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. Ary Communications Limited vs Abdul Qadir Shaikh, Commissioner2024 SHC 1418 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Al-Madina Dying & Finishing, Faisalabad vs Cir, Lyallpur Zone, Rto,PTCL 2024 CL. 192 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
• M/s. Adam Sugar Mills Limited, Karachi vs The Appellate Tribunal I.R. of Pak.2024 SHC 1002 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-02Read full judgment →
• M/s. A.a Foods (Private) Limited, District Jhelum, Pakistan and others vs2024 PLJ AJ&K 31 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• M/s Zahra Communications (Pvt) Ltd vs M/s National Telecommunication2024 SHC 914 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Z a Corporation vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 LHC 4073, 2025 PLD Lahore 200, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 476 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-01
  territorial jurisdictionquo warrantowrit petitionpublic officeNational Tariff Commissionmaintainabilitydominant object
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the appointment of respondent No.3 as a Member and Chairman of the National Tariff Commission (NTC) in Islamabad, along with an order passed under section 63 of the Anti Dumping Duties Act, 2015. The core legal question concerns the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court to entertain a writ of quo warranto against a federal officeholder stationed and performing duties outside its territorial jurisdiction. The court held that under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, a petition for quo warranto is only maintainable if the person holding or purporting to hold the public office does so within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Consequently, finding that respondent No.3 holds office in Islamabad and the dominant object of the petition relates to an authority outside its jurisdiction, the Lahore High Court returned the petition for presentation before the Islamabad High Court. The key principle laid down is that for a writ of quo warranto, the respondent must hold the public office within the territorial jurisdiction of the specific High Court whose jurisdiction is invoked.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Lahore High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ of quo warranto against a federal officeholder stationed and performing functions in Islamabad?
  • Does Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 require the person holding a public office to be within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court where a petition for quo warranto is filed?
  • What is the test for determining territorial jurisdiction when a constitutional petition involves multiple challenges including notifications issued at the federal capital?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited vs The Cir, Lto,2024 ATIR 4 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• M/s United Energy Pakistan Beta GmbH vs Ghulam Muhammad2024 SHC 240 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Team Packages and others vs MCB Bank Limited2024 LHC 2677, 2024 CLD 839 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Tanveer Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (in C.P.L.a 1422-L/2021) M/s Tanveer2024 SCP 219, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 830, 2024 CLD 1032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-28
  winding-up orderofficial liquidatorresiduary powers of directorslocus standiperson aggrievedcompanies actappeal against winding-up
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed under Section 6(14) of the Companies Act 2017 against a Lahore High Court Company Bench judgment ordering the winding-up of the petitioner-companies and appointing official liquidators. A preliminary objection was raised regarding whether a company ordered to be wound up can maintain an appeal in its name through its board of directors or chief executive, given the liquidator's appointment. The Supreme Court appointed amici curiae to examine the issue. Holding that a company is an aggrieved person under Section 6(1) of the Companies Act 2017, the Court decided that the right to challenge a winding-up order vests in the company through its board of directors exercising residuary powers, as the liquidator becomes functus officio regarding the winding-up order itself and cannot challenge the very order constituting their authority. The Court established that directors retain the residuary power to authorize representation to protect the company's existence, treating an appeal as a continuation of original proceedings, and rejected the preliminary objection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a company that has been ordered to be wound up can challenge the winding-up order in its name through its board of directors or the chief executive officer?
  • Does the appointment of an official liquidator deprive the board of directors of its residuary powers to file an appeal against the winding-up order?
  • Whether an appeal against a winding-up order is considered a continuation of the original winding-up proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Taj Wood Board Mills (Pvt) Limited and others vs Government of2024 SCP 174, 2024 SCMR 1347, 2024 PTD 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-17
  merged districtsFATA and PATAtax exemptiondiscriminatory treatmentequality of citizenscustoms general orderfiscal laws
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, private manufacturing companies located in the erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas, challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding the applicability of fiscal and tax regimes following the constitutional merger of these areas through the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act. The core legal question concerned whether the preferential treatment in clearance and transhipment of imported goods granted exclusively to bulk-importing edible oil manufacturers under Customs General Order No. 8 of 2021 violated the right to equality by discriminating against other similarly situated businesses in the region. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them, holding that creating sub-classifications among businesses located in the Merged Districts without an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object of the exemption violates Article 25 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that executive circulars or statutory provisions cannot create arbitrary sub-categories or discriminate among businesses entitled to regional fiscal exemptions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Board of Revenue can create sub-classifications among businesses in the Merged Districts for the application of clearance and transhipment procedures?
  • Does the exclusion or preferential treatment of specific industries within the former tribal areas violate the equality clause enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether an executive circular or Customs General Order can introduce a parallel audit system when specific provisions already exist under the Income Tax Ordinance and Sales Tax Act?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Strengthening Participatory Organization Employees Contributory2024 ATIR 6 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2024-09-09Read full judgment →
• M/s Strawberry Sports Management (Private) Limited through its Chief2024 IHC 218, 2025 CLD 15 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-30
  Competition Commission of Pakistanabuse of dominant positionappealable orderright to hearingregulatory discretionnatural justiceconstitutional petitionCompetition Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an inquiry report and related communications issued by the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP), which concluded that no violation of the Competition Act, 2010 had occurred regarding an alleged abuse of dominant position by the Pakistan Hockey Federation. The petitioner contended that the CCP's refusal to initiate regulatory proceedings was an appealable order and that the failure to grant a full hearing violated Article 10A of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the CCP's preliminary opinion under Section 37 of the Competition Act, 2010, regarding whether to initiate regulatory proceedings, does not constitute an appealable order under Section 41 of the Act. The Court further clarified that the CCP is not required to conduct a full adjudicatory hearing at the initial inquiry stage, as its function at that point is regulatory and not quasi-judicial. The principle laid down is that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be implied, and that regulatory bodies are not required to provide formal adjudicatory hearings when forming preliminary opinions on whether to initiate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inquiry report or opinion formed by the Competition Commission of Pakistan under Section 37 of the Competition Act, 2010 constitute an appealable order under Section 41 of the Act?
