Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Dr. Salman Akbar Malik vs Federal Government Employees Housing2024 PLJ Islamabad 47, 2024 YLR 2685 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
- Dr. Saiqa Yousaf vs The State and others2024 IHC 132, 2024 PCRLJ 1852 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition sought the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 322/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging medical negligence by healthcare professionals. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings for medical negligence could be initiated directly by the police without prior expert medical evaluation. The Court held that allegations of medical negligence, involving complex technical assessments, cannot be determined by police investigation alone. It emphasized that the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018 and the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 provide specific regulatory frameworks for addressing such grievances. The Court ruled that before any criminal prosecution can proceed, the investigating agency must obtain an expert opinion from the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority or the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR, noting the lack of such expert verification. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings for medical negligence are not maintainable without a prior expert report confirming the alleged negligence, and special regulatory statutes must be exhausted before invoking criminal jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings for medical negligence be initiated without a prior expert medical report?
- Is the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority the competent forum to investigate allegations of medical negligence in Islamabad?
- Does the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 require disciplinary proceedings to precede criminal prosecution for professional negligence?
- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR in the absence of expert medical evidence?
- Dr. Saif Ur Rehman vs Pakistan and others2024 IHC 244 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged an inquiry order initiated against him by the Additional Secretary of the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, arguing that only the Secretary, as the designated appointing authority, possessed the legal competence to issue such an order. The core legal question was whether the Additional Secretary lacked the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings when the Secretary was available, and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It observed that the Secretariat Instructions, issued under the Rules of Business, 1973, explicitly empower the Secretary to delegate administrative powers, including disciplinary matters for specific grade officers, to subordinates. Consequently, the office order delegating these powers to the Additional Secretary was valid. The Court affirmed that challenges regarding the terms and conditions of service must be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal, not the High Court, due to the constitutional bar established by Article 212.
Questions settled- Can a Secretary delegate disciplinary powers to an Additional Secretary under the Secretariat Instructions?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an inquiry order issued by an Additional Secretary when the petitioner is a civil servant?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from entertaining service matters?
- Is the delegation of administrative powers by a Secretary to an Additional Secretary permissible under the Rules of Business, 1973?
- Dr. Rashid Tarin vs The Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 2 others2024 CLD 948 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
- Dr. Omer Chughtai, etc. vs Province of the Punjab, etc.2024 LHC 2418 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
- Dr. Noman Siddiqui & 04 others vs Govt: of K.P.K & others2024 PHC 126, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1087 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged the application of the "Zonal Allocation Formula" by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission in the recruitment of Veterinary Officers (BPS-17). The petitioners, holding Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degrees and belonging to Zone-3, argued that candidates from their zone possessing higher merit scores should have been accommodated on open merit seats rather than being adjusted against zonal quotas, thereby depriving them of appointment. The core legal question was whether the Zonal Allocation Formula and its application infringe upon fundamental rights or violate constitutional principles. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Zonal Allocation Formula is based on a reasonable classification aimed at ensuring equitable distribution of vacancies and protecting the rights of backward areas, as previously affirmed by the Supreme Court and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the zonal allocation system in public recruitment is a valid mechanism for regional representation and does not violate constitutional provisions regarding equality and merit.
Questions settled- Whether the Zonal Allocation Formula used by the Public Service Commission is repugnant to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the application of the zonal allocation system infringe upon the rights of more meritorious candidates in public service appointments?
- Whether the government has the authority to implement a zonal allocation quota to uplift people of backward areas in public sector employment?
- Dr. Musadiq Aziz and 6 others vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Health Department Civil Secretariat, Quetta and another2024 PLC (C.S.) 1190 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the disqualification of the petitioners by the Balochistan Public Service Commission from the recruitment process for Health Management Cadre (B-17) posts. The petitioners had applied for the posts before the prescribed cutoff date, despite lacking the required Master's degree in Public Health at that time, relying on the expectation of obtaining the qualification shortly thereafter. The core legal question was whether a candidate who does not possess the requisite educational qualification by the cutoff date specified in an advertisement is eligible for selection. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that eligibility must be determined strictly with reference to the cutoff date mentioned in the advertisement. The Court reaffirmed that the practice of accepting 'hope certificates' is unlawful and that candidates must possess the prescribed qualifications at the time of application. It emphasized that any deviation from established eligibility criteria undermines the principles of equal opportunity and fair selection. Consequently, the Court upheld the Commission's decision to reject the petitioners' candidatures and directed the authorities to re-advertise the vacant posts to ensure compliance with legal requirements.
Questions settled- Can a candidate who does not possess the requisite educational qualification by the cutoff date specified in a job advertisement be considered eligible for selection?
- Is the practice of accepting 'hope certificates' for government or statutory appointments legally permissible?
- Does the passing of a written test create a vested right for a candidate who lacked the initial eligibility criteria at the time of application?
- Dr. Muhammad Tariq Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2024 SHC 292 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which posted a BS-19 officer to a BS-20 position. The core legal questions were whether Section 10 authorizes the appointment of a junior officer to a higher-grade post as a stop-gap arrangement and whether such a challenge is maintainable before the High Court despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that Section 10 is a provision for transfer and does not authorize out-of-turn promotions or indefinite acting-charge appointments to higher grades. Consequently, the impugned notification was set aside as being without lawful authority. The Court established that appointments to higher posts must strictly adhere to Rule 8B(1) of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a petition challenging the unauthorized occupation of a public office is maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution as a matter of quo warranto, rather than a service dispute barred by Article 212.
Questions settled- Does Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, authorize the appointment of a junior officer to a higher-grade post?
- Is a constitutional petition challenging the unauthorized occupation of a public office maintainable despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- What is the correct legal mechanism for filling a post reserved for departmental promotion when the senior-most officer lacks the required length of service?
