboratory and the subsequent handling of case property. Additionally, material contradictions existed between the recovery memos and the forensic reports regarding the quantity of pills recovered. Emphasizing the principle that any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, ruling that the prosecution's failure to maintain a secure chain of custody and the presence of material contradictions rendered the conviction unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the identity of the complainant and the investigating officer as the same person create a risk of bias in a criminal trial?
  • Can material contradictions between recovery memos and forensic reports regarding the quantity of narcotics recovered lead to the acquittal of an accused?
  • Is the failure to prove the chain of custody of narcotics from the time of recovery to the forensic analysis a ground for acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mustafa & another vs Afzal Kothari2025 SHC 380 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq and others vs Mst. Fatima and others2025 SCP 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-31
  dower recoverykabinnamafamily courtsattesting witnessconstitutional jurisdictioncertiorariburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside concurrent dismissals of a family suit for the recovery of dower and allowed the plaintiff's claim. The core legal questions concern whether a dower deed (kabinnama) can be proved by a single attesting witness in family court proceedings, and whether the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction is empowered to overturn concurrent findings of lower courts based on misinterpretation of law. The Supreme Court held that Family Courts are exempt from the strict evidentiary standards of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 under Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, meaning the testimony of one attesting witness coupled with corroboratory evidence sufficiently proves a dower deed. Furthermore, the High Court correctly exercised its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 to correct an error of law apparent on the face of the record resulting from the lower courts' misapplication of statutory provisions. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dower deed be legally proved by producing a single attesting witness in proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Are Family Courts bound by the strict evidentiary requirements of Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Whether the High Court is competent to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of lower courts based on a misinterpretation of law?
  • What is the legal presumption regarding the specified amount of dower once the execution of a dower deed is duly proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed vs The State2025 SCP 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-18
  benefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedindependent corroborationmurder convictionjail petitionpostmortem delayappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the conviction of the petitioner, Mushtaq Ahmed, for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, while commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be convicted on the same evidence that led to the acquittal of his co-accused, Ali Raza and Liaqat Ali, whose acquittal had attained finality. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution evidence, which was disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused, lacked independent corroboration to sustain the petitioner's conviction. Furthermore, the Court noted significant delays in the postmortem examination and unnatural conduct of the prosecution witnesses, which cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court held that it is unsafe to convict an accused based on evidence already disbelieved against co-accused without independent corroboration. The Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, acquitted the petitioner by extending the benefit of doubt, and ordered his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted on the same prosecution evidence that has already been disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting a postmortem examination create doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the conviction of an accused sustainable when the evidence against him is identical to that of co-accused who were acquitted by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 SHC KHI 1992 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-31Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed and another vs The Government of Balochistan, Labour2025 PLC 20 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-10
  trade union registrationautonomous bodyservice associationscancellation of uniongovernment servants conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by the office-bearers of the Lasbela Industrial Estate Development Authority (LIEDA) Employees Union challenging the cancellation of their union's registration by the Registrar, Trade Unions Balochistan. The core legal question was whether employees of autonomous bodies and semi-government departments, such as LIEDA, which are governed by the Balochistan Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1979, are legally entitled to form and maintain trade unions. The Balochistan High Court held that in view of prior binding judgments of the Court and the applicability of the 1979 Rules, employees of government, semi-government departments, and autonomous bodies cannot form trade unions. The Court established the principle that trade unions formed by employees of such entities are illegal and liable to be de-registered, and upheld the cancellation order passed by the Registrar, Trade Unions Balochistan as lawful.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of autonomous bodies governed by the Balochistan Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1979 entitled to form trade unions?
  • Does the Registrar of Trade Unions have the authority to cancel the registration of trade unions formed by employees of government and semi-government departments?
  • What are the limitations imposed on government servants regarding the membership of service associations under Rule 30 of the Balochistan Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Govt. of K.P,K and others2025 PHC 112 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad and others vs Mst. Pass Bibi and others2025 PHC 106 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad and another vs Saiqa Ch., etc2025 LHC 4649 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-12Read full judgment →
• Musawer Ahmed son of Israr Ahmed vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1650 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30
  cognizance of offencepolice report under section 173 Cr.P.C.public prosecutor scrutiny notecontrol of narcotic substancesrecovery of narcoticsalteration of chargesquashing of orderhomicide by drug overdose
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Sections 9 and 16 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and forwarding the case to the Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate can alter penal sections in a positive police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, upon the scrutiny note of a Public Prosecutor, and whether narcotic offences are attracted in the absence of any recovery or seizure. The High Court held that while a Magistrate can take cognizance of graver offences based on material and a prosecutor's scrutiny note, the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 cannot be invoked without proof of recovery, possession, or trafficking. The court laid down the principle that mere forensic detection of drugs in a victim's bloodstream does not establish an offence under Section 9 or 16 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 without independent evidence of possession or narcotics-related conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Judicial Magistrate alter the penal sections proposed in a positive police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Whether the provisions of Sections 9 and 16 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be invoked solely on the basis of forensic detection of drugs in a deceased person's body without any recovery from the accused?
