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.
- M/s Tradhol International Sa Sociedad Unipersonal vs M/s Shakarganj2023 LHC 2392 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s The Hub Power Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Inland2023 IHC 262 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-05Read full judgment →
- M/s Test International vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary2023 PHC 181 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Tandlianwala Sugar Mills (2), Shahmurad Sugar Mills, Habib Sugar2023 SHC 272 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Sunrise Rags Co. (Pvt) Ltd and Others vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2023 SHC 1112 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
- M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Limited vs Lal Jan and Others2023 SHC 38 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL) to challenge the concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) Single Bench and Full Bench, which had set aside show-cause notices, charge sheets, and inquiry proceedings against the private respondent regarding a discrepancy in his date of birth, and remanded the matter for correction. The core legal question was whether an employee commits actionable misconduct warranting dismissal by providing differing dates of birth in initial manual identity documents (1970) versus a later Computerized National Identity Card (1982), subsequently corrected by NADRA upon affidavit. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of the NIRC benches were well-reasoned and unexceptionable, as the employee had satisfactorily explained the inadvertent clerical error by NADRA, sworn an affidavit clarifying his true birth year as 1970, and successfully obtained a corrected CNIC, thereby negating any fraudulent intent or loss to the employer. The court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent factual findings absent perversity or misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a discrepancy between a manual identity card and a computerized national identity card regarding an employee's date of birth constitutes fraud and misconduct?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Single Bench and Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Whether an employee who rectifies a clerical error in their date of birth through NADRA upon affidavit can be subjected to disciplinary action for misrepresentation?
- M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Limited SSGCL vs Nasir Ahmed & Others2023 SHC 367 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-01Read full judgment →
- M/s Standard International Service Providing Network vs The State Through2023 SHC 560 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace/3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, which dismissed the applicant's request for the registration of an FIR against a former employee for alleged breach of contract and leakage of sensitive customer information. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace was obligated to direct the registration of an FIR under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the dispute appearing to be civil in nature. The High Court upheld the impugned order, holding that the Justice of Peace is not a mere post office and is not obligated to direct FIR registration in every case. The Court affirmed that while the Justice of Peace performs an administrative function, they must apply their judicial mind to determine if the facts disclose a cognizable offence. The Court emphasized that civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal liability and that Section 22-A Cr.P.C. should not be misused to harass individuals or bypass civil remedies. Consequently, the application was dismissed as the dispute was essentially civil, and the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of a cognizable offence.
Questions settled- Is the Ex-officio Justice of Peace obligated to direct the registration of an FIR in every case brought under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a dispute involving a breach of service agreement be converted into criminal liability through the registration of an FIR?
- What is the scope of the duty of the Justice of Peace when considering an application for the registration of an FIR?
- M/s Standard Chartered Bank Pakistan Limited vs Mst. Fatima Ehsan Al2023 SHC 1140 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Sprint Oil and Gas Services Pakistan FZC, Islamabad vs Oil and Gas2023 SCP 329, 2024 SCMR 117, 2024 PTD 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the reimbursement of sales tax paid by the petitioner on cementation works carried out under contracts with the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL). The petitioner had invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court, which initially allowed the writ petition, but an intra-court appeal subsequently set aside that judgment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Islamabad High Court had the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction to interpret provincial sales tax laws and entertain a writ petition regarding contractual obligations involving work done outside the Islamabad Capital Territory. The Supreme Court held that the Islamabad High Court lacked jurisdiction to interpret provincial tax laws enacted by different provinces, as only the respective provincial High Courts could do so. Furthermore, the Court held that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked when an adequate alternative remedy exists, such as arbitration or a civil suit, or when complex contractual interpretation and disputed facts are involved. The petition was disposed of by declaring the writ petition not maintainable, and earlier findings were set aside.
Questions settled- Does the Islamabad High Court have jurisdiction to interpret provincial tax laws when the cause of action arises outside the Islamabad Capital Territory?
- Can parties confer jurisdiction upon a court by agreement or implied concession?
- Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable when the dispute involves the interpretation of complex contracts and disputed facts?
- Can the constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court be invoked when an adequate remedy, such as arbitration or a civil suit, is provided by law?
- M/s Sino Sindh Resources vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2023 SHC 405 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-12Read full judgment →
- M/s Shahbaz Flour & Rice Mills vs P.O Sindh & Others2023 SHC 353 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Shah Steel Industry and others vs Federation of Pakistan throueh2023 PHC 342, 2024 PTD 818 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
- M/s Seco Safe Works vs The Capital Development Authority through its2023 IHC 358, 2024 CLC 1236 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-19Read full judgment →
- M/s Sarwarkhels (Pvt.) Ltd vs OGRA Islamabad Etc2023 IHC 74 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
- M/s Sardar Ilyas Alam Construction Company through its Managing2023 SC AJK 80 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-11-29Read full judgment →
- Nargis Bano vs Pak Qatar Family Takaful2023 CLD 1319 · Insurance Appellate Tribunal Punjab · 2023-06-23Read full judgment →
- M/s. Mujtaba Saud Textiles, Faisalabad vs The Cir, (Rto), FaisalabadPTCL 2023 CL. 900 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-11-02Read full judgment →
- M/s Samsara Couture House (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs Syeda Khadija2023 LHC 6883, 2024 CLD 484 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
- M/s Reshma Textile Mills Ltd vs Customs Appellate Tribunal Through its2023 LHC 5346, 2024 PTD 591 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-12Read full judgment →
- M/s Red Co Enterprises vs Deputy Commissioner Ir & another2023 PHC 556, 2025 PTD 556 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-04Read full judgment →
- M/s Rajby Industries Karachi, M/s Multinational Export, M/s NFK Exports2023 SCP 193, 2023 SCMR 1407, 2023 PTD 1244, PTCL 2023 CL. 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These twelve civil petitions for leave to appeal were filed against a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed constitution petitions challenging a restriction on input tax adjustment. The petitioners, registered persons under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, challenged the vires of a proviso added via SRO 491(I)/2016 to SRO 1125(I)/2011 that disallowed input tax credit on packing materials. During the pendency of the petitions, the restricting proviso was omitted by SRO 777(I)/2018. The petitioners subsequently contended that the omission was curative and beneficial, thus requiring retrospective operation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that Section 8 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 contains an overriding non-obstante clause empowering the Federal Government to restrict input tax claims by notification. The Court further laid down that fiscal and amendatory statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless express words or necessary implications dictate retroactivity. Simply because an amendment provides a beneficial effect does not automatically render it retrospective. Finding no perversity in the High Court's judgment, leave to appeal was refused and the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Section 8(1)(b) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 empower the Federal Government to restrict or deny input tax adjustment through executive notification?