  • Is the Competition Commission of Pakistan required to conduct a formal adjudicatory hearing before deciding not to initiate regulatory proceedings under Section 30 of the Competition Act, 2010?
  • Can a right of appeal be implied in a statute where it is not explicitly provided?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Staco Shahid Builders Joint Venture (JV). vs Lahore Cantonment2024 LHC 3838, 2024 PLJ Lahore 880, 2025 CLC 95, 2025 CLD 138 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Sprint Oil and Gas Services, FZC vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Cto, Islamabad2024 ATIR 5 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2024-07-08Read full judgment →
• M/s Saeed Buksh (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Mst. Azra Bibi2024 LHC 889, 2024 PLJ Lahore 333 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
• M/s Sadiq Poultry (Private) Limited vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2024 LHC 4698, 2025 CLD 90 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-09Read full judgment →
• M/s Sadat Business Group Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan2024 SHC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-13Read full judgment →
• M/s S.M. Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. & others vs Deceased Muhammad Mohsin2024 SHC 294, 2024 CLD 1407 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-08Read full judgment →
• Nadir Hussain S/o Abdul Latif Bhangar vs The State2024 SHC 752, 2025 YLR 487 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-10
  narcotic substanceschain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalsafe transmission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the possession of 21,000 grams of Bhang (Hemp) under Section 9(d) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the recovered narcotic samples and whether the conviction could be sustained despite material contradictions in witness testimony. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of the narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner, noting an unexplained four-day delay in the malkhana and the failure to examine the official responsible for the delivery. Furthermore, the court identified material contradictions regarding the incident's details between the complainant and the mashir. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any break or gap in the chain of custody renders the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the transmission of narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner render the prosecution's case unreliable?
  • Is the failure to examine the official responsible for transporting narcotic samples a fatal defect in the chain of custody?
  • Can material contradictions between the complainant and the recovery witness regarding the incident's details justify the acquittal of an accused?
  • Must the prosecution prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples to rely on a Chemical Examiner's report for conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Rafi Cotton Industries (Pvt). Ltd. etc vs Bank Al-Habib, etc2024 LHC 4800, 2025 CLD 517 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-22Read full judgment →
• M/s Rafhan Maize Products Co. Ltd vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland2024 LHC 4532, 2024 PLJ Lahore 846 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-15Read full judgment →
• M/s Radiant Medical (Private) Limited vs The Federal Board of Revenue2024 LHC 2795, 2024 LHC 2714, 2024 PTD 1017 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-03Read full judgment →
• M/s R-SC Internet Services Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Assistant Manager2024 YLR 2808 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
• M/s Popular Sugar Mills Ltd vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2024 SHC 870 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-15Read full judgment →
• M/s Phipsons Company (Pvt.) Limited vs Zahid Moyeen etc2024 LHC 3422, 2024 PLJ Lahore 652 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-11Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through its Director (Budget &2024 IHC 280, PTCL 2025 CL. 99 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Chemical & Energy Sector vs Rab Nawaz and others2024 SHC 374, 2025 PLC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-02
  labor appellate tribunaltermination of servicecommercial establishmentback benefitspermanent employmentconstitutional petitiongrievance application
  Summary & questions settled

  In this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner-employer challenged the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal's judgment which had set aside the Labour Court's decision and reinstated the respondent employees with back benefits. The core legal questions involved whether the termination of permanent employees through a notice abolishing yearly permanent employment policies complied with labor laws, and whether the educational establishment operated on a commercial basis under the relevant provincial legislation. The Sindh High Court held that the termination was illegal and violated Standing Order 16(3) of the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act 2015 because it failed to explicitly state valid reasons in writing, and that the petitioner's Technical Training College constituted a commercial establishment due to fee collection. The ratio is that termination of permanent workers without a reasoned written order complying with statutory safeguards is void, and educational institutions operating with revenue streams fall within commercial establishments. The key principles laid down include the absolute prohibition of arbitrary or verbal terminations in labor law, the necessity of procedural fairness, and the binding nature of statutory written termination requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the termination of a permanent employee without an explicit written order detailing reasons violates the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act 2015?
  • Does an educational institution charging fees qualify as a commercial establishment under labor laws?