  • What is the evidentiary weight and legal effect of a District Public Prosecutor's scrutiny note under Section 9 of the Sindh Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2009?
  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to transmit a case directly to the Court of Session upon taking cognizance under graver penal provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Musa Khan etc vs The State etc2025 PHC 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• Murtaza a Hassan vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Enforcement II2025 PTD (Trib.) 292 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-08-29Read full judgment →
• Murad Khan etc vs Mst. Humaira Qayyum etc2025 SCP 93, 2025 SCMR 739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-17
  writ jurisdictionjudicial reviewwrit of certiorariremandfamily lawmaintenancesubstitution of findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenges a Peshawar High Court judgment in a family law dispute concerning maintenance and the recovery of gold ornaments. The core legal question was whether the High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, is empowered to substitute its own findings of fact for those of a subordinate appellate court, or whether it must remand the matter for reconsideration. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court correctly identified that the lower court's findings were based on insufficient evidence, it erred by substituting its own findings for those of the subordinate court. The Court affirmed that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, does not act as an appellate court and should not usurp the functions of subordinate tribunals. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's substituted findings and remanded the case to the appellate court for a fresh decision. The key principle established is that upon finding jurisdictional errors or misreading of evidence, the High Court should remand the matter rather than substitute its own factual determinations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, substitute its own findings of fact for those of a subordinate court or tribunal?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for the High Court when it finds that a subordinate court's decision is based on a misreading of evidence?
  • Does the High Court act as a court of appeal when issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Murad Ali vs Shah Jehan & Others2025 PHC 258 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-09-08Read full judgment →
• Munnza Bibi vs Government of Punjab, etc2025 LHC 518 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-25
  civil servanttransfer orderconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunalterms and conditions of serviceexhaustion of remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant serving as a Headmistress, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenging her transfer order. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a constitutional petition by a civil servant regarding matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, specifically a transfer, in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that transfer forms part of the terms and conditions of a civil servant under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and matters relating thereto fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant cannot bypass the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court, and litigants must exhaust statutory departmental and tribunal remedies available under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution in respect of a transfer order of a civil servant?
  • Does a transfer order fall within the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • What is the effect of Article 212 of the Constitution on the jurisdiction of High Courts in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants?
  • Must a civil servant exhaust departmental remedies and approach the Service Tribunal instead of filing a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed, etc vs District Judge, Attock, etc2025 LHC 4882 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-04Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad Chishti vs Federation of Pakistan2025 LHC 3070 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-13
  proforma promotionservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petitioncivil servantterms and conditions of servicewrit of mandamusadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a retired civil servant seeking a writ of mandamus for proforma promotion to BS-22, alleging that administrative delays prevented his timely consideration. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding service terms and conditions, specifically claims for proforma promotion, given the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it was not maintainable. It ruled that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate service-related matters, as Article 212 of the Constitution bars such proceedings where the Service Tribunal has exclusive authority, except in cases specifically determining "fitness" under section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court affirmed that the power to grant proforma promotion is an administrative discretion of the appointing authority, and the High Court cannot assume the functions of such authority or intervene in matters falling within the Tribunal's exclusive domain.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding proforma promotion for a civil servant under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is a claim for proforma promotion a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can the High Court assume the functions of an appointing authority to grant proforma promotion to a retired civil servant?
  • Does the proviso to section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, exclude the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal in matters of proforma promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad Bhatti vs Mehmood Ahmad Tahir Bhatti and another2025 LHC 3300 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-14Read full judgment →
• Munibah Qureshi vs National University of Science & Technology (NUST)2025 IHC 406 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muneer Ahmed Tunio vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC 418 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-14
  seniority determinationsurplus employeeabsorptionwrit jurisdictionProvincial Ombudsmancivil servant statusservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order determining the seniority of the petitioner, an employee absorbed into the Provincial Ombudsman Secretariat following the dissolution of the Sindh Arid Zone Development Authority. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, given the petitioner's status, and how the petitioner's seniority should be calculated. The Court held that because the petitioner was governed by the Provincial Ombudsman (Employees) Service Rules 1997, he did not fall under the definition of a "civil servant" under the Sindh Services Tribunal Act 1973, rendering the petition maintainable. On merits, the Court ruled that the seniority of a surplus employee absorbed into a new cadre must be reckoned from the date of their appointment in that cadre, pursuant to Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules 1974. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned seniority list and directed the respondents to revise the petitioner's seniority based on his 2004 absorption date.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have writ jurisdiction over employees of the Provincial Ombudsman Secretariat?