- Dr. Muhammad Shafique Arshad vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 134, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1152, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 72 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed by a Professor of Cardiology at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) challenged the re-appointment of respondent No.3 on a contract basis as Professor of Cardiology and Head of the Department following his retirement, arguing it violated Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and blocked promotion prospects. The core legal question was whether the re-employment of a retired civil servant satisfied the mandatory statutory requirements of public interest and necessity, and whether the decision-making process was judicially reviewable. The Islamabad High Court held that re-employment after superannuation is an exception permissible only upon strict proof of absolute necessity in the public interest, non-availability of qualified replacements, and adherence to established policy guidelines. The court found that no material or reasons were brought on record to justify the necessity of the re-appointment, which unacceptably blocked the promotion of eligible serving professors. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the notification for re-appointment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the re-employment of a retired civil servant under Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 requires proof of absolute necessity in the public interest?
- Does a senior serving professor have the locus standi to challenge the contractual re-appointment of a retired colleague that blocks promotion prospects?
- Is the decision-making process of the appointing authority regarding the re-employment of a retired government servant subject to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Dr. Muhammad Hamid Ali vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 254, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 706 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a BS-20 government officer, challenged the selection process for Trade and Investment Officers (TIOs) after being excluded for failing to meet the eligibility criteria requiring a minimum average of "very good" Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) for the preceding five years. The core legal question concerned the validity of the petitioner's PER for a specific period in 2020, which was initially deemed irregular due to the presence of two different reporting officers. The Court held that irregularities in PERs, such as those covering periods of less than three months without proper evaluation, are subject to correction and do not possess absolute sanctity. Consequently, the Court upheld the subsequent evaluation which resulted in an "average" grading, rendering the petitioner ineligible. The judgment establishes that a countersigning officer possesses the discretion under the Guide to Performance Evaluation to evaluate reports when an officer works under multiple reporting officers, and that the High Court’s jurisdiction is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the merits of adverse remarks in service matters.
Questions settled- Can a court interfere with the merits of adverse remarks in a Performance Evaluation Report given the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does a countersigning officer have the discretion to accept or reject evaluation reports when an officer has worked under multiple reporting officers for less than three months?
- Can an irregularity in a Performance Evaluation Report be questioned and rectified during a competitive selection process?
- Dr. Muhammad Asif vs Adj Layyah, etc2024 LHC 2704, 2024 CLC 1520 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-24Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muather Gul vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health2024 PHC 220, 2025 MLD 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mohammad Aslam Khaki and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and others2024 F.S.C 8 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Dr. Masood Ahmed and others vs Secretary, Finance Division, Government2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 180 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal concerns the legality of a Finance Division letter dated 08.12.2022, which curtailed allowances and premature increments for medical officers previously granted higher pay scales under "placement" policies established by Office Memorandums dated 28.08.1991 and 11.06.2008. The core legal question was whether the Finance Division could unilaterally issue such a clarification to withdraw long-standing financial benefits without consulting the Establishment Division or obtaining Prime Minister approval, and whether "placement" in higher grades constitutes promotion. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the impugned letter was ultra vires and void ab initio. The Tribunal determined that the Finance Division lacked the competence to unilaterally alter a policy approved by the President without mandatory consultation with the Establishment Division, as required by the Rules of Business, 1973. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the placement of medical officers, having been acted upon for over three decades, effectively constituted promotion, entitling them to all associated perks and privileges. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ordered the refund of any deducted amounts, and directed the regularization of service rules.
Questions settled- Can the Finance Division unilaterally issue a clarification to curtail service benefits without consulting the Establishment Division as required by the Rules of Business, 1973?
- Does the placement of medical officers in higher pay scales, when acted upon for decades, constitute a promotion entitling them to associated perks and privileges?
- Is a government department permitted to recover allowances and increments already paid to civil servants based on a long-standing policy?
- Dr. Manzoor Hussain Malik and another vs Mahar Muhammad Khalid2024 PLD Lahore 109 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mamoona Khatoon vs The State and 02 others2024 SHC 238 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. Khushal and another vs Leela Ram2024 MLD 356 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-15Read full judgment →
- Dr. Khalid Iqbal Talpur vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SCP 381, 2025 SCMR 20, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute concerned the appointment and reappointment of the Executive Director (ED) of the Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, specifically whether the statutory retirement age of 60 years constitutes an absolute bar to reappointment. The Supreme Court held that the relevant rules governing appointment and reappointment must be harmonized rather than treated as mutually exclusive. The Court determined that while initial appointment is subject to the 60-year age limit, the provision for reappointment functions as a narrow, exceptional mechanism that allows for exceeding this limit. The Court rejected the High Court’s finding that the 60-year cap was an absolute bar. It established that the Board must follow a two-stage process: first, evaluating the outgoing ED for reappointment based on objective, exceptional performance; and second, if the Board proceeds, conducting a competitive selection process where the outgoing ED is considered alongside other candidates. The Board is mandated to provide detailed, written, and public reasons for any decision to reappoint, ensuring transparency and compliance with the statutory framework.
Questions settled- Does the statutory age of superannuation constitute an absolute bar to the reappointment of an outgoing Executive Director?
- Can two sets of rules enacted under the same statutory power be harmonized when they appear to conflict regarding age limits?
- What is the mandatory two-stage process for the reappointment of an Executive Director when the Board exercises its discretion under the relevant rules?
- Is the provision for reappointment of an Executive Director an independent power or an exception to the general rule of appointment?
- Dr. Irfan Iqbal son of Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal, presently confined at Central Prison Rawalpindi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad_2024 F.S.C 5, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 35 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-04-19Read full judgment →
- Dr. Imamuddin & another vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 402 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ikram Baig vs 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and others2024 YLR 1451 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ghulam Sarwar vs Province of Punjab through Vice-Chancellor and 52024 PLC (C.S.) 402 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated writ petition challenges the order of the Chancellor of the University of Sargodha declaring the appointment of the petitioner as Professor of Soil and Environmental Sciences null and void ab initio, along with a subsequent notification constituting an inquiry committee. The core legal question revolves around the validity of the Selection Board's decision to alter its criteria by awarding marks to candidates for professorial posts without proper prior approval, and whether appointees should suffer for departmental irregularities. The Lahore High Court held that while the Chancellor's order regarding the procedural irregularity of the Selection Board was lawful, innocent appointees cannot be penalized for departmental faults or procedural lapses committed by university authorities. The court modified the impugned orders, directing the university to re-examine the cases individually, protect appointees who were not at fault or acting in bad faith, and explore the creation of new seats to accommodate meritorious candidates.