  • Can an employer unilaterally abolish a policy of permanent employment to force yearly contracts upon confirmed workers?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Beverages Limited vs Muhammad Afzal and others2024 SHC 264, 2025 PLC 73 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-25
  certiorariindustrial relationspermanent workmandaily wage workerstermination of servicestanding orders ordinanceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by M/s Pakistan Beverages Limited against the orders of the Full Bench and Single Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which had ordered the reinstatement of private respondents with back benefits. The core legal question revolved around whether casual or daily-wage workers, whose services were terminated within a few months, could be classified as permanent workmen entitled to reinstatement and statutory protections under labor laws. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of the NIRC forums were based on guesswork, misreading of evidence, and perversity, as the record showed the respondents were casual workers employed for less than the statutory nine-month threshold required under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court laid down the principle that temporary or casual workers engaged for a period under nine months do not attain the status of permanent workmen, and employers are entitled to terminate their services without notice under Section 12 of the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether casual or daily-wage workers employed for less than nine months can be classified as permanent workmen under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can an employer terminate the services of a temporary or casual worker without notice under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has the jurisdiction to grant reinstatement to casual workers who fail to prove continuous service exceeding the statutory period?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Pak Telecom Mobile Limited vs Muhammad Atif Bilal and others2024 SCP 78, 2024 SCMR 719, 2024 PLC 130, 2025 PLJ SC 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-26
  trans-provincial establishmentworkman statusburden of proofgrievance petitionindustrial disputereinstatementNational Industrial Relations Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged concurrent decisions of the National Industrial Relations Commission and the Islamabad High Court, which had ordered the reinstatement of the respondent. The core legal questions concerned the competent forum for individual grievances in trans-provincial establishments, the interpretation of the term 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and the burden of proof regarding such status. The Supreme Court held that the National Industrial Relations Commission is the competent forum for such grievances under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. However, the Court ruled that a claimant must satisfy the definition of 'workman' under both the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 to maintain a claim for reinstatement. The key principle laid down is that the initial burden of proof rests entirely on the claimant to demonstrate, through evidence, that their duties were manual or clerical and not managerial or administrative. As the respondent failed to discharge this burden, the petition was allowed and the lower orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Which forum is competent to adjudicate individual grievances of workers in trans-provincial establishments?
  • Does the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 differ from the definition under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the claimant to establish their status as a 'workman' in a grievance petition?
  • Can a worker seek reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 without proving their status as a 'workman' under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Options International (SMC-Pvt.) Ltd through its CEO vs The2024 SCP 260, 2024 CLD 1221, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-07
  Competition Acttrademark infringementunfair competitionCompetition Commission of Pakistanstatutory penaltiesmarket distortion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under section 44 of the Competition Act, 2010, challenging a judgment by the Competition Appellate Tribunal. The appellant, M/s Options International (SMC-Pvt.) Ltd., had been penalized by the Competition Commission of Pakistan for using the trademarked name and logo of Starbucks Corporation USA without authorization. The Tribunal had upheld the finding of violation while modifying the penalty structure. The core legal question was whether the Competition Act, 2010 applies to an undertaking using a foreign brand's trademark when that brand has no physical presence or authorized outlets in Pakistan. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the unauthorized use of a well-known international brand name and logo distorts competition within Pakistan. The Court reasoned that such conduct places local competitors at a disadvantage because the public is misled into believing the products are genuine, thereby creating an unfair market environment. The Court affirmed that the Commission possesses the statutory authority under section 38 of the Competition Act, 2010 to impose penalties for such anti-competitive practices.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Competition Act, 2010 apply to an undertaking using a foreign brand's trademark when that brand has no physical presence in Pakistan?
  • Does the unauthorized use of a foreign brand's name and logo by a local entity constitute a distortion of competition within Pakistan?
  • Does the Competition Commission of Pakistan have the statutory authority to impose penalties for anti-competitive practices under the Competition Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Northern Enterprises and another vs Federation of Pakistan and2024 IHC 136 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Nippon Paint Pakistan (Private) Limited for Deceptive Marketing2024 CLD 1292 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2024-08-16Read full judgment →
• M/s Mughals Pakistan (Pvt) Limited vs Employees Old Age Benefits2024 SCP 391, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 1, 2025 CLD 150, 2025 PLJ SC 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-06
  Alternative Dispute ResolutionMediationArbitration ActAccess to JusticePro-mediation biasCase backlogCourt-annexed mediationSingapore Convention on Mediation
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant appeals arose from disputes between a private construction company and the Employees Old Age Benefits Institution regarding a construction project, which led to arbitration proceedings, an arbitral award made the Rule of Court, and a subsequent reversal by the High Court. During the hearing, the Supreme Court suggested mediation, and the parties eventually agreed to refer their dispute to mediation. The core legal question addressed the promotion and integration of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly mediation, within the judicial system to combat chronic case pendency and delays. The court held that courts should exhibit a pro-mediation bias and actively utilize the statutory framework for alternative dispute resolution to facilitate amicable settlements. The key principle laid down is that mediation is a crucial, complementary component of the justice system ensuring timely access to justice, preserving relationships, and reducing the immense backlog of pending cases in Pakistan's courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether courts should exhibit a pro-mediation bias to encourage out-of-court settlements?
  • Can pending appeals be referred to mediation or alternative dispute resolution with the consent of the parties?
  • What is the scope of mediation and alternative dispute resolution under the existing legislative framework in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Millennium Mall Management Co. vs Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1, PTCL 2024 CL. 538, 2025 PLD Sindh 187 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-06Read full judgment →
• M/s Mezan Tea (Pvt) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1254 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Medequips vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue and 3 others2024 LHC 4277, 2024 PTD 1566 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• M/s Maple Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd vs Learned Chairman Drug Court2024 SHC 1162 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-22
  criminal revisionsummoning of witnessexpert reportGovernment Analystfair trialsubstandard medication
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants filed a Criminal Revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging the trial court's order dismissing their application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon the Government Analyst for examination. The core legal question was whether summoning the Government Analyst is necessary for a just decision when the analyst's report has already been exhibited and admitted into evidence without objection. The Sindh High Court held that since the expert report was brought on record and exhibited without objection, and the case was at the verge of conclusion, summoning the witness was not essential for a just verdict, particularly where no prejudice was shown by the defense. The court dismissed the criminal revision, laying down that expert reports under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are per se admissible to expedite trials, and courts retain discretionary power under Section 540 to summon experts only when necessary to clarify ambiguities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial court is bound to summon a Government Analyst under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when their report has already been exhibited without objection?