  • Is an employee of the Provincial Ombudsman Secretariat a civil servant under the Sindh Services Tribunal Act 1973?
  • From what date is the seniority of a surplus employee absorbed into a new cadre reckoned?
  • Can a department reject a representation regarding seniority through a non-speaking order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muneeb Butt vs Faiq Ali Jagirani2025 SHC KHI 1867 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-15Read full judgment →
• Munawar Khan vs The Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary2025 PLD Balochistan 25 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-17Read full judgment →
• Munawar Khan etc vs Sheikh Fazal Ur Rehman etc2025 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain son of Ghulam Qadir Rajpar and others vs The State2025 SHC HYD 2167, 2025 SHC HYD 2168, 2025 SHC HYD 2169 · Sindh High Court
  criminal appealpolice negligencefair trialSection 342 CrPCbenefit of doubtadverse inferencenon-supply of documentsSection 265-C CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated criminal appeals challenging the convictions of police officials under Section 223 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for negligence resulting in the escape of under-trial prisoners. The core legal questions were whether the trial court’s reliance on an unsupplied inquiry report and the failure to confront the accused with incriminating evidence violated the right to a fair trial, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the trial court committed grave procedural errors by relying on an inquiry report that was neither supplied to the accused under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 nor confronted during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the prosecution’s case suffered from material contradictions and the unjustified withholding of key witnesses. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment affirms that any incriminating material not confronted to an accused cannot be used for conviction, and that failure to supply mandatory documents violates the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court rely on an incriminating inquiry report that was not supplied to the accused under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to confront an accused with incriminating evidence during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to examine material witnesses in a criminal trial?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution evidence contains material contradictions regarding the presence of duty officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Naz and another vs Azad Government of The State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 11 others2025 MLD 504 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali s/o Qadir Bux vs The State2025 SHC 258 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-12
  criminal appealidentification testcommon intentionpolice encounterterrorismrobberyevidentiary valueminor contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for robbery, firing upon police officials, and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of an identification test conducted after the appellant's arrest in a separate case, the impact of minor contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, and the applicability of common intention under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence. It affirmed that the identification test was conducted in accordance with established judicial guidelines, effectively corroborating the witnesses' testimonies. The Court ruled that minor discrepancies in evidence do not undermine the prosecution's case when the overall testimony is confidence-inspiring and consistent. Furthermore, it affirmed that under the principle of common intention, participants in a criminal act are liable for the resulting consequences regardless of who specifically fired the weapon. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences were maintained, finding no merit in the appellant's claims of false implication or mistaken identity.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification test conducted after an accused's arrest in a separate case hold evidentiary value?
  • Can minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses invalidate a conviction?
  • Is an accused liable for a criminal act committed by accomplices under the principle of common intention?
  • What are the legal requirements for a valid identification test to corroborate witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmed, Registrar B-17, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribuna_83e4c6c72025 PLJ AJ&K 106 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  judicial allowanceservice tribunalwrit of mandamusquasi-judicialparitycivil servantsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, permanent employees of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal, filed a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974, seeking a mandamus to direct the government to grant them three-time judicial allowance, utility allowance, and transport allowance. They argued that because the Service Tribunal is deemed a Civil Court under Section 5 of the Service Tribunal Act 1975 and performs judicial functions, they should be treated at par with the employees of the High Court and Supreme Court. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition, holding that the Service Tribunal is a special quasi-judicial administrative tribunal established under Article 47 of the Constitution, not a court of law in the strict sense. The court ruled that statutory provisions deeming a tribunal to be a civil court for limited procedural purposes do not elevate its constitutional status to that of a court. Furthermore, the court reiterated that the principle of parity with Pakistan's federal or provincial governments does not have the force of law in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statutory provision deeming an administrative tribunal to be a civil court for procedural purposes elevate its status to a court of law for the purpose of employee allowances?
  • Can the employees of a quasi-judicial service tribunal claim equal treatment and parity in allowances with the establishment of the High Court or Supreme Court?