Questions settled- Whether an employee can be penalized or deprived of their job due to procedural faults committed by departmental authorities in assessing eligibility for appointment?
- Does the Chancellor of a university have the power under the University of Sargodha Ordinance, 2002 to set aside Selection Board proceedings made without proper approval?
- Can a Selection Board unilaterally change its established practice of assessment to introduce a new marking scheme without proper statutory approval?
- Dr. Fateh Ali S/O Yameen vs The State & Ors2024 SHC 742 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-09Read full judgment →
- Dr. Farhat Ullah Bakhsh vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace_Asj-III (East), Islamabad and others2024 IHC 130, 2025 PLD Islamabad 106, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 87 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-01Read full judgment →
- Dr. Farah Sohail vs Dr. Fouzia Humayun and others2024 IHC 106, 2024 CLC 1753 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-21Read full judgment →
- Dr. Fahmida Mirza and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2024 CLC 1253 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. Engr. Imran Hameed Durrani vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and 3 others2024 YLR 247 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-05Read full judgment →
- Dr. Bhagwandas and another vs Mashooq Ali Jatoi and others2024 SHC 252 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
- Dr. Bahadur Khan and others vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 901 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three Criminal Revision Applications challenging the Trial Court's decision to admit a direct complaint and the subsequent dismissal of applications filed under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a criminal complaint can be quashed or dismissed at a preliminary stage via Section 265-K Cr.P.C. when a prima facie case has been established through judicial inquiry, and whether civil litigation regarding the same property bars parallel criminal proceedings. The Court held that once a trial court has taken cognizance of a complaint following a preliminary inquiry, the case should proceed to trial on its merits rather than being disposed of through premature acquittal applications. The Court affirmed that civil and criminal proceedings concerning the same subject matter can run concurrently, as they serve distinct legal purposes. The key principle laid down is that provisions like Section 265-K Cr.P.C. should not be used to summarily dismiss a complaint case after cognizance has been taken, especially when specific allegations are supported by evidence recorded during preliminary inquiry, as the truth of such allegations must be determined through a full trial.
Questions settled- Can a criminal complaint be dismissed under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the trial court has taken cognizance of the offence?
- Does the pendency of civil litigation regarding a property dispute bar the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings concerning the same property?
- Is it legally permissible for criminal and civil proceedings arising from the same transaction to proceed simultaneously?
- Should a criminal case be decided on its merits after recording evidence rather than through premature acquittal applications?
- Dr. Aurangzeb Khan and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2024 PHC 320, 2025 CLC 110, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the decision of the Provincial Cabinet to scrap the appointment process of Vice Chancellors for public sector universities and re-advertise the posts. The core legal question was whether the substitution of resigned members of the Academic Search Committee by the caretaker provincial government violated the restrictions on major policy decisions under Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017, thereby vitiating the entire selection process. The Peshawar High Court held that the initial selection process was a policy decision of the elected government, and the mere substitution of resigned members by the caretaker setup to carry forward routine day-to-day governance did not constitute a major policy decision under Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017. The court laid down the principle that filling vacant statutory positions by continuing an already initiated process does not violate the mandate of a caretaker government.
Questions settled- Whether the substitution of members of the Academic Search Committee by a caretaker government violates Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017?
- Does the continuation and completion of a selection process initiated by a prior elected government fall within the day-to-day functions of a caretaker government?
- Can a newly elected provincial government lawfully scrap an ongoing appointment process for university Vice Chancellors on the ground that members of the search committee were substituted during the caretaker setup?
- Dr. Atia Naz vs Muhammad Ilyas Shah and others2024 PCRLJ 1190 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioner in a private complaint under section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code for defamation, allegedly committed by making statements in judicial petitions regarding the respondent's religious faith. The core legal question was whether statements made in good faith before judicial or lawful authorities regarding matters of custody and welfare constitute defamation. The Lahore High Court held that accusations preferred in good faith to an authorized person fall under the Eighth Exception to section 499, and that disputed factual questions concerning good faith and mens rea ought to be addressed initially before the trial court through an appropriate application. The court established the principle that criminal proceedings for defamation should not stifle bona fide assertions made before competent legal fora, and directed the petitioner to seek remedy under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Questions settled- Whether accusations preferred in good faith to an authorized judicial person constitute defamation under section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether a family court can issue declarations regarding religious faith while determining the welfare of a minor in a custody petition under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Should an accused person first approach the trial court via an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Dr. Aqsa Rehman vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2024 LHC 781, 2024 PLJ Lahore 250 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-26Read full judgment →
- Dr. Abdur Rashid vs Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 180, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 268 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions filed by employees of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) challenging the validity of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Employees Service Regulations, 2015, and the constitution of a Departmental Promotion Board. The core legal question was whether the 2015 Regulations were ultra vires the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012, due to the absence of statutory rules framed under Section 23, and whether the petitioners, who had opted to remain civil servants, could challenge their irrevocable options years later. The Court held that the petitioners were estopped from challenging their voluntarily exercised irrevocable options after significant delay. While the 2015 Regulations were found to be subordinate legislation, the Court emphasized that where the Act mandates "rules" requiring Federal Government approval, regulations cannot substitute them. Consequently, the Court upheld the impugned promotion process but directed the Federal Government and DRAP to frame the necessary statutory rules regarding service conditions, recruitment criteria, and Director appointments within two months to ensure compliance with the Act's clear legislative intent.
Questions settled- Can employees who have exercised an irrevocable option to remain civil servants challenge that option after a significant delay?
- Does the failure to frame statutory rules under Section 23 of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 render regulations made under Section 24 ultra vires?
- Can the High Court direct the Federal Government to frame statutory rules as mandated by a parent statute?
- Is the appointment of Directors in DRAP valid if made without the recommendation of the Policy Board?
- Dr. Abdul Shakoor Abro vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2024 SHC 248 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the repatriation of a BS-19 Secretariat Group officer from the Government of Sindh to his parent department under the Federal Government. The core legal question was whether a civil servant on deputation possesses a vested right to remain at a borrowing department beyond the expiry of the deputation period, and whether the principle of audi alteram partem necessitates a hearing before such repatriation. The Court held that the petition was meritless, affirming that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on deputation indefinitely and can be repatriated at any time. The Court emphasized that civil servants are liable to serve under the Federal or Provincial governments as per service exigencies. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the principle of audi alteram partem does not apply where no vested right is infringed. Finally, the Court reiterated that matters concerning terms and conditions of service, including repatriation, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, and thus dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to report to his parent department.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to remain at the borrowing department beyond the stipulated period?
- Is the principle of audi alteram partem applicable to the repatriation of a civil servant from a deputation post?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over matters concerning the repatriation of a civil servant?
- Dost Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs and others vs Muhammad2024 LHC 6272 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
- Doctor Nauman Hamid Niaz vs Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others2024 IHC 224, 2025 PLD Islamabad 24 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-21Read full judgment →
- Dr. Rehana Kausar vs Province of Punjab, etc.2024 LHC 2817, 2025 PLJ Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-07Read full judgment →
- Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation, Federal Board_f18d3a0d2024 PTD 1049 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-05Read full judgment →
- Director, Intelligence & Investigation vs M/s. Power Industries Pakistan &2024 SHC 952 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
- Director, Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation, Customs, Multan vs Customs Appellate Tribunal, etc2024 LHC 5731 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-25Read full judgment →
- Director, Directorate General, Intelligence & Investigation (Customs), Karachi vs M_s. Chase Up2024 SHC 230 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-15Read full judgment →
- Director, Directorate General, I&I (Customs), Hyderabad vs M/s. Smart2024 SHC 90 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Director, Directorate General, I&I (Customs), Hyderabad vs Liaquat Ali &2024 SHC 118 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Director, Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation (Customs) vs Messrs Digicom Trading (Pvt.) Limited and another2024 PTD 90 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-30Read full judgment →
- Director, Directorate General I&I (Customs) vs Muhammad Sabir & another2024 SHC 1280 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
- Director, Directorat Gen., Int.& Inv (Custom) Kar vs M/s. CMS-GRC, Sawat &2024 SHC 1004 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-02Read full judgment →
- Director Labour Welfare vs Muhammad Younas and others2024 YLR 2505 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
- Director I & I FBR, Regional Officer, Karachi and others vs M/s. J.Z.2024 SHC 504 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dildar Khan and another vs Mst. Fatima Bibi and others2024 SHC 288, 2024 YLR 1845 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-05Read full judgment →
- Dilbar Son Of Dilawar and others vs The State and others2024 F.S.C 10 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Dilbar Shar vs The State2024 SHC 440 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, arising from a murder case. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness accounts, alleged discrepancies between oral and medical evidence regarding the time of death, the evidentiary value of initial daily diary entries lacking the accused's name, and the corroborative value of forensic ballistic reports and weapon recovery. The Sindh High Court held that minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not undermine a confidence-inspiring prosecution case corroborated by medical evidence, a positive Forensic Science Laboratory report matching recovered crime empties with the appellant's weapon, and prompt investigation. The court laid down the principle that the daily diary is not a substitute for the First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that courts must adopt a dynamic approach ignoring minor discrepancies that do not affect the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Whether discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the probable time of death are fatal to the prosecution case?
- Does the non-mention of an accused's name in the police daily diary vitiate the subsequent First Information Report?
- What is the evidentiary value of a positive Forensic Science Laboratory report matching recovered crime empties with the weapon recovered from the accused?
- Should minor inconsistencies in the statements of eyewitnesses result in the acquittal of the accused?
- Dilbar Khan vs Safeer Ali Alias Safeer Ahmed and others2024 PCRLJ 1194 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal arises from an order passed by the Vth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Larkana, acquitting the accused persons under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered under sections 494, 506(ii), 114, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused at an intermediate stage when the charge appeared groundless and there was no probability of conviction. The High Court held that the trial court committed no factual error or legal infirmity, noting that no material or evidence connected the accused to the alleged offences, especially since the complainant had passed away, the allegations lacked substantiation, and prosecuting a woman on mere allegations without substantial material would cause unwarranted agony. The key principle laid down is that where charges are groundless and there is no probability of conviction, a magistrate is fully empowered under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit the accused to prevent the abuse of the court process and avoid a futile trial.
Questions settled- Whether a Magistrate can acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at any stage if the charge is groundless?
- Does the absence of material evidence connecting the accused to the crime justify acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it proper to continue a criminal trial where there is no probability of the accused being convicted?
- Dilbar Dahar vs The State2024 SHC 250 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the capital punishment was justified given the evidentiary record regarding motive and the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular evidence credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Court held that the death sentence should be commuted to imprisonment for life. The key principles laid down are that the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive constitutes a significant mitigating circumstance for sentencing. Furthermore, where medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's version of the incident—specifically regarding the nature of the firearm injury versus the alleged manner of firing—the court may decline to impose the capital penalty. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction and the requirement for compensation, the Court reduced the sentence to life imprisonment, extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
- Can a death sentence be reduced to life imprisonment when medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's account of the manner of firing?
- Is a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the ocular evidence is consistent despite discrepancies in the motive?
- Dilawar Khan vs The State2024 PLD Balochistan 70 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Foreigners Act 1946, following a plea of guilt entered after the appellant had initially denied the charge and claimed trial. The core legal question was whether a trial court is justified in accepting a belated plea of guilt and convicting an accused after the accused has already formally denied the charge and the case has proceeded to the evidence stage. The Balochistan High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The court ruled that once a formal charge is framed and denied under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the provisions of Section 243 regarding conviction on admission become inoperative, mandating the court to proceed under Section 244 by recording prosecution evidence. The key principle laid down is that a trial court cannot accept a mid-trial plea of guilt to bypass the mandatory requirement of recording evidence once the accused has claimed trial. Additionally, the court emphasized that independent evidence should always be gathered to support a conviction, even when a plea of guilt is entered.