  • Can an expert report be used as evidence without calling the expert as a witness under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances can a court exercise its discretionary power to summon a witness whose testimony is deemed essential for a just decision?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Mag Apartments Private Limited vs Lahore Development Authority &2024 LHC 5302, 2025 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• M/s Madni Paper Mart, through its Proprietor Irshad Ahmad and another vs2024 LHC 3340, 2024 PLJ Lahore 661 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-05Read full judgment →
• M/s Kuwait Airways Company vs Full Bench NIRC, Etc.2024 IHC 80, 2024 PLC 30, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 80 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-23
  termination simpliciterback benefitsindustrial relationsexplicit reasonspermanent workmanconstitutional petitionNational Industrial Relations Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by M/s Kuwait Airways Company against an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission reinstating a terminated employee with back benefits. The core legal question was whether the termination of a permanent workman's employment by merely stating that her services were 'no longer required' satisfied the explicit reason requirement under Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that simply stating services are no longer required without further explanation does not constitute an explicit, clear, and valid reason for termination simpliciter under Standing Order 12(3). The key principle laid down is that while an employer has the right to effect a termination simpliciter without holding an inquiry for misconduct, the reasons provided in writing must be truly explicit, sufficient, and valid, and a bare assertion that an employee's services are no longer required falls short of this statutory requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does stating that an employee's services are 'no longer required' satisfy the requirement of giving an explicit reason for termination under Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can a workman be reinstated into service on the ground that no regular inquiry was held when the employer has exercised powers of termination simpliciter under Standing Order 12?
  • What is the scope of inquiry of a Labour Court or High Court when examining the validity of reasons given by an employer for termination simpliciter?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Kips Academy. vs Zahid Mehmood & others2024 PHC 340 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-24
  payment of wagestrans-provincial establishmentlabour court jurisdictioncivil revisionindustrial relationswage claimKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act 2013
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the orders of the Labour Court and the Authority established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013, which had allowed a wage claim filed by an employee against a private educational institution. The core legal question was whether the Authority under the 2013 Act possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate wage claims against a trans-provincial establishment, or if such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court held that the Authority under the 2013 Act retains jurisdiction over wage claims for employees working within the province, regardless of the establishment's trans-provincial nature, as the 2012 Act does not exclude the 2013 Act's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner, having already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Authority by filing an appeal before the Labour Court, was estopped from challenging that jurisdiction at a belated stage. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the 2013 Act provides a complete mechanism for wage grievance redressal for establishments operating within the province.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Authority established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 have jurisdiction to adjudicate wage claims against a trans-provincial establishment?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 exclude the jurisdiction of the Authority established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 regarding wage claims?
  • Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of a forum after having voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction by filing an appeal before the appellate authority?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Khan Petroleum Services vs Government of the Punjab, etc2024 LHC 6021 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-05Read full judgment →
• M/s Kababjees Group Association vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1306 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• M/s K&N's Foods (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 LHC 4192, 2024 PTD 1520 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
• M/s JW Sez (Pvt) Ltd vs The Director, Directorate of Post Clearance Audit2024 SHC 1326 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-27Read full judgment →
• M/s Inter Quest Informatics Services (in all cases) vs The Commissioner of2024 SCP 398, PTCL 2025 CL. 72, 2025 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-28
  review jurisdictionerror apparent on the face of the recorddouble taxation treatyroyalty vs business profitsreference jurisdictionsoftware licensingtax exemption
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition challenged a majority judgment of the Supreme Court which had reversed a High Court decision regarding the taxability of receipts from leasing software (FLIC tapes). The petitioner, a non-resident, claimed these receipts were 'business profits' exempt under the Double Taxation Convention, while the tax authorities classified them as 'royalties.' The Court held that the majority judgment contained errors apparent on the face of the record. Specifically, the Court clarified that reference jurisdiction under the Income Tax Ordinance is akin to appellate jurisdiction and cannot be declined based on the availability of alternate remedies, unlike writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court determined that payments for the mere right to use a computer program, without transferring copyright, do not constitute 'royalties' but are 'business profits.' Consequently, the Court recalled the majority judgment, dismissed the respondent’s appeals, and restored the High Court’s decision, affirming that the receipts were not taxable as royalties under the relevant treaty provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decline to exercise reference jurisdiction under the Income Tax Ordinance on the ground of the availability of an alternate remedy?
  • What constitutes an 'error apparent on the face of the record' sufficient to warrant a review of a Supreme Court judgment?