  • Does the principle of parity with the federal or provincial governments of Pakistan have the force of law for determining the allowances of civil servants in Azad Jammu and Kashmir?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmad vs Amjad Niaz Abbasi And Others2025 LHC 1046, 2025 PLJ Lahore 597 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-10Read full judgment →
• Mumraiz Khan vs Abdul Manan Abbasi and another2025 YLR 711 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-08Read full judgment →
• Multi Professional Co-Operative Housing Society vs M/s Ageco Private2025 IHC 390 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ali Chandio and others vs The State and others2025 YLR 622 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-09
  post-arrest bailstatutory baildelay in trialNational Accountability Ordinance 1999fundamental rightsfair trialwhite-collar crime
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail in corruption references, contending they were entitled to relief under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, due to statutory delay. The core legal question was whether the accused, having been incarcerated for over 18 months without the trial concluding, were entitled to bail as a matter of right. The court held that the applicants were entitled to statutory bail, as they satisfied all conditions of the third proviso: they were not accused of an offense punishable by death, had been detained for over one year, and were not hardened criminals. The court ruled that statutory bail based on delay is a right, not a discretionary relief, and cannot be defeated by the heinous nature of the offense. It emphasized that the right to a fair and expeditious trial is a fundamental constitutional guarantee. Consequently, the court granted bail, noting that the prosecution's failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time, for no fault of the accused, necessitated the release of the applicants to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a matter of right or judicial discretion?
  • Does the heinous nature of an offense under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 justify denying statutory bail when the trial is delayed?
  • Can an accused be granted bail on statutory grounds if the delay in the trial is not attributable to the accused?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ahmed son of Muhammad Ismaeel bycaste Channa vs Province2025 SHC SUK 1667, 2025 SHC SUK 1679, 2025 SHC SUK 1680 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar & Yousif @ Younis, Ghulam Ali son of Ghulam Nabi vs The State2025 SHC SUK 178 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-27
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailattempted rapeevidentiary gapsmedical evidenceSection 164 statementcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of attempted rape. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the inconsistencies between the FIR and the subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the lack of medical evidence, and the delay in investigation. The Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary gaps, specifically the absence of medical examination of the victim and the delayed recording of the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which introduced new allegations not present in the FIR. Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of DNA evidence. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail for two applicants and granted post-arrest bail to the third applicant. The key principle laid down is that where there is a lack of medical evidence to support allegations of sexual assault and significant discrepancies exist between the FIR and subsequent statements, the prosecution's case becomes doubtful, warranting the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of medical examination in an alleged rape case create sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of bail?
  • Can a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to introduce new allegations not present in the initial FIR?
  • Is bail appropriate when there is a significant delay in the investigation and a lack of forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs The State2025 YLR 688 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-30
  murdercriminal appealabsconsionacquittal of co-accusedeyewitness testimonynon-examination of witnessdelay in FIRbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one deceased and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case despite the non-examination of the medical officer and investigating officer, whether the appellant could benefit from the acquittal of co-accused, and whether long-standing absconsion affects the credibility of the defense and recovery of crime weapons. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through trustworthy eyewitness testimony, that the non-examination of the retired officers was justified due to the appellant's 24-year absconsion, and that the acquittal of co-accused with distinguishable roles did not benefit the appellant. The court affirmed the conviction, laying down principles regarding the evaluation of quality versus quantity of evidence, the legal effect of long-term absconsion, and the irrelevance of a co-accused's acquittal when distinct active roles are attributed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to examine the medical officer and investigating officer who have retired and become untraceable is fatal to the case when the accused remained an absconder for a long period?
  • Can an accused claim the benefit of the acquittal of co-accused persons when specific and distinguishable active roles are attributed to the appellant?
  • Does long-standing absconsion by an accused person defeat the adverse inference drawn from the non-recovery of a crime weapon?
  • Whether related witnesses can be disbelieved solely on the ground of their relationship to the deceased in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ziafat vs Tariq Nawaz Khan & others2025 PHC 282 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zareef Ahmed vs Muhammad Rizwan Tahir Satti etc2025 IHC 444 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-25
  criminal appealmisreading of evidencenon-reading of evidenceappellate court judgmentcriminal breach of trustremandacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an appellate court judgment that acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 408 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, overturning their conviction by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the appellate court’s judgment was legally sustainable, given allegations of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The High Court held that the appellate judgment was flawed because it failed to evaluate the entire prosecution evidence, focusing only on a limited portion while ignoring numerous witnesses and documents. The court emphasized that an appellate judgment must contain specific points for determination, reasoned decisions, and a comprehensive survey of the factual and evidentiary aspects of the case. By failing to provide such reasoning and ignoring substantial evidence, the appellate court committed a legal error. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the matter for a fresh decision by the appellate court, ensuring the appeal is heard in accordance with the law and established judicial principles regarding the proper disposal of criminal appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate court judgment legally sustainable if it fails to discuss the majority of the prosecution evidence?
  • Does an appellate court have a legal obligation to frame points for determination and provide reasons for its decision in a criminal appeal?
  • What is the appropriate remedy when an appellate court judgment is found to be the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs State and another2025 PHC 188 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-09Read full judgment →