Questions settled- Can a trial court accept a plea of guilt after the accused has already formally denied the charge and claimed trial?
- Does the denial of a charge under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the provisions of Section 243 inoperative?
- Is independent evidence required to support a conviction even when an accused pleads guilty during the course of a trial?
- Development Authority Muzaffarabad through its Chairman, having his2024 SC AJK 62 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
- Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Quetta vs Sheikh Muhammad Islam and2024 PLJ Quetta 14 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Deputy commissioner/Collector, Quetta and others vs Habib-Ur-Rehman2024 PLD Balochistan 87 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-27Read full judgment →
- Delhi Mercantile Muslim Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Muhammad Javed and others2024 SHC 650, 2025 YLR 33 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
- Defence Housing Authority, Lahore vs Pervaiz Riaz2024 LHC 2189 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-10Read full judgment →
- Defence Housing Authority vs The Federal Board of Revenue and others2024 LHC 5465, 2025 PTD 530 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
- Defence Housing Authority thr. its Secretary DHA Complex Lahore Cantt vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab Cooperatives Department Lahore etc2024 SCP 406, 2025 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court regarding the rights of an allottee of a residential plot within a cooperative housing society that subsequently merged with the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). The core legal question was whether the DHA, having assumed all liabilities and obligations of the society through a merger agreement, was bound to honor the allotment of a plot to the respondent and comply with the directives of the Cooperative Societies authorities. The Supreme Court held that the merger agreement explicitly obligated the DHA to resolve all outstanding issues of the society's members and to hand over possession of allotted plots. The Court determined that the DHA’s attempt to evade these obligations by challenging the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Societies authorities was meritless. The key principle laid down is that a successor entity, upon assuming the liabilities of a predecessor through a formal merger agreement, is legally bound to fulfill the existing contractual obligations and rights of the predecessor's members.
Questions settled- Does a successor entity that assumes the liabilities of a cooperative housing society through a merger agreement become bound to honor the allotment of plots to existing members?
- Can a successor entity challenge the jurisdiction of regulatory authorities regarding disputes that arose from the predecessor entity's obligations?
- Is a petition that attempts to re-litigate settled issues through miscellaneous applications under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable?
- Deedar Ali Khoso vs The State & others2024 SHC 536 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by a father seeking a writ of habeas corpus to recover the custody of his two-year-old daughter from her mother. The core legal question was whether a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for a father to obtain custody of a minor child when the child is in the mother's care. The Court held that the application was not maintainable, as the minor was not in illegal custody. The Court affirmed that proceedings under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not intended to determine guardianship or resolve custody disputes, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Guardian and Wards Court. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in all custody disputes, encompassing the child's moral, spiritual, and material well-being. Consequently, the Court directed the applicant to approach the competent Guardian and Wards Court to adjudicate the custody issue, emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked for such disputes.
Questions settled- Can a writ of habeas corpus be used to determine the custody of a minor child?
- Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in custody disputes?
- Does the Guardian and Wards Court have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the permanent custody of a minor?
- Dawood Shehzad and others vs The State and others2024 MLD 1612 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of criminal appeals against the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court for the abduction for ransom and subsequent brutal murder of a minor child, whose dead body was burnt. The core legal questions involved the reliability and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, call data records, DNA profiling, and disclosures leading to discoveries under the law of evidence in an unseen crime. The Balochistan High Court held that while the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including forensic DNA matches and recoveries, against two of the appellants, the evidence against the remaining co-accused was insufficient and based primarily on uncorroborated accomplice disclosures. The court laid down the principle that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be conclusively established without a missing link, and while modern scientific techniques like DNA profiling serve as robust corroborative evidence, capital punishment requires the highest standard of certainty, warranting the conversion of the death sentence to life imprisonment in the presence of mitigating circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for a capital charge can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when a link in the chain of events is missing?
- Are statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Call Data Records admissible as modern device evidence under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Does a DNA profiling report constitute sufficient corroborative evidence to uphold a conviction in an unseen murder case?
- Can a co-accused be convicted solely on the basis of a disclosure made by another co-accused without independent strong corroboration?
- What is the standard of proof required for awarding the death penalty in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence?
- Dawood Family Takaful Limited vs Commissioner Insurance, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2024 CLD 882 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-03-20Read full judgment →
- Dawood Ahmed Salar vs Saud Ahmed Salar and another2024 SHC 1388 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-23Read full judgment →
- Dawood Ahmad through Special Attorney vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and another2024 YLR 2680 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-22Read full judgment →
- Dalan Khan Shar vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 622, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1213 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of the Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO), invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge a departmental penalty. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against HESCO by an employee regarding terms and conditions of service, given that HESCO’s service rules are not statutory. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pakistan Electric Power Company v. Syed Salahuddin (2022), the Court determined that HESCO, as a corporate entity, lacks statutory service rules, and its employment relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere in such service disputes. The Court further clarified that previous judgments entertaining similar petitions without considering this binding Supreme Court precedent were rendered per incuriam and thus lacked authority. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO) regarding service disputes?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of corporate entities like HESCO that lack statutory service rules?
- Under what circumstances is a judicial decision considered rendered per incuriam?
- Are the service rules of HESCO considered statutory in nature?
- Dalal and Supariwala, Hakimsons (Impex) (Pvt.) Limited vs The Karachi Port2024 SHC 1242 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
- Dad Muhammad and 4 others vs National Database & Registration2024 PLJ Quetta 166, 2025 CLC 253 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Cyrus R. Cowasjee vs IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi West and others2024 CLC 593 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-07Read full judgment →
- Dr. Sadrak Jala vs Bishop Fredrick Johan and 4 others2024 MLD 1557 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
- CRTG Matracon JV vs Federal Employees Benevolent Fund & Group2024 IHC 42, 2024 CLD 1346 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
- Criminal Original Petition vs Contempt proceedings against Senator Faisal2024 SCP 176, 2024 SCMR 1338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two separate press conferences held by Senator Faisal Vawda and Member of the National Assembly Mustafa Kamal, which were broadcast live on television and social media. In these press conferences, both individuals allegedly leveled malicious and serious allegations against the judiciary, commented on judges of the superior courts, and spoke about sub judice cases pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether these public statements prima facie constituted contempt of court under the constitutional and statutory framework. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the statements prima facie appeared to be contemptuous. Consequently, the Court issued show-cause notices to both individuals, directing them to submit explanations and appear in person. The Court also warned television channels and media outlets that broadcasting or publishing material constituting contempt of court could subject them to similar contempt proceedings, emphasizing the constitutional limits on the right to freedom of speech.
Questions settled- Whether public allegations against judges of the superior courts and comments on sub judice cases in a press conference prima facie constitute contempt of court?
- What are the constitutional limits imposed on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can television channels and media outlets be proceeded against for contempt of court for broadcasting or publishing contemptuous material?
- Contempt proceedings vs Contempt proceedings against Senator Faisal2024 SCP 199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns contempt of court proceedings initiated against Senator Faisal Vawda and Mr. Mustafa Kamal following press conferences held on 16 May 2024. The core legal question involves determining whether the statements made during these press conferences constitute contempt of court and the subsequent liability of media outlets that broadcast the material. Regarding Mr. Mustafa Kamal, the Court acknowledged his submission of an unconditional and unqualified written apology, seeking the mercy of the Court. Conversely, Mr. Faisal Vawda requested additional time to file a further reply. The Court observed that the live broadcast of these press conferences by numerous television channels prima facie appears to constitute contempt of court, referencing a previous order dated 17 May 2024. Consequently, the Court directed that notices be issued to all channels involved, to be served through the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, requiring them to submit explanations within two weeks. The Court also tasked the Attorney-General with identifying specific contemptuous remarks in the transcripts and accepted a volunteer's offer to provide religious texts regarding slanderous speech.
Questions settled- Does the live broadcasting of press conferences containing potentially contemptuous material render the broadcasting channels liable for contempt of court?
- Can a party facing contempt proceedings be granted additional time to file a reply after an initial submission?
- Is an unconditional and unqualified apology sufficient to address contempt of court allegations?
- Contempt proceedings against Senator Faisal Vawda vs N/A2024 SCP 223, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from contempt proceedings initiated against Senator Faisal Vawda and MNA Mustafa Kamal following press conferences they held in Islamabad on May 15 and 16, 2024, wherein they made malicious allegations against the judiciary and commented on sub judice matters. The core legal questions involved balancing the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and freedom of the press under Articles 19 and 19A of the Constitution against the constitutional exceptions of contempt of court and the inviolability of human dignity under Article 14, as well as examining the liability of television channels for broadcasting contemptuous statements. The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech is not absolute and does not permit slandering judges or courts, but accepted the unconditional apologies tendered by Vawda and Kamal, thereby withdrawing their show cause notices. Concurrently, the Court found the preliminary replies submitted by various television channels unjustified and issued formal show cause notices to 34 channels for broadcasting and rebroadcasting the contemptuous press conferences. The key principle laid down is that the broadcaster of slander or contemptuous material cannot escape liability by claiming they are merely transmitters, and media houses must verify content and exercise strict care to protect the public sphere from pollution by disinformation and falsehoods.
Questions settled- Whether the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 takes precedence over the dignity of persons and contempt of court exceptions?
- Can television channels escape liability for broadcasting contemptuous press conferences by claiming they are not the originators of the statements?
- Does an unconditional and sincere apology from a contemnor warrant the withdrawal of show cause notices in contempt proceedings?
- What are the legal obligations and reporting requirements for television channels when responding to show cause notices for broadcasting contemptuous material?
- Constructors Association of Pakistan through Secretary General and 42024 PLD Balochistan 23 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-24Read full judgment →
- Complaints vs Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan.2024 SCP 92, 2024 SCMR 880, 2024 PLJ SC 552 · Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan · 2024-03-04Read full judgment →
- Commissionerate of Afghan Refugees vs The State and another2024 MLD 1070 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed by the Commissionerate of Afghan Refugees challenging an order passed by the Special Court (CNSA) which dismissed its application for the superdari (temporary custody) of a vehicle seized in a narcotics case. The core legal question was whether a vehicle owned by a third party, not involved in the alleged narcotics offense, could be released on superdari pending the trial. The Lahore High Court, relying on established precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, held that where the owner of a seized vehicle is not an accused, associate, or relative of the accused, and had no knowledge of the vehicle's misuse for trafficking, the vehicle should be released on temporary custody. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prima facie demonstrate the owner's knowledge of the offense to justify continued detention of the vehicle. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and directing the release of the vehicle to the appellant subject to the furnishing of surety bonds and an undertaking not to dispose of the vehicle until the trial's conclusion.
Questions settled- Can a vehicle seized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be released on superdari to an owner who is not accused of the offense?
- What burden of proof does the prosecution bear to oppose the release of a vehicle on superdari in a narcotics case?
- Does the lack of knowledge of the owner regarding the use of a vehicle for drug trafficking entitle them to temporary custody of the vehicle?
- Commissioner, Rawalpindi/Province of the Punjab, etc. vs Naseer Ahmed,2023 SCP 279, 2024 SCMR 1037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the legality of land acquisition proceedings for the Dadhocha Dam, specifically examining the validity of an addendum to a preliminary notification under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and its effect on compensation. The core legal questions were whether the District Collector had the authority to issue an addendum notification after a prolonged delay and what the legal effect of such an addendum is on the determination of market value for compensation under Section 23 of the Act. The Court held that while the District Collector possesses the power to issue an addendum under the General Clauses Act, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time before moving to subsequent stages like Section 5 or 17(4). Crucially, the Court ruled that when an addendum modifies the land to be acquired, the date of the addendum's publication becomes the material date for determining the market value of the land under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, ensuring adequate compensation in line with Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether the District Collector has the lawful authority to issue an addendum to a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- What is the legal effect of an addendum notification on land acquisition proceedings and the determination of compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Can an addendum or corrigendum to a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be issued after a notification under Section 5 or Section 17(4) has already been issued?
- Which date is to be taken as the date of publication of the Section 4 notification for assessing market value when an addendum notification has expanded the area of land to be acquired?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-X, Lahore vs M/s. Paul LeatherPTCL 2024 CL. 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition filed by the tax authorities challenging the judgment of the High Court, which had affirmed the Appellate Tribunal's decision setting aside a show cause notice and an adverse assessment order issued against the respondent manufacturer. The department had initiated an investigative audit under Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, alleging tax fraud under Section 2(37) on the premise that the respondent manufactured plastic sheets rather than zero-rated Rexine under Section 4(c), as the respondent had not declared purchases of textile fabric. The Supreme Court observed that the department's allegation was founded purely on presumptions, visual impression, and surmises, without conducting laboratory tests on the collected product samples or verifying third-party sales and purchases. Moreover, the respondent's status as a Rexine manufacturer had been accepted in prior audits. The Court held that an omission to declare an unregistered supplier without evidence of concealment or deception does not constitute tax fraud or justify a re-audit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can tax authorities establish an allegation of tax fraud under Section 2(37) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 based purely on visual impression without laboratory tests or third-party verification?
- Does the mere failure of a taxpayer to declare the name of an unregistered supplier in sales tax returns constitute proof of tax fraud absent evidence of concealment or deception?
- Can tax authorities initiate a re-audit and issue a subsequent show cause notice on surmises where the taxpayer's declarations were accepted in multiple prior audits?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-III. Rto, Rawalpindi, etc vs M/s2024 SCP 377, PTCL 2025 CL. 33, 2025 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition challenged a prior Supreme Court judgment declaring the first and second provisos to Section 45B(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, as mandatory provisions, rendering appellate orders passed beyond the 180-day statutory timeframe void. The core legal question was whether these timeframes for appellate adjudication are mandatory or directory. The Court, by a majority, held that these provisions are directory. Distinguishing between original adjudication—where strict timelines prevent indefinite tax liability—and appellate adjudication—which concerns a taxpayer’s constitutional right to appeal and fair trial—the Court reasoned that mandatory interpretation would unfairly prejudice taxpayers due to administrative delays. The Court emphasized that statutory timelines for appellate bodies should not be used to negate a citizen's right to access justice or to penalize appellants for the tardiness of state functionaries. Consequently, the failure to decide an appeal within the prescribed period does not render the resulting order a nullity. The judgment was recalled, and the matter remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Are the first and second provisos to Section 45B(2) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 mandatory or directory provisions?
- Does the failure of the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide an appeal within the statutory timeframe render the appellate order void?
- Is there a legal distinction between original adjudication and appellate adjudication regarding the mandatory nature of statutory timeframes?
- Can a taxpayer's right to appeal be negated by the failure of the appellate authority to decide the matter within the prescribed statutory period?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Rto, Faisalabad vs Messrs Chawla2024 PTD 368 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone III, Large Taxpayers Unit, Karachi vs M_s Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd2024 SHC 998 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs M/s.PTCL 2024 CL. 243, 2024 PTD 1174 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs M/s.PTCL 2024 CL. 37 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs M/sPTCL 2024 CL. 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the denial of an input tax refund claim by the Commissioner Inland Revenue to a registered buyer, on the grounds that the supplier failed to deposit the collected sales tax into the government treasury. The core legal question was whether a registered buyer, having complied with payment requirements under Section 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, can be held liable for the supplier's failure to deposit input tax, thereby forfeiting the buyer's right to a refund. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that where a buyer has fulfilled its statutory obligations, including payment via crossed cheque, and where the tax authority has failed to take action against the defaulting supplier (who remained registered and not blacklisted), the burden of the supplier's default cannot be shifted to the buyer. The Court established the principle that a registered buyer cannot be penalized for the tax authority's failure to recover dues from a supplier, particularly when the buyer had no means to verify the supplier's compliance and the authority failed to exercise its enforcement powers against the actual defaulter.
Questions settled- Can a registered buyer be denied an input tax refund solely because the supplier failed to deposit the collected sales tax into the government treasury?
- Does a registered buyer bear the liability for a supplier's failure to deposit sales tax when the buyer has complied with the payment requirements of Section 73 of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
- Is it permissible for the tax authority to shift the burden of recovering tax from a defaulting supplier to a compliant registered buyer?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Peshawar Zone vs M/s Maneri International2023 PHC 324, 2024 PTD 776 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Peshawar vs Messrs Al Khyber Tea and Food and 2 others2024 PTD 1095 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-13Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Ltu, Lahore vs Messrs World Call Telecom2024 PTD (Trib.) 358 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-11-16Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Ltu, Lahore vs Allied Bank Limited, Lahore2024 PTD (Trib.) 750 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-08-31Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone Corporative Tax Office, Islamabad vs Messrs T.F. Pipes Limited Company Limited2024 PTD 129 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers Office, Islamabad (In all2024 SCP 104, 2024 SCMR 853, 2024 PTD 1085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Through these petitions, the petitioner sought leave to appeal against the interim order of the Islamabad High Court restraining the recovery of supertax under Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The core legal question was whether the High Court complied with the mandatory procedure under Article 199(4) of the Constitution when granting interim relief that impeded the collection of public revenue without issuing notice to the prescribed law officer or recording reasons that the challenged order was without jurisdiction on the face of the record. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 199(4) are mandatory, and failure to provide notice and an opportunity of hearing to the prescribed law officer, along with a failure to record reasons regarding jurisdiction, renders the interim order illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court established the principle that interim orders affecting the assessment or collection of public revenue must strictly adhere to the procedural prerequisites of Article 199(4) of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Article 199(4) of the Constitution regarding interim orders affecting public revenue are mandatory?
- Can a High Court grant interim relief impeding public revenue collection without giving notice to the prescribed law officer?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order passed by a High Court?
- Whether an interim order suspending a fiscal statute without complying with constitutional safeguards is sustainable?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore vs M_s Millat Tractors Limited, Lahore and others2024 SCP 80, PTCL 2024 CL. 426, 2024 PTD 483, 2024 SCMR 700, PLJ 2024 SC · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court addressed civil petitions concerning tax references and Intra Court Appeals, primarily questioning the procedural requirements for amending tax assessments under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal issues were whether a separate notice under Section 111 is a prerequisite for initiating assessment amendment proceedings under Section 122, and the retrospective applicability of an Explanation added to Section 111 via the Finance Act, 2021, which aimed to dispense with a separate Section 111 notice. The Court held that for tax years prior to the Explanation's introduction, a separate Section 111 notice and its conclusion into a Commissioner's opinion were mandatory to constitute "definite information" under Section 122(5) before Section 122 proceedings could formally commence. Even if notices under Sections 111 and 122(9) are issued simultaneously, Section 111 proceedings must finalize first. The Court ruled that the Explanation to Section 111 applies prospectively only, as it abridges a substantive right of the taxpayer. Thus, for prior tax years, a separate notice under Section 111 is required.
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Islamabad vs M/s Fauji Foundation &2024 SCP 64, 2024 SCMR 788, 2024 PTD 637 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the Revenue challenges the judgment of the High Court regarding the amendment of an original tax assessment order of the taxpayer-respondent, a charitable trust, for Tax Year 2012. The core legal question was whether the increase in the fair market value of a subsidiary company's shares held by the taxpayer as a long-term investment is taxable under the head "income from business" pursuant to section 18(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and whether the prerequisites for amending an assessment under section 122(5) were met. The Supreme Court held that the notional gain resulting from the revaluation of shares without actual realization or disposal, and absent a direct connection to the carrying on of a business, does not constitute business income under section 18(1)(d). Furthermore, the Court held that the Taxation Officer lacked jurisdiction to amend the assessment because no "definite information" was acquired subsequent to the original assessment, as the action was merely a reanalysis of existing data provided by the taxpayer. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the increase in the fair market value of shares held as a long-term investment is taxable as income from business under section 18(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
- Can notional or unrealized gains from the revaluation of shares be subjected to tax without disposal?
- What are the mandatory conditions required for a Taxation Officer to assume jurisdiction for amending an assessment under section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
- Does a mere reanalysis of existing information provided in the tax return constitute "definite information" for the purpose of reopening an assessment?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, District Zone, Regional Tax Office, Rawalpindi vs Sh. Ikram Ellahi & others2024 LHC 4017, 2024 PLJ Lahore 819, 2025 PTD 137 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-IV, Large Taxpayer Unit, Karachi vs M_s Al-Abid Silk Mills Ltd., KarachiPTCL 2024 CL. 57 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition seeking leave against a judgment of the High Court answering questions of law in a sales tax reference application against the Department. The respondent taxpayer had been issued a show-cause notice alleging the claim of input tax against fake or flying invoices allegedly issued by eight distinct entities, and demanding recovery along with surcharge and additional tax. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the sales tax authorities could shift the burden of proof onto the taxpayer without conducting a proper audit or inquiry to substantiate allegations. The Court held that under the Sales Tax Act 1990, the burden of proof to establish that tax has not been paid or that invoices are fake rests squarely on the Department, and there is no concept of a reverse onus under the Act of 1990 comparable to other specialized statutes. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Where the Department alleges that a registered person has claimed input tax against fake or flying invoices, on whom does the burden of proof lie under the Sales Tax Act 1990?
- Can the sales tax authorities lawfully issue a show-cause notice and shift the burden of proof onto a taxpayer without conducting an audit or inquiry under the Sales Tax Act 1990?
- Does the Sales Tax Act 1990 contain any provision providing for a reverse onus of proof similar to section 187 of the Customs Act 1969?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-IV, Karachi (In all cases) vs M/s A.P.2024 SCP 26, PTCL 2024 CL. 119, 2024 SCMR 741, 2024 PTD 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns whether income derived from Container Detention Charges (CDC), Container Service Charges (CSC), and Terminal Handling Charges (THC) by non-resident shipping companies qualifies as "profits from the operation of ships in international traffic" under the Pakistan-Denmark and Pakistan-Belgium Double Taxation Conventions. The core legal question is the interpretation of the scope of these treaty provisions regarding ancillary shipping activities. The Supreme Court held that such charges are intrinsically connected to and ancillary to the operation of ships in international traffic. Consequently, these profits fall within the scope of Article 8 of the respective Conventions and are eligible for the beneficial tax treatment stipulated therein. The Court established the principle that international tax treaties require a broad, purposive, and independent interpretive approach, distinct from domestic law, and that activities facilitating or supporting international shipping operations—including container-related services and cargo handling—are integral to the definition of shipping profits under international model tax conventions.
Questions settled- Do Container Detention Charges, Container Service Charges, and Terminal Handling Charges qualify as profits from the operation of ships in international traffic under double taxation conventions?
- Should international tax treaties be interpreted using the same principles as domestic tax legislation?
- What criteria determine whether an activity is ancillary to the operation of ships in international traffic for tax treaty purposes?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. [Now Lotte2024 SCP 86, PTCL 2024 CL. 420, 2024 SCMR 684, 2024 PLC 183, 2024 PTD 772, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a tax reference concerning the assessment of M/s Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. for the assessment year 2001-2002, where the taxation officer made an addition on account of the Workers Profit Participation Fund (WPPF) and interest thereon under Section 25(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue deleted the addition, holding that companies are allowed to use WPPF funds under the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968, and the income therefrom is exempt. The Lahore High Court dismissed the department's reference application, upholding the Tribunal's view. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the WPPF amount constituted a trading liability attracting Section 25(c) of the repealed Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the amount transferred to the WPPF is a statutory liability rather than a trading liability, and therefore does not fall within the ambit of Section 25(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that special law takes precedence over general law. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an amount transferred to the Workers Profit Participation Fund qualifies as a trading liability under Section 25(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a special law take precedence over a general law regarding tax exemptions on Workers Profit Participation Funds?
- Whether the income arising out of funds under the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968 is exempt from income tax?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Multan Electric Supply Company2024 LHC 4006 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Muhammad Osman Gul2024 LHC 463, PTCL 2024 CL. 341, 2024 PTD 889 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-15Read full judgment →