  • Are payments for the lease of computer software programs, where no copyright is transferred, classified as 'royalties' or 'business profits' under the Convention Between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Imtiaz Textile Bara District Khyber and others vs The Federation of2024 PHC 254, PTCL 2025 CL. 87, 2025 PTD 301 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-12Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan vs Qadir Hussain & others2024 SCP 57, 2024 CLD 619, 2024 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-26
  partnership at willretirement of partnerdischarge of liabilitythird party liabilityrecovery suitPartnership Act 1932statutory compliancepublic noticeagreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that accepted a respondent's appeal, setting aside a Civil Judge's preliminary decree for recovery of Rs. 2,38,00,000/-. The appellant, a third-party investor, had sued the respondents for unpaid returns on a substantial investment in their business. The core legal question revolved around whether Respondent No.1 had effectively retired from a 'partnership at will' and was discharged from liabilities to the appellant under the Partnership Act, 1932. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 32 of the Act. The Court ruled that for a partner to be discharged from third-party liabilities upon retirement, strict adherence to the procedures outlined in Section 32(1)(c), (2), and (3) of the Partnership Act, 1932, is mandatory, including giving written notice, entering into a specific agreement with the third party and reconstituted firm, and issuing public notice. Mere witnessing of an agreement by the third party does not fulfill these statutory requirements. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Trial Court's preliminary decree was restored.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes a 'partnership at will' under the Partnership Act, 1932?
  • What are the statutory requirements for a partner to retire from a 'partnership at will'?
  • How can a retiring partner be discharged from liability to a third party for acts of the firm done before retirement under the Partnership Act, 1932?
  • Does a third party merely witnessing an agreement between partners imply acceptance of a retiring partner's exoneration from joint business liabilities?
  • Is public notice required for a retiring partner to be discharged from liabilities against third parties?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Icon Plastic Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue2024 SHC 868 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-12Read full judgment →
• M/s Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Limited vs Additional Collector, Legal, Ltu,2023 LHC 4512, 2024 PTD 61, 2023 PTCL 761 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Haque Traders and others vs Sheikh Abid & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others2024 SCP 300, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-19
  fair rentrent controllertenancy lawfixation of rentrented premisesconcurrent findingslandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court regarding the fixation of fair rent for commercial premises. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller correctly applied the criteria for determining fair rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, particularly regarding the landlord's evidence of comparable rents, increased taxes, and renovation costs. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the lower fora had properly appreciated the evidence, which remained unrebutted by the tenants. The Court affirmed that the Rent Controller's findings were based on a sound evaluation of the statutory criteria. A key principle laid down is that the criteria for fixing fair rent under Section 8 of the Ordinance do not require the simultaneous presence of all listed factors; rather, they serve as a yardstick. The Rent Controller may fix fair rent proportionately based on proven grounds, and an application cannot be dismissed solely because the applicant failed to substantiate every single precondition.

  Questions settled

  • Must all criteria listed in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 be proven simultaneously to justify the fixation of fair rent?
  • Does the Rent Controller have the authority to execute final orders and determine questions relating to the satisfaction of such orders?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Court if there is no patent illegality or misreading of evidence?
  • Is the Rent Controller empowered to exercise the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for specific procedural matters?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Future Vision Advertising (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2024 LHC 2869, 2024 CLD 890 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Frontier Green Wood Industries (Pvt) Ltd vs Commissioner Inland2023 PHC 320, 2024 PTD 1422 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Flying Paper Industries Limited vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 IHC 148, 2024 CLC 1604 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-26Read full judgment →
• M/s Five Star Steel Industry (Pvt.) Ltd., etc vs Federation of Pakistan, through2024 LHC 4642 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-28Read full judgment →
• M/s Fatima Sugar Mills Ltd vs Appellate Tribunal and 3 others2024 LHC 4394, 2025 PTD 148 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-08Read full judgment →
• M/s Farooqui Fisheries and others vs Faysal Bank Limited and another2024 SHC 680, 2024 CLD 1199 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-26Read full judgment →
• M/s Crescent Star Insurance Ltd vs Securities & Exchange Commission of2024 SHC 1188 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s China Mobile Pak Ltd. vs M/s Makran Communication & others2024 SHC 24 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-18Read full judgment →
• M/s Bilawal Gull Builders vs Government of Punjab, etc2024 LHC 1028, 2025 PLD Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-05Read full judgment →
• M/s Askari Cement Limited (Acl) through authorized2024 PHC 350 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Allied Bank Ltd. and others vs M/s Sas Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. & others2024 SHC 424 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Safa Golden Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Capital Development Authority And2024 IHC 210, 2025 CLC 698 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-07Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Harmain & Co. & others vs MCB Bank Limited2024 LHC 1518, 2025 CLD 543 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Hamd Bulk Storage (Pvt) Ltd, Karachi Sindh vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2024 PHC 166, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 119 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Al Masoom Products vs Commissioner (Appeal-Vi) Inland Revenue2024 SHC 1328 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-10Read full judgment →
• M/s Ag Signs (Pvt.) Ltd vs Gashoo Advertiser2024 LHC 2894, 2024 CLC 1486 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-08Read full judgment →
• M/s Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd vs The President, Islamic Republic of2024 SHC 898 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s a & a Pipe Industries, etc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 LHC 2046, 2024 PTD 1051, 2024 PLJ Lahore 485 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• M/s 7sky Digital Marketing Pvt. Limited vs M/s Asr Builders and another2024 LHC 4069, 2025 CLD 537 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muzammal Rafiq vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 LHC 3875, 2024 PLD Lahore 680 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muzamil s/o Zakir Hussain and others vs The State2024 SHC 832, 2024 PCRLJ 1610 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-09
  Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionAnti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021scheduled offencetransfer of caseheinous offencesrape trialspecial court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) for rape and related offenses. The core legal question was whether the ATC possessed jurisdiction to try the case, specifically whether the offense of rape constituted a 'scheduled offence' under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and how the subsequent enactment of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, affected this jurisdiction. The Court held that the ATC lacked jurisdiction because rape does not fall within the definition of terrorism or the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Furthermore, the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, mandates that such offenses be exclusively tried by Special Courts established under that Act. The Court established the principle that heinousness alone does not confer jurisdiction upon an ATC; there must be a specific statutory nexus. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was ordered to be transferred to the appropriate Special Court for trial in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offense of rape fall within the definition of terrorism or the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court try a case involving a heinous offense if that offense is not a scheduled offense under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, mandate the exclusive trial of rape cases by Special Courts established under that Act?