- Does the omission or withdrawal of a restrictive proviso in a tax notification automatically operate retrospectively as curative or beneficial legislation?
- Can a statutory amendment be applied retrospectively in the absence of express statutory language or necessary legislative intendment?
- M/s Qalandri Filling & CNG Station vs The Manager Sme Leasing Limited2023 SHC 922, 2024 CLD 106 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
- M/s Popular Sugar Mills Limited vs District Collector, Sargodha & 2 others2023 LHC 6342, 2025 CLD 6, 2025 CLC 760 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-05Read full judgment →
- M/s Popular International (Pvt.) Ltd vs Province of Punjab and others2023 LHC 5550 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
- M/s Paragon Technologies vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and2023 LHC 4474, 2024 PLD Lahore 1, 2024 CLD 153 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-26Read full judgment →
- M/s Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited vs Collector of2023 PTCL CL. 9 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claims for over-paid customs duty. The appellant, M/s Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited, had imported telecommunication equipment and paid standard customs duty, but later sought a refund claiming concessionary rates under SRO 457(I)/2004. The customs authorities rejected the claims, asserting that the appellant failed to produce the required certificates at the time of clearance and failed to rebut the presumption of passing on the tax burden to consumers under Section 19A of the Customs Act, 1969. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant had indeed fulfilled the conditions of the SRO by producing the required certificates during the adjudicatory proceedings. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the rebuttable presumption under Section 19A is a procedural rule of evidence that applies retrospectively, but its scope is limited to 'such goods' on which duty was paid. Since the imported equipment was installed for the appellant's own service project and not sold to third parties, the presumption of passing on the tax incidence did not apply, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment was inapplicable.
Questions settled- Whether a rebuttable presumption under Section 19A of the Customs Act 1969 is procedural or substantive in nature, and does it apply retrospectively?
- Whether the presumption of passing on the incidence of customs duty to consumers applies to capital goods imported and installed for an importer's own service project rather than being sold to third parties?
- Can a refund claim be denied solely because concessionary certificates were produced during adjudicatory proceedings rather than at the exact time of filing Goods Declarations?
- M/s Pakistan Mobile Communication Limited (Formerly Warid Telecom2023 ATIR 5 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-06-13Read full judgment →
- M/s Pak Suzuki Motors Company Limited through its Manager vs M/s Pak2023 SCP 149, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 482, 2023 CLD 934, PLD 2023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a consumer dispute regarding alleged defects in a motor vehicle purchased by the respondent. The core legal questions were whether the claimant sufficiently pleaded and proved the alleged manufacturing defects, and whether the claim was barred by limitation under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. The Supreme Court held that the claim was unsustainable on both merits and limitation. Regarding merits, the Court ruled that a litigant must plead material facts and prove them; here, the claimant failed to produce expert evidence to substantiate technical defects, relying instead on personal observation. Regarding limitation, the Court held that the 30-day limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Act commences from the moment a consumer obtains knowledge of the defect, not from the date of the legal notice. The Court emphasized that the pre-litigation notice mechanism is intended for settlement, not to extend the limitation period indefinitely. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, ruling that the claim was time-barred and unproven, thereby establishing that expert evidence is mandatory for technical product defects.
Questions settled- Does the 30-day limitation period for filing a consumer claim under Section 28(4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 commence from the date of knowledge of the defect or from the date of the legal notice?
- Is expert evidence mandatory for a Consumer Court to determine the existence of technical manufacturing defects in a product?
- Can a consumer claim be decided based on the admission of a co-defendant who is not an agent of the manufacturer?
- Are parties required to lead evidence strictly in accordance with their pleadings in consumer litigation?
- M/s Pak Hygienic Industries vs Federation of Pakistan etc2023 LHC 6173 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-29Read full judgment →
- M/s Oracle Systems Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue,2023 ATIR 2 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-01-15Read full judgment →
- M/s Obs Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs The Customs Appellate Tribunal Et2023 SHC 228 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Nordex Singapore Equipment Limited vs Federal Board of Revenue, Cir2023 LHC 5802, 2024 PTD 208 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-10Read full judgment →
- M/s Nixor College (Pvt.) Ltd and another vs Dr. Suleiman Muhammad Al2023 SHC 940 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Nishat Hotels & Properties Ltd. & another vs Province of Punjab &2023 LHC 3770, PTCL 2024 CL. 71, 2024 PTD 837 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
- M/s Nina Industries Ltd vs M/s E.F.U. General Insurance Ltd2023 SHC 333 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-12Read full judgment →
- M/s National Oil Refinery Ltd vs Syed Mansoor Ali and others2023 SHC 1046 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal arose from an order of a learned single Judge of the Sindh High Court in a constitutional petition, which had challenged an interlocutory order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Commissioner had rejected the appellant's application for dismissal of a wage claim, holding that the matter involved mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence. The Division Bench of the High Court examined the maintainability of both the writ petition and the subsequent High Court Appeal. The Court held that since the Commissioner's order was not a final direction under Section 15(3) or 15(4) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, it was not appealable under Section 17 of that Act, and filing a writ petition against such an interlocutory order was an attempt to delay proceedings. Furthermore, under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and the Sindh Chief Court Rules (Appellate Side), constitutional petitions under Article 199 are ordinarily heard by a Division Bench, and the present appeal did not fall within the appealable subjects. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as misconceived.