  • Must a case pending in an Anti-Terrorism Court be transferred to a Special Court established under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, if the offense is a scheduled offense under the latter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzamil Akbar Moten vs Director of Intelligence & Investigation-Ir2024 SHC 300 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-15
  post-arrest bailtax fraudfurther inquirywhite-collar crimesales tax refundfake invoicesprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the Applicant, who was charged with tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, for allegedly claiming input tax refunds based on fake and flying invoices. The core legal question was whether the Applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary status of the prosecution's case. The Court held that the case against the Applicant fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution failed to substantiate that the suppliers were fictitious or that the Applicant's banking transactions were a ruse. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case relies on documentary evidence already in its custody and the investigation is incomplete regarding the suppliers, the accused is entitled to bail, particularly when the statutory scheme prioritizes tax recovery over detention for white-collar crimes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the allegation of tax fraud involving fake invoices automatically exclude an accused from the benefit of bail?
  • Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the prosecution relies on documentary evidence that is already in its possession?
  • Do offences under the Sales Tax Act 1990 necessarily fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied in a tax fraud case solely on the ground that it is a white-collar crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffarabad and 13 others vs Fiaz Ahmed and 25 others2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 167 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ali Soomro vs The State2024 SHC 568 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-27
  dishonest issuance of chequeSection 489-F PPCcriminal revisionguarantee chequeexisting obligationburden of proofacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the conviction of the applicant under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonor of a cheque. The core legal question was whether a cheque issued as a guarantee or security for a future real estate transaction constitutes an offense under Section 489-F PPC. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, as the cheque was issued as a surety for a future, contingent obligation rather than for the repayment of an existing loan or discharge of an existing obligation. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the trial and appellate courts and acquitted the applicant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that penal provisions must be strictly construed. It establishes that for an offense under Section 489-F PPC to be made out, the prosecution must prove that the cheque was issued with dishonest intent for an existing obligation. A cheque issued as a guarantee for a potential future default does not meet the statutory requirements, and any ambiguity or failure of the prosecution to prove these elements entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a cheque issued as a guarantee or security for a future obligation fall within the ambit of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Must the obligation for which a cheque is issued be an existing obligation at the time of issuance to constitute an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a criminal court order the recovery of the amount involved in a dishonored cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When prosecution evidence is rejected in its entirety, how should the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated?
  Read full judgment →
• Mustafa alias Kakai vs The State etc2024 PHC 346 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal2024 SCP 387, 2025 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-07
  trans-provincial establishmentforum of appealretrospective applicationcoram non judicejurisdictionprocedural lawsubstantive law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, a bank cashier, was dismissed for misconduct in 1982. The Punjab Labour Court ordered his reinstatement in 1985. During the pendency of the employer's appeal, the employee passed away, and the Industrial Relations Act 2012 was promulgated. The core legal question was whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the appeal of a trans-provincial establishment after the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act 2012, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the orders of both the High Court and the Tribunal. The Court held that laws altering the forum of appeal are procedural and apply retrospectively. Consequently, any decision rendered by a forum whose jurisdiction has been ousted by subsequent procedural legislation is coram non judice and a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a change in the statutory forum of appeal affect a vested right of appeal or is it merely a matter of procedural law?
  • Does a procedural statute altering the forum of appeal apply retrospectively to pending actions?
  • What is the legal status of an order passed by a provincial Labour Appellate Tribunal in respect of a trans-provincial establishment after the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Whether an order passed by a court lacking legal jurisdiction over the subject matter constitutes a nullity under the doctrine of coram non judice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and others vs The Province of Punjab2024 CLC 597 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited & others vs The Punjab Labour Appellate2024 SCP 389, 2025 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-24
  law of limitationgrievance petitiondismissal from serviceindustrial relationsdelay in litigationcondonation of delayback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arises from a service dispute where an employee, dismissed from service for misconduct in May 1976, challenged his dismissal via a grievance notice and petition filed in 1997—over two decades later. After successive rounds before the Labour Court, Labour Appellate Tribunal, and High Court, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned whether a time-barred grievance notice and petition could be entertained after a lapse of twenty-two years without any formal application for condonation of delay or plausible justification. The Supreme Court held that the law of limitation strictly applies to industrial relations disputes and that an employee cannot extend the limitation period indefinitely by repeatedly corresponding with the employer after the statutory deadline has expired. The Court emphasized that litigants must be vigilant and that courts are duty-bound to examine limitation issues. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and Labour Court and restoring the decision of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which had dismissed the employee's claim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance notice and petition filed after an inordinate delay of 22 years can be entertained without seeking condonation of delay?
  • Does an employer's reply to a time-barred grievance notice extend the period of limitation for a workman to approach the Labour Court?
  • Is it mandatory for Labour Courts and High Courts to examine the question of limitation even if it is not explicitly raised by the opposing party?
  • Can proceedings under Section 25-A of the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 be equated with civil suit proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaque Ahmed vs Shahzad Khan2024 SCP 317, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-29
  contempt of courtejectment orderdoctrine of mergerexecuting courtfinality of judgmentslandlord and tenantSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Original Petition was instituted under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, seeking contempt proceedings against a tenant for non-compliance with the Supreme Court's consent order requiring the vacation of demised premises. The core legal questions pertained to the enforceability of final ejectment orders, the effect of independent civil title disputes on eviction proceedings, the doctrine of merger, and the mandate of an Executing Court under rent laws. The Supreme Court observed that concurrent ejectment findings against the tenant had attained absolute finality and merged into the apex Court's order. The Court held that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree or stall execution based on frivolous pretexts or separate inheritance disputes between alleged legal heirs. While declining direct contempt punishment, the Supreme Court directed the Rent Controller to immediately execute the ejectment order and submit a compliance report.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Executing Court go beyond, modify, or rescind a final ejectment order during execution proceedings?
  • Can a tenant resist the execution of a final ejectment order on the ground that a separate civil title dispute is pending among alleged legal heirs of the landlord?
  • Does an ejectment order affirmed through successive appellate forums merge into the final order passed by the Supreme Court under the doctrine of merger?
  • What is the statutory forum and procedure for determining all questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of an eviction order under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaque Ahmed Kobhar vs The State2024 MLD 1217 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-18
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular evidenceinjured witnessmedical evidenceappreciation of evidencenon-recovery of weaponminor contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, which convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically addressing alleged contradictions in ocular evidence, the absence of weapon recovery, and the defense's plea of a counter-incident. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony from eyewitnesses, including an injured witness, which was corroborated by medical evidence. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not warrant discarding evidence, and the non-recovery of a crime weapon is not fatal to the prosecution's case when other evidence is sufficient to establish guilt. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render their testimony unreliable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-recovery of a crime weapon automatically invalidate a murder conviction when other evidence is sufficient?
  • Are minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses sufficient to discard their evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Does the relationship between eyewitnesses and the deceased render their testimony inherently unreliable or interested?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence despite the absence of the weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed through duly Constituted Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, Islamabad and 2 others2024 CLC 1917 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad etc vs Allah Ditta etc2024 LHC 5612 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mushatque Ali Khoso vs The State & others2024 SHC 464, 2025 MLD 857 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13
  registration of FIRcognizable offenceJustice of Peacepolice misconductdepartmental proceedingsservice disciplinecriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application was filed by the applicant against a Station House Officer and proposed accused, including a police officer, seeking a direction for the registration of an F.I.R. regarding an alleged robbery. The applicant challenged an order by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which had previously dismissed his application under Section 22-A & B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the mandatory duty of police officers to register F.I.R.s for cognizable offenses and the oversight role of the Justice of Peace. The Court held that when a cognizable offense is reported, the Officer Incharge is legally obligated to record the statement and register an F.I.R. without refusal. The Court emphasized that police officials must maintain discipline and that those with patchy records or involvement in criminal activities undermine public confidence. Consequently, the Court directed the DIGP Sukkur to screen police officials with poor service records, initiate departmental proceedings against those involved in misconduct, and ensure that only officers with good reputations hold administrative posts, while disposing of the application with directions for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Officer Incharge of a police station have the authority to refuse the registration of an F.I.R. for a cognizable offense?
  • What is the scope of the duty of a Justice of Peace when an application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. is filed regarding the non-registration of an F.I.R.?
  • Can the High Court direct departmental screening and disciplinary action against police officials based on their service records and alleged criminal conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Musarrat Bivi vs Additional District Judge, Bhowana and another2024 YLR 652 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
• Musa Raza vs The State2024 YLR 1000 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-19
  narcotics possessioncharas recoverycredibility of police witnessesburden of proofsafe custody of case propertycriminal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kohat, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9-D of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution successfully proved the apprehension of the appellant and the recovery of narcotics from his possession beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether minor discrepancies and the absence of private witnesses vitiated the trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimonies of the police officials were natural, consistent, and un-shattered during cross-examination, and that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 stands excluded in narcotics cases. The Court laid down the principle that the testimony of police officials is as reliable as that of private witnesses unless animus or enmity is proven, and once the prosecution establishes the recovery of contraband, the burden shifts to the accused under the statute to prove innocence or lack of knowledge. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases without the association of private witnesses?
  • Does the failure to prove an alleged plea of enmity or altercation with police shift the burden back to the accused after prosecution proves recovery?
  • Are minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the color of contraband sufficient to vitiate a conviction?
  • Whether the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Murtaza vs The State2024 MLD 1172 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-22
  narcoticschain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealprosecution evidenceFIR delaywitness contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Murtaza, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 26 kg of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody for the narcotic samples, as the safe custody and transmission of the samples to the laboratory were not established, and there was an unexplained delay in the receipt of samples, raising the possibility of tampering. Furthermore, the court noted an unexplained five-hour delay in lodging the FIR and identified material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the search location and timing. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the transmission of narcotic samples to a laboratory create a reasonable doubt regarding tampering?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the chain of custody for seized narcotics?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • What is the legal effect of material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Murtaza Talpur, Mst. Nuzhat Shaheen Awan vs Leopards Courier Services, M_S Serene Air Private Limited Through Ceo2024 IHC 124 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Murad Saeed vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2024 PHC 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• Murad Ali Lehri vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 1258 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muqadar Khan and 01 other vs Ayub Khan and others2024 PHC 418 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
• Munwar Hussain vs P.O Sindh & others2024 SHC 592 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-22
  Police recruitmentPolice ConstableCharacter verificationCriminal antecedentsC class police reportSindh Civil Servants Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the decision of the Sindh Police department to withdraw his offer of appointment as a Police Constable on the grounds of adverse character antecedents arising from a criminal case. The Sindh Police Recruitment Board had cancelled his recommendation upon discovering an FIR registered against him. The High Court considered whether a candidate can be disqualified from appointment to a disciplined police force when the FIR against him was disposed of as a 'C' class police report prior to the recruitment process, without proceeding to trial or acquittal under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. The High Court held that the mere registration of an accusation does not establish guilt, particularly where the FIR was culminated in 'C' class and never reached the stage of a formal charge-sheet. The court distinguished the precedent governing acquittals under Sections 249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C. and directed the Inspector General of Police to reconsider the petitioner's candidature for appointment under the applicable recruitment rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of an FIR that culminated in a 'C' class cancellation constitute a valid disqualification for recruitment in the police force?