Questions settled- Whether an interlocutory order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which does not amount to a direction under Section 15(3) or 15(4), can be challenged through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Whether an intra-court appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is maintainable against an order of a single Judge that does not dispose of the entire case or falls outside the prescribed appealable subjects?
- How do the Sindh Chief Court Rules (Appellate Side) distribute jurisdiction between single Judges and Division Benches regarding petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- M/s Middle East Construction Company, Karachi vs The Collector of2023 SCP 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the import of vehicles classified by the appellant as prime movers, which the Customs authorities contested, alleging they were trucks prohibited under the Import Policy Order, 2016. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, exceeded its authority by re-evaluating factual findings and conducting independent research into the nature of the imported goods. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by embarking on a factual determination, specifically by accessing external material not presented before the adjudicating officer or the Customs Appellate Tribunal. The Court reaffirmed that the Tribunal is the final forum for factual determination and that the High Court's jurisdiction is strictly limited to questions of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgments, restored the Tribunal's findings in favor of the importer, and ordered the immediate release of the vehicles upon payment of applicable duties and taxes, emphasizing that appellate courts should not undertake independent factual investigations outside the record.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to re-determine factual findings made by the Customs Appellate Tribunal under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Can the High Court rely on external evidence, such as manufacturer website data, that was not presented before the adjudicating officer or the Tribunal?
- Does an importer discharge the initial burden of proof regarding the nature of imported goods by producing a pre-shipment inspection certificate?
- Is the Customs Appellate Tribunal the final forum for the determination of facts in customs disputes?
- M/s Mandviwalla Builders & Developers and Mangla View Resort (Pvt.)2023 LHC 3368 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Makkah Traders, etc vs MCB Bank Limited2023 PCTLR 42 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
- M/s M.K Steel Mills vs Collector of Customs, MCC Custom House, Peshawar2023 PHC 334 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-17Read full judgment →
- M/s Lahore Carpet Manufacturing Company vs Muhammad Jamil & 032023 LHC 6616, 2024 PLC 114 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves five connected writ petitions challenging decisions of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLAT) which enhanced monetary awards in favor of employees (Respondents) under the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The employer contended that PLAT lacked revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by the Labour Court in appeal under Section 17 of the Wages Act and that the workers were bound by signed final settlement forms. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Labour Court, while exercising powers under the Wages Act, performs functions assigned to it under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act 2010 (PIRA). Consequently, PLAT possesses valid revisional jurisdiction under Section 47(5) of PIRA to review Labour Court decisions for legality and propriety. The Court further clarified that information invoking PLAT's suo motu revisional jurisdiction can be brought by an aggrieved party. On the merits, the Court upheld the reliance on documentary service certificates over oral evidence and ruled that signing unilateral settlement forms without free consent does not bar workers from claiming full statutory dues.
Questions settled- Does the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal possess revisional jurisdiction under Section 47(5) of PIRA over an order passed by the Labour Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
- Can a party to a dispute lay information before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to invoke its suo motu revisional jurisdiction?
- Does the signing of a final settlement form preclude a worker from claiming remaining statutory dues under the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
- M/s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Highway Authority (Kpkha), Peshawar vs2023 ATIR 3 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-03-09Read full judgment →
- M/s Ittehad Customs Agency, Peshawar through Clearing Agent Asif Ali &2023 PHC 96 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited (IESCO) through its2023 SCP 208, 2023 SCMR 1516, 2023 PTCL 872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from five civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by M/s Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited (IESCO) against a common judgment of the Islamabad High Court. The High Court had answered the framed question of law in the negative, upholding the tax demand and default surcharge created against the petitioner under Sections 161 and 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 for non-deduction of withholding tax. The petitioner contended that initiating recovery proceedings under Section 161 of the Ordinance is contingent upon first conducting an audit under Section 177 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the statutory provisions and held that the course of action under Section 161 is not contingent upon the pre-audit requirements of Section 177. The Court ruled that both provisions are independent and self-governing, with distinct purposes and procedures. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petitions.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings and recovery under Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 can be initiated without first conducting an audit under Section 177 of the Ordinance?
- Are the provisions of Section 161 and Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 independent of each other?
- Can a tax authority raise a demand under Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 if the taxpayer fails to provide relevant documents after being afforded multiple opportunities of being heard?
- M/s Interman Trading Fze Dubai vs Oil & Gas Development Company and2023 IHC 312 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
- M/s Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Limited Through its2023 LHC 2257 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a trans-provincial media establishment, challenged the registration of a trade union (respondent No.3) by the provincial Registrar Trade Unions under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether the provincial Registrar possessed the jurisdiction to register a trade union for an establishment operating across multiple provinces, or if such authority exclusively vested in the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court held that the status of the employer, rather than the nature of the dispute, determines the appropriate forum for registration. Since the petitioner is a trans-provincial establishment, the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 applies exclusively. Consequently, the provincial Registrar lacked the legal authority to register the trade union, rendering the registration void. The judgment reaffirms the principle that for trans-provincial establishments, the NIRC holds exclusive jurisdiction over the registration of trade unions and the adjudication of industrial disputes, overriding provincial legislation pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have exclusive jurisdiction to register trade unions for trans-provincial establishments?
- Does the status of the employer determine the jurisdiction for trade union registration rather than the nature of the industrial dispute?
- Does the Industrial Relations Act 2012 have an overriding effect on provincial labour laws regarding trans-provincial establishments?
- Can a provincial Registrar of Trade Unions validly register a trade union for an establishment that operates in more than one province?
- M/s Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Limited vs Additional Collector, Legal, Ltu,2023 LHC 4256, 2023 CLC 2125 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-20Read full judgment →
- M/s Hadi Developers Private Limited. vs Government of the Punjab etc2023 LHC 6408, 2024 PLJ Lahore 131, 2024 YLR 783 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
- M/s Gulistan Group of Companies vs Mr. Waseem Javed Khand2023 LHC 940, 2024 MLD 1111 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
- M/s Glitz Pharma vs M/s Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd.2023 IHC 216 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-27Read full judgment →
- M/s Fun Infotainment (Pvt) Limited/NEO T.V., Lahore vs Pakistan Electronic2023 SCP 335, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter originated from a complaint before the Council of Complaints (COC) of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) alleging a violation of the Code of Conduct by the petitioner television channel. The COC recommended a fine, which was subsequently approved by the Chairman PEMRA. After the High Court dismissed the appeal, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Chairman PEMRA possessed the valid authority to approve the recommendations of the COC and impose a fine. The Supreme Court held that while PEMRA has the statutory power to delegate its functions, such delegation must be made subject to conditions prescribed by rules, as mandated by the enabling statute. Since no such rules were framed to delegate the specific power of approving COC recommendations to the Chairman, the Chairman acted without validly delegated authority. The Court laid down the principle that statutory delegation of powers by a public regulatory body must be structured, formal, and accompanied by rational conditions prescribed through rules, ensuring that unguided discretion is not arbitrarily exercised.
Questions settled- Whether the Chairman of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority has the authority to approve the recommendations of the Council of Complaints without validly framed rules governing delegation?
- Can the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority delegate its statutory powers, responsibilities, or functions without imposing conditions prescribed by rules?
- What is the legal requirement for structuring and exercising the power of delegation by a public regulatory body under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002?
- M/s Fortune Four LLP vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 SHC 220, 2024 MLD 387 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
- M/s Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited and another vs Federation of Pakistan2023 IHC 388, PTCL 2024 CL. 594 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-18Read full judgment →
- M/s Faizan Enterprises vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 1004 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-02Read full judgment →
- M/s Emaar DHA Islamabad Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue2023 IHC 348 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
- M/s Crown Holdings vs Port Qasim Authority & Others2023 SHC 58 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-10Read full judgment →
- M/s Concrete Concepts (Pvt), Haripur & Others) vs Authority Under2023 PHC 20 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses eight connected writ petitions filed by M/s Concrete Concepts (Pvt) Ltd against orders passed by the Authority Under Payment of Wages, Haripur. The core legal question involved the legality of ex-parte orders and decisions rendered by the Authority without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing, as well as the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013. The Peshawar High Court held that proceedings were not conducted in a proper legal manner, emphasizing that contested issues must be resolved on merits rather than technicalities, and that the statutory appeal mechanism does not cover orders passed due to non-payment of costs, thereby rendering the writ petitions maintainable. The Court laid down the principle that the High Court's writ jurisdiction can be competently invoked when an alternative statutory remedy is not adequate or efficacious, and that parties should not be deprived of substantive legal rights on technical grounds. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded to the Authority for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act due to non-payment of costs is appealable under section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013?
- Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked when no efficacious alternate remedy is available under the statute?
- Is a party to a proceeding before the Wage Authority liable to be condemned or deprived of legal rights on mere technicalities?
- M/s Computer Tips & another, M/s Kingly Solutions (Pvt) Limited vs2023 LHC 4741, 2024 PLD Lahore 41, 2024 CLD 212 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-03Read full judgment →
- M/s CGGC-Descon Joint Venture Through Sajjad Haider Abidi, Lahore vs2023 PHC 72 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Bismillah Metal Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Port Qasim Authority & others2023 SHC 970, 2024 PLD Sindh 38, 2024 CLD 202 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-04Read full judgment →
- M/s Bentonite Pakistan Limited, resident of 78-a Garden Block, New Garden2023 SCP 207, 2024 PLJ SC 110, 2023 CLD 991, 2023 SCMR 1353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed an application seeking to revive a suit for damages filed by the petitioner against a company in liquidation. The core legal question was whether an application seeking leave to proceed with a suit against a company in liquidation, filed after a delay of seventeen years, was maintainable under the Companies Act, 2017. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the application was time-barred. The Court established that while the Companies Act, 2017, governs liquidation proceedings, it does not exclude the application of the Limitation Act, 1908, except for specific provisions regarding liquidator suits. Consequently, applications filed under the Companies Act, 2017, for which no specific limitation period is provided, are governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribes a three-year limitation period. The Court emphasized that unexplained delay and laches in seeking legal remedies are contrary to the fundamental principle of promptness in claiming rights, thereby justifying the dismissal of the petitioner's belated application.
Questions settled- Are applications filed under the Companies Act, 2017 subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- What is the applicable period of limitation for an application filed under the Companies Act, 2017 where no specific period is provided?
- Does the exclusion of the Limitation Act, 1908 in Section 410 of the Companies Act, 2017 extend to all proceedings under the Act?
- M/s Basfa Textile (Pvt.) Limited, Lahore vs Deputy Director (Customs),2023 LHC 349, 2024 PTD 265 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
- M/s Army Welfare Trust, Rawalpindi vs Commissioner of Income Tax2023 PCTLR 92 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-24Read full judgment →
- M/s Abdullah Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2023 LHC 3935, 2023 PTD 1791, 2023 PLJ Lahore 771 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
- M/s Abdul Wahab and Enterprises vs Capital Development Authority and2023 IHC 304 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-20Read full judgment →
- Muzammil Hayat vs Provincial Police Officer etc.2023 LHC 4690, 2023 PLJ Lahore 887 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Punjab Police on deputation with the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), challenged his repatriation order and memorandum issued by provincial authorities following the registration of a criminal case against him. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant on deputation to a federal agency remains subject to the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 and Article 212 of the Constitution, whether such a petition is barred by the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction, whether a deputationist has a vested right to complete their deputation period, and whether rule 11 of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules 1975 excludes the lending department from initiating disciplinary proceedings. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner remains a Punjab civil servant, making the constitutional petition barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. The court held that a deputationist has no vested right to serve the full deputation period, and that rule 11 of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules 1975 does not divest the lending department of its concurrent power to recall its personnel and initiate disciplinary inquiries.
Questions settled- Whether a provincial civil servant on deputation to a federal agency ceases to be governed by the provincial civil servants act?
- Does a deputationist possess a vested right to claim continuity of service in the borrowing agency for the entire allocated deputation period?
- Does rule 11 of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules 1975 bar the lending department from recalling a deputationist and initiating disciplinary proceedings against him?
- Are service matters relating to terms and conditions of civil servants on deputation barred from the constitutional jurisdiction of the high court under article 212 of the constitution of pakistan 1973?
- Muzafar Iqbal vs Mst. Riffat Parveen and others2023 SCP 214, 2023 SCMR 1652, 2023 PLJ SC 562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the appellant under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The Trial Court and the first Appellate Court concurrently decreed the suit, finding that the appellant had successfully proved the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad. However, the Lahore High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reversed these concurrent findings based on conjectures regarding the pre-emptor's prior knowledge of the sale. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the scope of second appellate jurisdiction, emphasizing that the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is strictly confined to substantial questions of law. It held that the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by conducting a fresh appraisal of evidence unless the lower courts' findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, or suffer from a material misreading of the record. Finding that the High Court had decided the matter on guesswork, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the case for fresh determination.
Questions settled- What is the scope and limit of the High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Can a High Court in a second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on conjectures or a fresh appraisal of evidence?
- Under what exceptional circumstances may a finding of fact by the first Appellate Court be scrutinized or interfered with in a second appeal?
- Does the failure of a High Court to formulate a substantial question of law affect the validity of its judgment under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Muti-Ur-Rehman Siddiqui vs Intelligence Bureau through Director General, I.B. Headquarters, Government of Pakistan, `K' Block, Islamabad and 11 others2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 202 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Intelligence Bureau, challenged the promotion of his juniors and his own deferment by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on three occasions (in 2017, 2018, and 2019). The official respondents contended that the appellant's promotion was deferred due to pending disciplinary proceedings and minor penalties, which rendered his service record indifferent. However, the appellant demonstrated that the minor penalties and adverse remarks that formed the basis of his deferments had subsequently been set aside or expunged by the Service Tribunal and departmental appellate authorities. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents promoted the appellant with effect from 31.03.2020. The Federal Service Tribunal held that once the reasons for an employee's deferment cease to exist, the employee must be considered for promotion from the date they were originally deferred or when their juniors were promoted. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the respondents to modify the appellant's promotion date to 21.08.2017, the date of his first deferment.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant whose promotion was deferred is entitled to retrospective promotion from the date of original deferment once the underlying reasons for deferment cease to exist?
- Can a civil servant be denied promotion based on disciplinary penalties that have been subsequently set aside or expunged by a competent forum?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to direct the modification of the effective date of a civil servant's promotion where deferment was unjustified?
- Muteen Ur Rehman and others vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 468 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in case FIR No. 710 dated 21-06-2021 registered under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Okara. The core legal questions relate to whether the elements of kidnapping for secret confinement under Section 365 were made out, the effect of delayed registration of the FIR, and whether pre-arrest bail could be confirmed in view of existing civil and criminal litigation between the parties indicating potential mala fides. The Lahore High Court held that the ingredients of Section 365 were not prima facie satisfied as the victim was not secretly confined, making Section 342 applicable instead, and that unexplained delay in FIR registration alongside prior enmity warranted confirmation of bail. The court laid down the principle that merits of the case can be examined at the pre-arrest bail stage, that the scope of pre-arrest bail is expansive, and that an accused is a favorite child of law where liberty is guaranteed under the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether an offence under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is constituted when the victim is allegedly confined openly rather than secretly?
- Can the merits of a case be considered by a court while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
- Does an unexplainable delay in the registration of an FIR create doubt regarding the bona fides of the prosecution case?
- Whether previous civil or criminal litigation between the parties can establish prima facie mala fides for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Mustajab Ul Hassan vs The State2023 YLR 770 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the confiscation of his motorcar, which had been seized in connection with a narcotics case under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019, and subsequently declared unclaimed upon the acquittal of the accused. The core legal question was whether a vehicle could be confiscated without affording the owner or claimant an opportunity of being heard and without proving their knowledge of the offense, as mandated by statute. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court committed a legal error by declaring the vehicle unclaimed and ordering its confiscation without issuing notice to the claimant or inquiring into ownership despite a pending superdari application. The Court laid down that under sections 34A and 34B of the KP CNSA 2019, prior to confiscating any conveyance used in a narcotics offense, the prosecution or court must prove that the owner had knowledge of the offense, and any person claiming an interest must be given a mandatory opportunity of being heard within the stipulated timeframe.
Questions settled- Whether a vehicle can be confiscated as unclaimed property under the KP Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019 without issuing notice to a claimant who has filed an application for superdari?
- Is it mandatory to prove that the owner of a vehicle had knowledge of the narcotics offense before the vehicle is ordered to be confiscated?
- Does the wrong citation of a legal provision in a memo of appeal debar an appellant from seeking a statutory remedy?
- What is the procedure required under section 34B of the KP Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019 for making confiscation of seized articles when the accused is acquitted?
- Mustafa Sikander vs The State2023 SHC 892 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was accused of smuggling banned "Boostin" (RBST) injections in violation of the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail, given that the prosecution's case relied heavily on the statement of a co-accused and the recovery of contraband. The applicant contended that the co-accused's statement was inadmissible and that no independent incriminating material existed to connect him to the crime. The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that while a co-accused's statement is not substantive evidence, it may be considered at the bail stage to form a tentative assessment of prima facie involvement. The Court found that the recovery of a significant quantity of banned injections, coupled with the applicant's pointation and the clear violation of a Supreme Court order prohibiting the sale and import of RBST injections, established sufficient grounds to deny bail. The Court emphasized that in white-collar crimes involving public health risks, the tentative assessment of evidence justified refusing the concession of bail at this stage.
Questions settled- Can the statement of a co-accused be considered at the bail stage to determine prima facie involvement?
- Does the violation of a Supreme Court order prohibiting the sale of specific items constitute a ground for refusing post-arrest bail?
- Is a tentative assessment of evidence sufficient to deny bail in cases involving white-collar offenses?
- Mustafa Masood vs Defence Housing Authority, Lahore, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 207 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
- Mustafa Masood vs Defence Housing Authority, Lahore and others2023 MLD 1523 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Rizwan Ali Khan and others2023 SCP 385, 2024 SCMR 360, 2024 PLC 91, 2024 PLJ SC 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition challenged a High Court judgment that affirmed the respondent's status as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, thereby upholding the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission to adjudicate his dismissal. The core legal question was whether the respondent, an officer (OG-II) in a bank, performed duties that were manual or clerical in nature, or whether his role was managerial and administrative, thus excluding him from the definition of 'workman'. The Supreme Court held that the lower forums erred by failing to conduct a holistic analysis of the evidence regarding the respondent's actual duties. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish their status as a workman through evidence of their daily functions, rather than merely pointing to a lack of authority to hire or fire. The Court laid down the principle that the 'pith and substance' of an employee's duties, not their designation, determines their status, and that bank duties involving discretion, supervision, and decision-making do not constitute manual or clerical work.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie on the claimant to establish their status as a 'workman'?
- Is a bank officer's designation conclusive evidence of their status as a 'workman'?
- Does the absence of power to hire or fire automatically classify an employee as a 'workman'?
- What criteria determine whether an employee falls within the definition of a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Muhammad Anwar Mandokhel etc2023 SCP 324, 2024 SCMR 298, 2024 PLC 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenges a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan which dismissed the appellant's constitution petition and upheld the orders of the Balochistan Labour Appellate Tribunal and Balochistan Labour Court granting a grievance petition to the respondent employee. The core legal question involves the competence and jurisdiction of provincial labour courts to adjudicate industrial disputes and grievances concerning trans-provincial establishments and banking companies operating across multiple provinces, particularly after the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment and the promulgation of federal legislation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that for trans-provincial establishments, exclusive jurisdiction vests in the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) rather than provincial labour courts, as provincial legislatures lack extra-territorial legislative competence. The ratio decidendi is that provincial labour courts coram non judice lack jurisdiction over trans-provincial employers, and such matters must be brought before the NIRC. The Court laid down the principle that the status of the employer as trans-provincial dictates forum jurisdiction under the federal industrial relations framework.
Questions settled- Whether a provincial labour court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate an industrial dispute or grievance petition relating to a trans-provincial establishment?
- Does a provincial legislature possess the legislative competence to enact laws regulating establishments and industries functioning at a trans-provincial level?
- Whether the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is a valid piece of legislation enacted within the competence of the Parliament following the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment?
- What is the appropriate forum for workers of trans-provincial establishments to seek redressal of their grievances?
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs City Steel Industries Lahore through Partners and others2023 CLD 235 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mushtaque and others vs Federal Government of Pakistan and others2023 PLJ Karachi 61 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
- Mushtaque Ali vs Muhammad Ali2023 SHC 276 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges the trial court order dismissing the applicant's complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question concerns whether a complaint under the Act can be dismissed in limine when official reports confirm the applicant's ownership and when the respondent is a real brother allegedly occupying the property without paying rent. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint merely because the respondent is a close relative or because immediate evidence of forcible dispossession was viewed narrowly, noting that inability of an owner to use and enjoy property constitutes adverse interference amounting to illegal dispossession. The court established that the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act are not restricted to professional land grabbers and apply equally to relatives who unlawfully prevent an owner from utilizing their property.
Questions settled- Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to a family member or close relative who unlawfully occupies a property?
- Whether inability of a legal owner to use and enjoy their property constitutes illegal dispossession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Can an application under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be dismissed in limine when official reports under Section 5 support the applicant's ownership?
- Mushtaque Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and 3 others2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 184 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal challenging the dismissal order dated 24.12.2019 passed against the appellant following a de novo inquiry. The appellant, a Senior Auditor/Key Punch Operator, was accused of making unauthorized salary adjustments resulting in financial loss to the exchequer. The FST examined whether the de novo inquiry was conducted in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, specifically addressing the failure to provide requested documents, absence of witness examination/cross-examination in the appellant's presence, and conducting the inquiry via questionnaire form without providing a personal hearing or copy of the inquiry report. The Tribunal held that an inquiry conducted via questionnaire form without examining witnesses in the presence of the accused or providing cross-examination opportunities is legally defective and unsustainable. Furthermore, violating audi alteram partem prejudices the accused. Since the department failed to conduct a proper inquiry despite a prior remand, the FST set aside the dismissal order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and ordered the appellant's reinstatement in service with back benefits.
Questions settled- Is a departmental inquiry conducted primarily through a questionnaire form legally valid to support a major penalty?
- Does the failure to examine witnesses or afford an opportunity of cross-examination during a departmental inquiry vitiate the proceedings?
- Can a dismissal order be sustained when passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem?
- Mushtaque Ahmed Memon and another vs Arshad Hussain Bhutto, etc.2023 PLJ SC 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals challenge a common judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which had allowed appeals filed by private respondents against notifications affecting their seniority due to the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Adhoc Appointments) (Amendment) Act, 2014. The core legal question concerned the scope and applicability of the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Adhoc Appointments) Act, 1994, and the amending 2014 Act, particularly regarding retrospective seniority granted to regularized ad-hoc appointees at the expense of civil servants selected through the Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that an amendment introduced twenty years later creating a deeming clause to alter seniority retrospectively violates the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and infringes upon the vested rights of lawfully appointed civil servants. The key principle laid down is that retrospective statutory amendments cannot be utilized to take away accrued constitutional rights or discriminate against civil servants duly selected through the public service commission.
Questions settled- Whether an amendment introducing a retrospective deeming clause can take away the vested seniority rights of civil servants?
- Does the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Adhoc Appointments) (Amendment) Act, 2014 validly confer retrospective seniority from the date of initial ad-hoc appointment?
- Can ad-hoc appointees regularized under the 1994 Act claim seniority over civil servants selected through the Public Service Commission from the date of their ad-hoc appointment?
- Mushtaque Ahmed Memon and another vs Arshad Hussain Bhutto and others2023 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprised ten civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a common judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi. The core legal question concerned the scope, applicability, and constitutionality of the retrospective benefits conferred by the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) (Amendment) Act, 2014, which amended Section 3(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) Act, 1994, to reckon ad hoc employees' seniority from their initial appointment date rather than their regularization date. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that retrospective amendments taking away the vested constitutional rights and seniority of civil servants properly selected through the Sindh Public Service Commission are unconstitutional and legally invalid. The Court reaffirmed that ad hoc employees regularized under statutory schemes cannot claim seniority prior to their date of regularization at the expense of regular appointees, as doing so violates Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
Questions settled- Can a statutory amendment retrospectively alter the date of regularization of ad hoc employees to defeat the vested seniority of regular civil servants?
- Does assigning retrospective seniority to ad hoc employees from their initial appointment date violate Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- From what date does the seniority of ad hoc employees regularized under a statutory regularization act take effect?
- Mushtaq Ahmed vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1823 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility and evidentiary value of unverified CCTV footage and alleged confessions made to police officers. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the CCTV footage lacked forensic verification, rendering it unreliable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court also highlighted procedural lapses, including the failure to conduct an identification parade and contradictions in witness testimonies. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that conviction cannot rest solely on electronic evidence like video clips without forensic authentication and corroborative evidence. Additionally, the Court reaffirmed that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.
Questions settled- Is CCTV footage admissible as evidence in a criminal trial without forensic verification?
- Can a conviction be sustained based solely on video evidence without corroborative proof?
- Are confessions made to police officers admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Does the failure to conduct an identification parade in a case involving unknown accused create reasonable doubt?
- Mushtaq Ahmed vs Ishfaq Ahmed and others2023 YLR 420 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
- Musawar Hussain vs The State and another2023 LHC 7735, 2024 YLR 1653 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition involves an application for pre-arrest bail arising out of FIR No. 1465 of 2023 registered at Police Station Saddar Muridke, District Sheikhupura, initially for an offence under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with subsequent addition of sections 420, 468, and 471. The core legal questions examined by the court relate to whether an individual can concurrently marry two real sisters and whether a man can marry the sister of his divorced wife while she is undergoing the Iddat period. The Lahore High Court held that marrying two sisters concurrently or marrying a divorced wife's sister during her Iddat constitutes an irregular (fasid) rather than void (batil) marriage, which carries criminal culpability and attracts discretionary punishment under Tazir despite not warranting Hadd. The court further clarified that a talaq is ineffective until the expiration of the Iddat period, and marrying within that period creates criminal liability. Consequently, the court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application, establishing principles regarding temporary prohibitions under Islamic jurisprudence, the nature of fasid marriages, and the legal consequences of contracting marriage during the subsistence of Iddat.
Questions settled- Is it permissible for an individual to marry two real sisters concurrently?
- Can an individual marry the sister of his divorced wife while the latter is undergoing the Iddat period?
- Does marrying the sister of a divorced wife during her Iddat period render the marriage void (batil) or irregular (fasid)?
- Does the registration of an FIR for a cognizable offence become invalidated if investigation reveals only a non-cognizable offence?
- Musawar Gul vs Director General (Admin) Directorate General Health2023 PHC 490 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Musadiq vs The State2023 PHC 167 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
- Musaddiq Hussain vs The State2023 MLD 143 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner moved a post-arrest bail petition before the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of a case registered under sections 380 and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Danyore, District Gilgit. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not named in the FIR, no direct evidence or recovery was attributed to him, and one of the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497. The court held that the case against the petitioner called for further inquiry regarding the charge under section 457, P.P.C., while the offence under section 380, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause, making bail the rule and refusal the exception. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the case relies on circumstantial evidence requiring further inquiry, the grant of bail is the general rule.
Questions settled- Does an offence under section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused is not directly charged in the FIR and no recovery is effected from his possession?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence for an offence under section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
- Musa Khan Shinwari s/o Aman Khan, resident of Nangarhar Afghanistan vs2023 PHC 594, 2024 YLR 1838 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses appeals against convictions and sentences under Section 9(d) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019. The appellants were intercepted by Customs officials at Torkham Terminal (an international customs frontier) carrying large quantities of narcotics from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Although initial FIRs were registered under the federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, the trial court tried and convicted them under the provincial 2019 Act. The core legal question was whether narcotic seizures at a customs border frontier fall under the provincial Act or the federal Act of 1997. The High Court held that under Section 59 of the provincial Act of 2019, the federal Act was repealed only for intra-provincial activities. For inter-provincial or international smuggling at federal customs frontiers, the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 remains fully applicable. The High Court set aside the convictions and remanded the cases for a de novo trial under the 1997 Act.
Questions settled- Whether narcotics seized at an international customs frontier are subject to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 or the federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Does Section 59 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 repeal the federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for offences committed at customs frontiers?
- What is the effect of trying an accused under provincial narcotics legislation when the offence fell under federal legislative jurisdiction at a customs frontier?
- Murtaza alias Murti and another vs The State2023 MLD 1769 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution's ocular evidence, which contained significant contradictions with medical reports and involved dishonest improvements by witnesses, could sustain convictions after the acquittal of seven co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment establishes key principles: first, injuries on prosecution witnesses merely indicate their presence at the scene, not the veracity of their testimony. Second, police opinions regarding guilt or innocence are irrelevant once trial evidence is recorded. Third, if prosecution evidence is disbelieved against acquitted co-accused, it cannot be used against remaining accused without independent corroboration. Finally, recoveries are rendered unreliable when weapons and crime scene empties are kept together at the police station, precluding forensic validation.
Questions settled- Does the presence of injuries on a prosecution witness automatically establish the truthfulness of their testimony?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution evidence has been disbelieved against co-accused and lacks independent corroboration against the remaining accused?
- Is the police opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused relevant after the recording of evidence at trial?
- Does the practice of keeping recovered weapons and crime scene empties together at the police station invalidate the forensic report?
- Muratib Ali Alvi vs The Punjab Bar Council, Lahore through Chairman2023 PLD Lahore 313 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
- Murad Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Water & Power and others2023 IHC 260 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Murad Ali vs The State etc.2023 PHC 368 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-13Read full judgment →
- Murad Ali Khan & another vs Sarwar Khan & 40 others2023 PHC 100, 2024 YLR 1803 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-03Read full judgment →
- Muqarrab Khan etc vs Haji Guli Shah etc2023 PHC 484 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
- Muqadar Khan vs The State and 01 Other2023 PHC 9, 2024 PCRLJ 229 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302(b), 324, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and causing hurt. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility and evidentiary value of a dying declaration recorded as a Murasila, the applicability of the doctrine of Novus Actus Interveniens regarding the cause of death, and the burden of proof for a plea of self-defense. The Court held that the dying declaration, being straightforward and verified by an injured witness, constituted substantive evidence despite being recorded by a Levies official. The Court rejected the appellant's plea of self-defense, noting that the appellant provided inconsistent versions of the incident and failed to discharge the burden of proof under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the death was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained, dismissing the application of Novus Actus Interveniens. Consequently, the conviction and sentences were maintained, and the revision petition regarding the quantum of sentence was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration recorded in a Murasila by a police official be treated as a substantive piece of evidence?
- Does the failure to specifically mention the term 'dying declaration' during an examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate its use as evidence?
- Under what conditions does the doctrine of Novus Actus Interveniens apply to break the causal link between an injury and the subsequent death of a victim?
- When does the burden of proof shift to the accused to establish a plea of private defense under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Munir Hussain and others vs Riffat Shamim and others2023 SCMR 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding a declaratory suit challenging the paternity of a respondent. The petitioners, siblings of the deceased Azhar Hussain, filed a suit seeking a declaration that respondent No. 2 (Tuba Sahab) was not the daughter of the deceased, but rather the daughter of another individual, thereby aiming to increase their inheritance share. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had the legal standing under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, to challenge the paternity of another person after the alleged father's death. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners lacked the requisite legal character to maintain such a suit. Relying on the precedent set in Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayum, the Court affirmed the principle that challenging another person's paternity or legitimacy does not constitute an assertion of one's own legal character under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Consequently, the suit for a negative declaration regarding paternity was held to be not maintainable.
Questions settled- Can a party maintain a suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 to challenge the paternity of another person?
- Does challenging the paternity of another individual constitute an assertion of one's own legal character under the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
- Munir Husain and others vs Riffat Shamim and others2023 SCP 298, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously declined to grant leave to appeal and upheld a judgment of the Islamabad High Court. The underlying dispute involved the paternal uncles and aunts of the respondent, Tuba Sahab, who challenged her paternity seventeen years after the death of her father, Azhar Hussain. The core legal question addressed was whether the High Court and the Supreme Court correctly applied the legal principles established in the case of Laila Qayyum v Fawad Qayum (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 449) regarding the challenge to paternity. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, affirming that the previous judgment was correctly decided and applied the relevant precedent. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had failed to implement the High Court's judgment, remaining in possession of the estate and depriving the respondent of her inheritance. Consequently, the Court directed the District Collector, Revenue, Talagang, Punjab, to immediately ensure the devolution of the estate in accordance with the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Does the filing of a review petition operate as an automatic stay of the judgment under review?
- Can the paternity of an individual be challenged by paternal relatives seventeen years after the death of the father?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court judgment that correctly applies established precedent regarding paternity?
- Munir Gul & others vs Jehanzeb & others2023 PHC 506, 2024 MLD 1715 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-23Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmed vs The State, etc.2023 LHC 2484 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-28Read full judgment →