  • Can the precedent denying appointment due to acquittal under Section 249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C. be applied to cases where an FIR was cancelled under 'C' class without a challan being filed?
  • Does the mere accusation or registration of a criminal case against a candidate equate to guilt for the purpose of verifying antecedents for public employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Munwar Ali Soomro s/o Lal Muhammad Soomro vs National Bank of2024 SHC 260, 2024 PLJ Karachi 103 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-27Read full judgment →
• Munsif Khan son of Naras Wali vs The State2024 SHC 894 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-02
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaynarcotic offencestrial delaybail applicationCNS Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a third bail application filed by the applicant, Munsif Khan, seeking post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory delay under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether the statutory delay provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and whether inordinate delay in trial proceedings justifies bail when the applicant has contributed to that delay. The Court held that the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not available as a matter of right for offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, as section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 ousts the application of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court determined that while inordinate trial delay can be a ground for bail, it was not applicable here as the applicant was partially responsible for the delay. The bail application was dismissed with a direction to conclude the trial within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 oust the application of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial be considered a ground for bail independent of the provisions of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain Shah, The State vs The State etc, Munir Hussain Shah2024 LHC 5665, 2025 YLR 1001 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-02
  murdercapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesocular accountmedical evidencerigor mortisunproved motiveprompt FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b) and 458 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and a murder reference. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the promptness of the First Information Report, the evidentiary value of medical evidence regarding rigor mortis, the effect of unproved motive, and the quantum of sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent and confidence-inspiring eye-witness accounts supported by prompt registration of the FIR and medical evidence, notwithstanding that the alleged motive remained unproved and the weapon recovery was inconsequential. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but converted the capital sentence to imprisonment for life, noting mitigating circumstances such as the unproved motive.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conviction for murder can be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony when the alleged motive remains unproved?
  • Does the absence of rigor mortis at the time of autopsy necessarily falsify the time of death stated by eye-witnesses?
  • Can an unproved motive serve as a mitigating circumstance warranting the conversion of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the non-recovery or inconsequential recovery of the weapon of offence affect the substantive ocular evidence of a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs The State2024 PCRLJ 772 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-22
  juvenile offenderdetermination of ageright to fair trialstate counseldock briefanti-terrorism trialremand of caseconstitutional guarantees
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and connected murder reference arose from a judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court Pishin, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 302, 365-A, 377, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentenced to death. The appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds of being a juvenile at the time of the offense and being denied a fair trial due to inadequate legal representation at State expense. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, and improperly admitted unverified photocopies of identity and school documents without following the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Furthermore, the court found that appointing a state counsel on short notice without affording time to consult the accused or effectively cross-examine witnesses violated the fundamental right to a fair trial under Articles 9 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, answered the murder reference in the negative, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a proper inquiry into the appellant's age and a de novo trial ensuring adequate legal representation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial court is under a mandatory obligation to hold an inquiry for the determination of age under Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 when a plea of minority is raised?
  • Can unverified photocopies of school certificates and NADRA records be accepted to determine an accused person's age without following the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the hasty appointment of state counsel without allowing sufficient time to consult the accused and prepare the defense violate the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • What are the mandatory guidelines for trial courts regarding the appointment and competence of state-funded counsel for pauper accused in capital punishment cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs Ministry Of Science And Technology and another2024 IHC 146, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1284, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 322 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-01
  probation periodautomatic confirmationservice terminationstatutory bodyabolition of postconstitutional jurisdictionregular employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s services by the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (NEECA). The core legal questions were whether the petitioner’s appointment was contractual or regular, and whether the failure to issue a termination order before the expiry of the one-year probation period resulted in automatic confirmation. The Court held that the petitioner was a regular employee, as the appointment letter did not justify a contractual basis, and the NEECA Service Regulations did not provide for probation extension. Consequently, the failure to terminate the petitioner by the end of the probation period resulted in automatic confirmation of his service. However, the Court upheld the subsequent abolition of the petitioner's post, noting that the abolition of posts for financial reasons is a policy matter within the authority's prerogative. The termination order was set aside as illegal, and the petitioner was awarded salary and benefits until the date the post was formally abolished via gazette notification. The judgment affirms that in the absence of extension provisions, probation ends upon the expiry of the prescribed term.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to terminate an employee by the end of the probation period result in automatic confirmation when the service regulations do not provide for extension?
  • Can a statutory body abolish a post occupied by a regular employee for financial reasons?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a statutory body for violation of service regulations?
  • Does the designation of an appointment as contractual in an appointment letter override the nature of the post as defined in service regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs Ali Raza and 2 others2024 CLC 1386 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-04-05Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee etc. vs Jam Brothers2024 LHC 1152, 2025 PLJ Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →