Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Moulvi Iqbal Haider vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others2023 PLD Sindh 182 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-25Read full judgment →
• Moula Dino and others vs Metloob Hussain and others2023 PLJ Karachi 54 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-14Read full judgment →
• Moula Dino & Ors vs Metloob Hussain & Ors2023 SHC 122 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-14Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux Khatian vs The Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and others2023 PLC 1232 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-24
  rejection of plaintres judicatalimitationdeputationpermanent inductionservice benefitsparent department
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed by the defendant, Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGC), seeking the rejection of the plaintiff's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of limitation and res judicata. The plaintiff, a former employee of SSGC who was deputed to the Federal Government and subsequently permanently inducted into the service of the Government of Sindh following previous constitutional litigation, instituted a civil suit claiming retirement dues and service benefits from SSGC for the period spanning 1989 to 2001. The core legal question centered on whether an employee permanently absorbed into government service upon his own motion can subsequently claim retirement and service benefits from his parent corporate employer, and whether the suit was barred by limitation and the principle of res judicata. The Sindh High Court held that since the plaintiff's services had been permanently absorbed into the Sindh Government with all consequential benefits pursuant to earlier judicial determinations, and because SSGC's service rules did not provide for deputation, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim retirement dues or service benefits from SSGC. The court further ruled that the suit was barred by laches and the principles governing past and closed matters. Consequently, the plaint was rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee permanently absorbed into government service after deputation can claim retirement and service benefits from their parent corporate employer?
  • Does a suit filed years after a plaintiff's permanent induction into government service for recovery of service benefits from a parent department run foul of limitation and laches?
  • Whether the principle of res judicata applies when an issue regarding permanent induction and service status has been finally decided in prior constitutional petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux alias Molu vs The State2023 YLR 270 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-05
  criminal appealidentification paradebenefit of the doubtpolice encounterdacoitymurderanti-terrorismeyewitness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the identity of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt as one of the culprits who committed dacoity and fired at the police, resulting in a fatal police encounter and the murder of a police officer. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the appellant due to delayed identification parades, failure of key eye-witnesses to identify the accused, lack of descriptive physical features (hulias) in the initial report, violation of identification parade rules, and multiple evidentiary gaps including the absence of weapon recovery and inadmissible police confessions. The court laid down the principle that an uncorroborated identification of an unknown accused after an inordinate delay, without proper preliminary descriptions and flawed identification proceedings, cannot form the basis of a conviction and entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade conducted after an inordinate delay of several years can safely be relied upon to convict an unknown accused?
  • What is the legal effect of an eyewitness failing to provide a preliminary physical description (hulia) in the FIR or police statement prior to an identification parade?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of a police confession when the accused was not produced before a magistrate for recording a judicial confession?
  • Does the absence of weapon recovery and delayed forensic analysis of empties weaken the prosecution case regarding the identity of the shooter?
  Read full judgment →
• Mosa Khan vs The State2023 YLR 363 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-24
  post-arrest bailnarcotic traffickingconscious possessioncriminal liabilityrecovery from vehiclefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner, Mosa Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 1533, registered under sections 9D and 11C of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Narcotic Substances Act, 2019. The petitioner was charged with trafficking significant quantities of heroin and amphetamine, along with possession of small amounts of heroin and ice, discovered in a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was a passenger in the vehicle, could be held liable for the large quantity of narcotics recovered from a secret cavity controlled by the co-accused, given the lack of evidence establishing his conscious knowledge or involvement in the smuggling attempt. The court held that while the petitioner possessed a small, personal quantity of narcotics, there was no evidence linking him to the larger smuggling operation. Consequently, the court found his participation in the alleged crime required further inquiry and granted bail. The principle laid down is that mere presence in a vehicle containing contraband, without evidence of conscious knowledge or control, does not establish criminal nexus for trafficking charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an individual in a vehicle containing a large quantity of narcotics establish their liability for trafficking?
  • Can possession of a small, personal quantity of contraband be used to establish liability for a larger smuggling operation found in the same vehicle?
  • What evidence is required to establish a nexus between a passenger and contraband recovered from a secret cavity in a vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Moran Khan vs Ali Nawaz and 5 others2023 YLR 173 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-10
  criminal acquittal appealspecial leave to appealillegal dispossessionmaintainabilitylimitation periodcomplaint case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Criminal Acquittal Appeal filed against a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Daharki, which acquitted the respondents of charges under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant challenged the acquittal, arguing that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and that the judgment was based on conjectures. The core legal question was whether a direct criminal acquittal appeal is maintainable against an acquittal order passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint without first obtaining special leave to appeal. The Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. It reasoned that under Section 417(2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an aggrieved party in a complaint case must file an application for special leave to appeal within sixty days of the acquittal order. Since the appellant failed to follow this mandatory statutory procedure and the limitation period had expired, the appeal could not be entertained. The principle established is that the procedural requirements for seeking special leave to appeal in complaint-based acquittal cases are mandatory and jurisdictional.

  Questions settled

  • Is a direct criminal acquittal appeal maintainable against an acquittal order passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint?
  • What is the time limit for filing an application for special leave to appeal against an acquittal order in a complaint case?
  • Does the failure to obtain special leave to appeal render an acquittal appeal in a complaint case non-maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Monday Erima Paul vs The State and another2023 YLR 749 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-15
  post-arrest bailcocaine smugglingbody cavity concealmentcustoms actnarcotics recoveryconscious knowledgeprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969, following the recovery of 1350 grams of cocaine concealed in capsules inside his body upon arrival at the Islamabad Airport. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the substantial recovery of contraband. The Islamabad High Court held that the factor of conscious knowledge could not be ruled out at the tentative assessment stage, and sufficient incriminating material was available on record to connect the petitioner with the heinous offence. Consequently, the court refused bail and dismissed the petition, while expecting the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused from whose body a substantial quantity of contraband is recovered is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the recovery of narcotic drugs concealed inside the body of an accused raise a question of conscious knowledge at the bail stage?
  • Whether post-arrest bail should be refused when sufficient incriminating material connects the accused to the alleged smuggling offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Momin vs The State2023 YLR 938 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-02-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytentative assessmentbenefit of doubtcorroborative evidencemedical evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from FIR No. 18 of 2021, registered under Sections 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The applicant sought post-arrest bail, contending that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions, including a delayed FIR and a lack of incriminating material. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the scope of "further inquiry" under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce essential medical reports for the injured and that the ocular account of the firing was inconsistent with the physical evidence, creating reasonable doubt. Reaffirming that bail decisions require a tentative assessment of available material rather than a vacuum-based approach, the Court held that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must accrue to the accused, and that weapon recovery serves only as corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to collect medical evidence for an injured person entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the recovery of a crime weapon considered substantive or merely corroborative evidence in a bail application?
  • What is the scope of the "further inquiry" provision under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court conduct a tentative assessment of evidence when deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Momin Khan and another vs Abdul Sattar and others2023 MLD 618 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
• Moin Us Samad Khan vs Mrs. Tanveer Qazi2023 PLD Sindh 35 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Rasool vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Government, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others2023 CLC 1713 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mohmad vs S.H.O. etc2023 LHC 2489 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-27Read full judgment →
• Mohibullah vs The State2023 PLD Peshawar 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-12
  refreshing memorywitness testimonycriminal trialpolice filefair trialcross-examinationQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges a trial court order allowing a prosecution witness to refresh his memory using the police file during examination-in-chief without a formal request or established foundation. The core legal question concerns the permissible scope and procedure for witnesses to refresh their memory under Article 155 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and whether allowing a witness to read directly from a police file violates the right to a fair trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court erred by permitting the witness to testify while reading from the police file without first establishing a memory lapse or following the requisite legal procedure. The Court ruled that the police file is a confidential record not intended for witness testimony, and the practice of allowing a witness to regurgitate evidence from it undermines cross-examination and prejudices the accused. The Court set aside the impugned order, declared the witness's prior testimony inadmissible, and mandated that the evidence be recorded afresh, emphasizing that witnesses must testify from memory, not by reading documents authored by others.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness refresh their memory from a police file without a formal request or establishing a foundation for memory lapse?
  • Is a witness permitted to read from a police file while testifying in the witness box?
  • What is the proper procedure for a witness to refresh their memory under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohattar Bashir Mughal D/O Ghulam Bashir Mughal vs Azad Government2023 SC AJK 66, 2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 124 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Mohan Lal s/o Peeiro Mal, Nand Lal s/o Chando Mal vs The State2023 SHC 407 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-01
  narcotics controlbenefit of doubtcriminal appealheroins recoverycircumstantial evidencereappraisal of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants for an offense under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 68 KGs of heroin from cotton bales loaded in a trailer leaving a factory owned by the appellants. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the factory owners beyond a reasonable doubt based on the sketchy testimony of a solitary, unverified security guard and circumstantial links, particularly in the absence of corroborative evidence and unexplained transit delays. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's evidence regarding the appellants' active involvement and the presence of the security guard was fraught with contradictions, omissions, and serious doubts. Laying down the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants, and ordered their immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a disputed security guard is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does an unexplained delay between a vehicle leaving a premises and its interception by law enforcement create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  • When should the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused in a narcotics case?
  • Whether factory owners can be convicted for narcotics recovered from a transport vehicle without direct proof of their involvement in stuffing the contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammed Iqbal Khamisani through Attorney vs Messrs Hotel Metropole2023 YLR 2530 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Taufique Khan vs Pakistan Atomic Energy and 03 others2023 SHC 68 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-15
  service matterdepartmental inquirynatural justicemisconducttermination of serviceproportionality of punishmentjudicial reviewconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s services by the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission for alleged concealment of prior employment. The core legal question was whether the respondent could terminate the petitioner for misconduct without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, and whether the imposed punishment was proportionate to the alleged offense. The Court held that the termination was unlawful. It established that when an employee specifically denies charges involving disputed facts, the disciplinary authority is legally obligated to conduct a regular inquiry rather than relying solely on a show-cause notice. The Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial, protected under Article 10-A of the Constitution, necessitates adherence to principles of natural justice, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Furthermore, the Court ruled that punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct; imposing the extreme penalty of removal for a minor non-disclosure, without proper inquiry, was arbitrary, capricious, and disproportionate. Consequently, the Court set aside the termination order and directed the petitioner's reinstatement with full back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory when a public servant denies charges of misconduct involving disputed facts?
  • Can a court interfere with a disciplinary order if the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct?
  • Does the failure to conduct a regular inquiry in service matters violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Tahir Nizami vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations & Coordination, Pak. Secretariat, Islamabad and others2023 IHC 120, 2023 IHC 364, 2025 CLC 943 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-12
  National Council for Homeopathyelection schedulescrutiny of nomination paperseligibility of candidatesre-electioncooling-off periodstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the acceptance of nomination papers of sitting members of the National Council for Homeopathy for upcoming Council elections. They argued that under Section 9(3) of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, incumbent members are only eligible for re-election or re-nomination after their prescribed five-year term expires. Since Section 9(5) requires elections for a successive Council to be held at least three months before the expiry of the incumbent Council's tenure, serving members could not contest while still holding office. The court examined Section 9 of the Act alongside the Unani Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic System Medicine Rules, 1980. The Islamabad High Court held that the statute plain text creates a mandatory cooling-off period for incumbent members, making them ineligible to contest elections for a successive Council prior to the expiry of their current five-year term. The acceptance of the respondents' nomination papers was declared unlawful, and the Returning Officer was directed to issue a revised election schedule excluding incumbent members.

  Questions settled

  • Are sitting members of the National Council for Homeopathy eligible to contest elections for a successive Council prior to the expiry of their current five-year tenure?
  • Does Section 9(3) of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965 create a mandatory cooling-off period for incumbent Council members?
  • Can courts read words into an unambiguous statutory provision under the guise of purposive interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sibtain Khan and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan2023 SCP 211, 2023 SCMR 2165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-04
  election commission of pakistanconstitutional petitiongeneral electionjudicial reviewelectoral timelinearticle 224article 218(3)fundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) postponing the general election for the Punjab Assembly beyond the 90-day period mandated by Article 224(2) of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the ECP possesses the constitutional power to unilaterally extend election dates based on claims of financial or security constraints. The Supreme Court held that the ECP’s order was unconstitutional, void ab initio, and without lawful authority. The Court ruled that the ECP’s constitutional duty under Article 218(3) to conduct elections fairly does not confer a power to override the mandatory timelines set by Article 224. The Court emphasized that constitutional duties cannot be conflated with powers to negate other constitutional provisions. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while the ECP may seek assistance from executive authorities under Article 220, it cannot use perceived lack of support as a justification to abandon its constitutional mandate. The judgment established that the ECP is not immune from judicial review and must adhere strictly to constitutional timeframes for holding elections.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the power to extend the date of general elections beyond the 90-day period stipulated in the Constitution?
  • Can the Election Commission of Pakistan use its duty under Article 218(3) to override other constitutional provisions regarding election timelines?
  • Is the Election Commission of Pakistan immune from judicial review regarding its decisions to alter election schedules?
  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the authority to unilaterally abandon a notified election program under the Elections Act, 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sibtain Khan and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan2023 SCP 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-14
  election fundingFederal Consolidated Fundconstitutional mandateState Bank of Pakistangeneral electionsexpenditure authorizationex post facto approval
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the implementation of a prior court order regarding the provision of funds for general elections to the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assemblies. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government and the State Bank of Pakistan could immediately release Rs. 21 Billion to the Election Commission of Pakistan for the purpose of holding these elections, and whether such expenditure was constitutionally permissible. Upon reviewing presentations from the State Bank and the Ministry of Finance, the Court determined there were no financial or procedural impediments to the release of these funds. Consequently, the Court directed the State Bank of Pakistan and the Ministry of Finance to ensure the sum of Rs. 21 Billion was made available to the Election Commission by increasing the relevant expenditure ceiling by the specified deadline. The Court affirmed the principle that under Article 84 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Federal Government is authorized to make expenditures from the Federal Consolidated Fund for new services not included in the Annual Budget Statement, subject to subsequent ex post facto approval by the National Assembly.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Federal Government authorized to make expenditures from the Federal Consolidated Fund for new services not included in the Annual Budget Statement?
  • Can the Court direct the State Bank of Pakistan and the Ministry of Finance to release funds for the purpose of holding general elections?
  • Does the expenditure of funds for holding general elections require ex post facto approval from the National Assembly under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sibtain Khan & others vs Election Commission of Pakistan thr. Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and others2023 SCP 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-27
  Election Commission of Pakistanpolling dateconstitutional interpretationgeneral electionsfundamental rightsdemocratic system
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging an order issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on 22.03.2023, which effectively annulled the polling date previously fixed by the President of Pakistan. The petitioners contend that the ECP lacks the constitutional or legal authority to unilaterally alter a polling date set by the President under Section 57(1) of the Elections Act, 2017 and Article 112 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The ECP purportedly relied on Article 254 of the Constitution to justify the delay. The Court observed that Article 254 provides post facto protection for acts performed beyond prescribed time limits but does not grant prior authorization for delaying constitutional obligations. Emphasizing that timely elections are essential for the democratic system and fundamental rights of the public, the Court issued notice to the respondents to address the legal and factual questions raised regarding the ECP's authority and the validity of the grounds cited for postponing the elections to 08.10.2023. The matter was adjourned for further hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the authority to annul a polling date fixed by the President of Pakistan?
  • Does Article 254 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 provide prior authorization for delaying constitutional obligations?
  • Is the postponement of general elections a matter of public importance affecting fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Shahbaz s/o Mohammad Ashraf vs Nasarullah Khan and2023 SC AJK 10 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Mohammad Sajjad vs Secretary Higher Education Azad Government of the State of Jammu And Kashmir Muzaffarabad and 4 others2023 PLC (C.S) 735 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-05-10
  writ petitionres judicataclean hands doctrineequitable reliefsuppression of factsservice matterjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a writ petition filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974, wherein the petitioner sought directions to compel the appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Political Science, alleging that the respondent department had mala fidely withheld certain posts. The core legal questions were whether the petition was maintainable given a prior dismissal of a writ petition on the same cause of action, and whether the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the relief sought. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition on the identical subject matter which was dismissed. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner failed to produce evidence of withheld posts and engaged in tricky behavior by suppressing material facts regarding the prior litigation. The Court reaffirmed that the writ jurisdiction is an equitable remedy requiring the petitioner to approach the Court with clean hands, and that the doctrine of res judicata serves the public policy of ensuring finality in litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner has previously filed a petition on the same cause of action that was dismissed by the Court?
  • Does the doctrine of res judicata apply to constitutional petitions where the subject matter and prayer are identical to a previously dismissed petition?
  • What is the consequence of a petitioner suppressing material facts regarding prior litigation in a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Iftikhar vs M/s. First Dawood Investment Bank Ltd., & others2023 SHC 172 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Iftikhar vs Messrs First Dawood Investment Bank Ltd. through Authorized Officer_Attorney and 2 others2023 CLD 1124 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Boota (Deceased) through L.Rs., and others vs Mst. Fatima2023 SCMR 1901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-22
  succession to tenancycolonization landsharia lawcustomary lawinheritance of femaleslimitation and co-sharersbahawalpur tenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves two civil appeals concerning succession to tenancy rights under the Abadkari Scheme in Bahawalpur, where female legal heirs claimed their inheritance shares, which had been denied under Section 20 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The core legal question was whether succession to the tenancy of the original allottee, who died prior to 1951, is governed under Section 20 of the Colonization Act or by Sharia law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that even prior to the insertion of Section 19-A into the Colonization Act in 1951, Muslim personal law (Sharia) governed succession to agricultural land and tenancies in the State of Bahawalpur by virtue of the West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 and related statutory provisions, overriding customary law and Section 20. The Court laid down that inheritance rights of female heirs cannot be defeated by erroneous revenue mutations or limitation pleas when co-sharers are defrauded or denied their legitimate shares, and that Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962 ensures Sharia law applies retrospectively to settle succession disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether succession to a tenancy under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, is governed by Section 20 or by Sharia law when the original tenant died prior to 1951?
  • Did the West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 apply to the State of Bahawalpur to govern succession to agricultural land and tenancies according to Muslim personal law?
  • Does limitation run against a female co-heir who has been denied her inheritance rights and deprived of her share by family members?
  • What is the legal effect of an erroneous inheritance mutation sanctioned in favour of male heirs contrary to the Sharia law of inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Azam Khan and 6 others vs Muhammad Bashir Khan and others2023 PLJ AJ&K 9 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Mohammad Aslam Wadani vs Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, D.G. Khan and 2 others2023 YLR 130 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Arif vs Liaqat Ali and 5 others2023 YLR 1716 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-03-22
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceperverse acquittalburden of proofcriminal jurisprudencereasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 147, 148, 149, 337, 427, and 452 of the Azad Penal Code regarding allegations of house demolition and physical assault. The core legal question was whether the acquittal order was perverse, arbitrary, or based on a misreading of evidence, warranting appellate interference. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an acquitted accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence: the initial presumption of innocence and the presumption earned through the acquittal order. Consequently, an appellate court may only interfere with an acquittal if the order is found to be perverse, capricious, fanciful, or based on a misreading of material evidence. Finding no such illegality in the lower courts' assessment of the evidence, the Court upheld the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal standard for an appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does an acquitted accused enjoy a double presumption of innocence?
  • Is an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR a ground for doubting the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ali Tariq vs Thai Airways International and others2023 IHC 440, 2023 IHC 124, 2024 PLD Islamabad 227 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ahmad Ansari vs Interglobe Commerce Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.2023 CLD 570 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Moazam S/O Abdul Bari & Another vs The State2023 SHC 900 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-18
  post-arrest bailrobberyrecovery of weaponstentative assessmentSection 103 CrPCheinous offense
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the rejection of the applicants' post-arrest bail plea by the trial court in a case involving robbery. The applicants were allegedly apprehended at the scene of the crime by police while attempting to flee after committing robbery at the complainant's house, with unlicensed weapons and stolen cash recovered from their possession. The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated, no recovery was made, and the recovery procedure violated statutory requirements. Conversely, the State argued that the applicants were caught red-handed, the FIR was lodged promptly, and sufficient material existed to connect them to the heinous offenses. The Court held that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment is required, and prima facie, sufficient material connected the applicants to the alleged offenses. The Court further observed that strict compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not required under the Sindh Arms Act 2013. Consequently, finding reasonable grounds to believe the applicants committed the offenses, the Court dismissed the bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a weapon in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is strict compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 required for recoveries made under the Sindh Arms Act 2013?
  • What is the scope of judicial assessment at the post-arrest bail stage regarding the merits of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mistary Shahid Karim vs Mistary Shahid Karim2023 CLC 2140 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-20Read full judgment →
• Miss Memoona Zainab Kazmi vs Additional District Judge (Mcac)2023 CLC 207 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mirza Waqar Ahmed and others vs Ayesha Zeeshan and others2023 MLD 1000 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mirza Waqar Ahmad etc vs Ayesha Zeeshan, etc2023 LHC 965 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mirza Sugar Mills Limited, MCB Bank vs MCB Bank, Mirza Sugar Mills and others2023 SHC 860 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mirza Shakeel Ahmed and others vs Atif Tanveer Bhatti and another2023 PLJ Islamabad 229, 2023 MLD 1715 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mirza Shahzeb vs City Police Officer, Police Line, Rawalpindi and 4 others2023 PLC (C.S) 749 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-16
  police recruitmentconcealment of factscriminal recordcandidature rejectionpolice servicemisstatementjudicial precedent
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the rejection of their candidature for the post of Constable in the Punjab Police Department, which occurred due to their failure to disclose previous involvement in criminal cases during the application process. The core legal question was whether the concealment of past criminal involvement, even if followed by acquittal, justifies the rejection of a candidate for a police position. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the concealment of material facts at the time of recruitment disentitles a candidate from appointment. The Court emphasized that police personnel must maintain high standards of integrity and honesty; thus, a misstatement or concealment of criminal history at the inception of recruitment undermines the credibility of the candidate's character, rendering them unsuitable for service. The Court further clarified that previous judicial views permitting such appointments were per incuriam, affirming that recruitment policies requiring full disclosure are mandatory. The judgment reinforces the principle that honesty at the entry stage is a sine qua non for law enforcement roles.

  Questions settled

  • Does the concealment of previous involvement in a criminal case justify the rejection of a candidate for the post of police constable?
  • Is a candidate's acquittal in a criminal case sufficient to excuse the failure to disclose that criminal involvement in a recruitment application?
  • Can a Bench of the High Court deviate from a view taken by a Bench of the same number of judges without referring the matter to a larger bench?
  • Does the concealment of criminal history during the recruitment process constitute a valid ground for disqualification from police service?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Nadeem Baig vs Pakistan Kaimkhani Education Trust2023 SHC 371 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Akbar Baig vs Add. District Judge, etc2023 LHC 983, 2024 CLC 979 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mirza Hasan Ali vs The State and 2 others2023 YLR 1029 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-27
  criminal acquittal appealdishonored chequecondonation of delaylimitation periodburden of proofSection 489-F PPCinvestment vs loan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court, which acquitted the respondent in a case involving a dishonored cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the appeal, filed 115 days beyond the statutory limitation period, warranted condonation of delay, and whether the trial court’s acquittal was legally sustainable. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was time-barred and lacked merit. The Court emphasized that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for each day of the delay, as required by law. On merits, the Court found that the prosecution’s case was contradictory; documentary evidence indicated the transaction was an investment rather than a loan, and the complainant offered inconsistent versions regarding the issuance of the cheque. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking condonation of delay must account for each day of the delay, and an acquittal cannot be overturned where the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellant required to explain the delay of each day to obtain condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does a transaction characterized as an investment rather than a loan fall under the ambit of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an acquittal be overturned when the prosecution's evidence regarding the nature of the transaction is contradictory?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Chughtai vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman, NAB2023 YLR 776 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mira Bukhsh vs The State2023 PCRLJ 233 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-12
  criminal appealmurderinjured witnesschild witnesscommon intentionvicarious liabilityweapon recoveryfsl reportbail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder, attempt to commit murder, and causing hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involve the credibility of an injured and child witness, the application of vicarious liability through common intention, and the admissibility of a disclosure and subsequent weapon recovery. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the testimony of the injured witness was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence, and that vicarious liability attaches when co-accused share a common intention. The court dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that the solitary statement of an injured witness, if confidence-inspiring, is sufficient for conviction, and that once a common intention is established, the specific part played by each participant is immaterial.

  Questions settled

  • Is the solitary testimony of an injured witness sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can a child witness's statement be relied upon when corroborated by other direct evidence?
  • Does the principle of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code render the specific role played by each individual immaterial once common intention is proved?
  • Is a disclosure leading to the recovery of a crime weapon admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SHC 323 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-16Read full judgment →
• Mir Altaf Hussain, Advocate High Court Aj&K etc. vs Azad Government of The State of Jammu & Kashmir through Chief Secretary and others2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 92 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Mir Altaf Hussain & Others vs Azad Government & Others2023 SC AJK 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mir Akbar vs The State and another2023 YLR 804 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-12
  criminal appealmurder convictionsudden quarrelheat of passionpremeditationocular evidencesentence reductionreconstructed record
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s actions constituted intentional murder with premeditation or if the offense occurred during a sudden quarrel, warranting a lesser classification. The Peshawar High Court, upon reappraising the evidence, found that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant’s involvement through consistent ocular and medical evidence. However, the Court determined that the incident arose from a sudden altercation and grappling, indicating the absence of premeditation or prior intent to kill. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant acted in the heat of passion. The ratio laid down is that when a homicide occurs during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, the offense is appropriately categorized under Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than Section 302(b), regardless of the number of injuries sustained by the victim. Accordingly, the Court converted the conviction to Section 302(c) and reduced the sentence to eight years of rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murder committed during a sudden quarrel without premeditation fall under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the number of injuries inflicted on a deceased a decisive factor in determining whether an assailant acted in a cruel manner during a sudden quarrel?
  • Can a conviction be upheld based on ocular evidence when the original police and judicial files were destroyed and subsequently reconstructed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmed vs The State2023 PCRLJ 558 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-29
  qatl-i-amdocular testimonyrelated witnessesabsconsioncorroborative evidencecriminal appealmedical evidencefiniteness of conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question involved the reliability of ocular testimony from close relatives of the deceased, the presence of minor discrepancies, and the evidentiary value of prolonged absconsion. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of natural eye-witnesses, though related to the deceased, remained consistent and trustworthy, and was fully corroborated by prompt FIR registration, medical evidence, and the appellant's unexplained prolonged absconsion for nearly seven years. The court established that mere relationship of witnesses to the victim does not discredit their testimony in the absence of proven enmity, and that long absconsion serves as a strong piece of corroborative evidence when paired with solid direct ocular proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their close relationship with the deceased?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of an accused person's prolonged absconsion in a criminal trial?
  • Do minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses warrant the rejection of their entire testimony?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of ocular testimony when supported by prompt registration of the FIR and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Abdul Rab and others vs Ghulam Haider and others2023 MLD 462 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-26Read full judgment →
• Ministry of Information Technology & Telecommunication vs Ayub Khan2023 IHC 58 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mianland Husnain pakistan Limited, Hassan Naseem, Lt. General (R) Saeed2023 SCP 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-26
  Pakistan Railwaysland managementpublic interestrevenue generationencroachmentjudicial orderslease policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the management and utilization of vast tracts of land owned by the Pakistan Railways Organization. The core legal question addressed is whether the Railways Organization may utilize its land for revenue generation and public purposes, notwithstanding previous judicial orders restricting such use to operational purposes only. The Court held that while the protection of Railways land from encroachment is paramount, the Organization may lease land for up to five years, provided the nature of the land remains unchanged, consistent with the Court's earlier order dated 04.01.2019. Furthermore, the Court permitted the utilization of such land for public works initiated by Government bodies. The key principle laid down is that while the Railways Organization must seek explicit legislative or regulatory approval from the Federal Government and Parliament for any developmental schemes or changes in land use, it retains the authority to manage and utilize land for revenue generation and public benefit, provided such activities do not alter the fundamental nature of the land or violate public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Pakistan Railways Organization lease its land for revenue generation purposes without changing the nature of the land?
  • Is the Pakistan Railways Organization permitted to utilize its land for public works initiated by Government bodies?
  • What is the required procedure for the Pakistan Railways Organization to implement developmental schemes on its land?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Zohaib Aslam Advocate vs Returning Officer and another2023 LHC 2170 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mian Tariq Mehmood vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2023 LHC 542 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mian Tariq Aziz vs The State etc2023 LHC 2572, 2024 YLR 1264 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-23
  concurrent civil and criminal proceedingsstay of criminal proceedingsforged sale deedinherent jurisdictionprobative value of forensic reportquashing of criminal proceedingsprejudice to accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's plea under section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to stay criminal proceedings in an FIR concerning alleged forgery of a sale deed while civil suits involving the same property were pending. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of civil litigation concerning the same subject matter. The Lahore High Court held that while civil and criminal proceedings can generally proceed concurrently, criminal proceedings must be stayed if the accused's criminal liability or the complainant's locus standi is inextricably linked to or dependent on the outcome of pending civil litigation, to prevent conflicting decisions and grave injustice. The court accepted the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed that the criminal proceedings remain stayed until the final decision of the civil cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of civil litigation concerning the same subject matter?
  • Whether the pendency of a civil suit operates as an absolute bar to the maintainability of criminal proceedings?
  • Is a forensic science report regarding a disputed document conclusive evidence under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the guiding principles for the High Court when exercising discretion to stay criminal proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs State through Chairman, National2023 IHC 308 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mian Manzoor Ahmad through L.Rs. vs Mian Muhammad Akbar and 52023 PLJ Lahore 408 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Manzoor Ahmad through L. Rs vs Mian Muhammad Akbar and 52023 LHC 175 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Feroze Salah Ud Din vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV, Rto, Lahore2023 PTD (Trib.) 1662 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-08-02Read full judgment →
• Mian Fazl-e-Kareem etc vs Khan Muhammad etc2023 PHC 542 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
• Mian Ejaz Amir vs Haji Muhammad Ibrahim2023 CLC 880, 2023 CLD 534 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mian Bilal vs Muhammad Razzaq, etc.2023 LHC 3331 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mian Babar Rasheed vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and another2023 PLD Lahore 720 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mian Azam Waheed, Shehzad Waheed, Azam Waheed vs The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs, Karachi2023 SCP 167, 2023 SCMR 1068, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 11, 2023 PTD 1571, 2023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  customs valuationtransactional valuevaluation rulingprovisional assessmentexhaustion of alternate remediesinterlocutory ordersmerger of orderscustoms appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of civil petitions for leave to appeal arises from a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had set aside an order of the Customs Appellate Tribunal and restored lower forum decisions upholding the assessment of imported ceramic tiles based on Valuation Ruling No. 216 of 2010. The petitioners imported tiles from China, and the customs authorities rejected their transactional values in favor of the valuation ruling. The petitioners challenged the valuation ruling via writ petitions in the Islamabad High Court, securing provisional release of their goods via interim orders, but the petitions were eventually dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal questions involved the applicability of transactional value under Section 25 of the Customs Act, the effect of alternate statutory remedies such as Section 25D, and whether the limitation period for finalizing provisional assessments under Section 81 applies when goods are released under court stay orders. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners failed to exhaust the adequate alternate remedy of review under Section 25D, that interim orders do not survive the final dismissal of proceedings, and that the valuation ruling remained intact.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be invoked when an adequate alternate statutory remedy under Section 25D of the Customs Act 1969 is available?
  • Whether calculation sheets issued for the payment of duties can be independently challenged as appealable orders under Section 193 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Whether the statutory limitation period under Section 81 of the Customs Act 1969 for finalizing provisional assessments applies when proceedings are prolonged due to interim stay orders granted by a court?
  • Whether interlocutory and interim orders survive the final dismissal of the original proceedings in a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Arif Said vs Province of Punjab etc2023 LHC 4015, 2024 PLJ Lahore 109, 2024 PCRLJ 1037 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-11
  writ petitionillegal detentionremandanti-terrorismcriminal investigationseparation of powerstest identification parade
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged their detention and the remand orders passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court in connection with FIR No. 96/2023, alleging procedural irregularities, illegal custody, and invalid identification parades. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations and whether temporary non-production of an accused before a Magistrate renders detention illegal. The Court held that the investigation of criminal cases falls within the domain of the police, and the High Court should not interfere in ongoing investigations when adequate alternative remedies exist. It further held that any initial procedural irregularity, such as the non-production of an accused during a remand hearing, is cured once the Magistrate subsequently takes cognizance and passes a remand order in the presence of the accused. The key principles laid down are that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 is not for bypassing established criminal procedures, allegations of malafide must be specifically pleaded and proven, and the separation of powers requires judicial restraint regarding police investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere in an ongoing criminal investigation where adequate alternative remedies are available?
  • Does the temporary non-production of an accused before a Magistrate during a remand proceeding render the subsequent detention illegal?
  • Is a general allegation of malafide against police officials sufficient to warrant a judicial inquiry into investigation files?
  • Does the regularization of detention by a Magistrate in the presence of the accused cure prior procedural irregularities in the remand process?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Ghaffar vs Muhammad Anwar Saeed (deceased) through L.Rs.2023 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-18Read full judgment →
• Metropolitan Steel Corporation vs Multan Electric Power Company and others2023 SHC 112, 2025 CLC 248 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zohongding International Engineering Co. Ltd. through Authorized2023 CLC 1163 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zam Zam LPG (Pvt.) Limited through attorney vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary_Chairman Revenue Division and 3 others2023 PTD 649 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Yousuf & Co. and 34 others vs The Collector of Customs Model2023 PTD (Trib.) 1019 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2022-08-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Xavier Company through Partner vs Customs, Excise and Sales Tax2023 PTD 725 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs World call Telecom Ltd. through Chief Financial Officer vs Government of The Punjab through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 6 others2023 PTD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Welcome Prince Rice Mill through Partners vs National Bank of Pakistan through Manager and another2023 CLD 1238, 2023 MLD 1853 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Business Machines through Partner vs Ghulam Hussain2023 YLR 40 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tradhol International Sa Sociedad Unipersonal vs Messrs2023 CLD 819, 2023 PLD Lahore 621 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-28
  foreign arbitral awardrecognition and enforcementNew York Conventionpro-enforcement biaspublic policy exceptionexclusive jurisdiction of High Courtagreement in writingLCIA award
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Sections 3, 5, and 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award rendered by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) under English law. The respondent raised objections under Section 7 of the Act read with Article V of the New York Convention, claiming the underlying agreement was invalid due to lack of authorization/execution and that enforcing the award would violate Pakistan's public policy because civil court proceedings were pending locally. The Lahore High Court allowed the application, holding that High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Act over foreign arbitral matters. It held that the respondent failed to prove invalidity, exchange of modern electronic communications satisfied 'agreement in writing' requirements under Article II, and commencing local civil proceedings in breach of an arbitration clause does not trigger the public policy exception under Article V(2)(b). The court re-affirmed the doctrine of pro-enforcement bias.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 to handle foreign arbitration enforcement matters?
  • Can electronic communications and emails fulfill the requirement of an 'agreement in writing' under Article II of the New York Convention?
  • Does the initiation of civil suit proceedings in local courts by one party constitute a ground to refuse enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under the public policy exception of Article V(2)(b)?
  • How is the doctrine of pro-enforcement bias applied by courts in Pakistan when considering objections to foreign arbitral awards?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Town Crier (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad vs The Commissioner Inland2023 PTD (Trib.) 552 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs TNB Liberty Power Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Unions and others2023 PLC 169 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-13
  trans-provincial establishmentcollective bargaining agentindustrial relationsjurisdiction of registrarfederal vs provincial lawlabour lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition challenged an order by the Registrar of Trade Unions (Sindh) conducting a referendum for a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) and the subsequent issuance of a CBA certificate to the respondent union. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, possessing a registered office in Islamabad and a manufacturing unit in Sindh, constitutes a trans-provincial establishment, thereby subjecting it to the Federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012 rather than the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013. The Court held that the petitioner is a trans-provincial entity, as it operates across provincial boundaries. Consequently, the Federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012 applies, and the Provincial Registrar lacked the jurisdiction to conduct the referendum or issue the certificate. The Court ruled that the impugned order and certificate were void ab initio. The key principle laid down is that jurisdiction in industrial disputes is determined by the status of the employer; establishments operating in more than one province fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal law, which holds overriding effect over provincial legislation pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 have an overriding effect over the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 for trans-provincial establishments?
  • What criteria determine whether an establishment is trans-provincial for the purpose of labour law jurisdiction?
  • Can a provincial Registrar of Trade Unions exercise jurisdiction over an establishment that has its registered office in a federal territory and a manufacturing unit in a province?
  • Does the failure to exhaust an alternative statutory remedy under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 bar a constitutional petition where the impugned action is void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Test International vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PTD 1801 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Telenor Microfinance Bank Limited through authorized2023 PLC 186 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-07
  social securityregistration cardssecured workersbeneficial legislationSESSIemployer liabilitystatutory dutiesSocial Security Courts
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a corporate employer seeking directions for the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution (SESSI) to issue registration cards for its insured workers and employees. The core legal question concerned whether the responsibility for employee registration rests solely on the employer or if SESSI shares a statutory duty to ensure compliance, inspect establishments, and facilitate registration. The Sindh High Court held that while the employer bears the initial statutory obligation to submit registration forms and pay contributions under the Sindh Employees Social Security Act, 2016, SESSI cannot evade its active oversight responsibilities, inspection powers, and duty to bring all eligible employees into the social security net. The Court ruled that upon the petitioner completing the requisite formalities, SESSI must issue the registration cards, and further mandated the Government of Sindh to establish dedicated Social Security Courts across the province to adjudicate related disputes effectively. The key principle laid down is that social security legislation being beneficial in nature must be interpreted liberally in favor of workers, and regulatory institutions are statutorily bound to actively enforce compliance rather than merely shifting the burden of non-registration onto employers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution has a statutory duty to ensure employee registration or if its liability is entirely dependent on the employer's compliance?
  • Can the payment of social security contributions be legally co-mingled with or conditioned upon the actual service of benefits to secured workmen?
  • What are the statutory powers of the social security institution to inspect establishment books and recover unpaid contributions as arrears of land revenue?
  • Whether the Government of Sindh is obligated under the Sindh Employees Social Security Act, 2016 to establish dedicated Social Security Courts across all divisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Ltd. through Senior General Manager2023 PLD Sindh 278 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Super Victoria Store, Lahore vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone WHT, Rto, Lahore2023 PTD (Trib.) 179 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-07-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sun Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Customs2023 PTD 206 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sohail Azhar vs Additional Collector of Customs Mcc of Paccs2023 PTD (Trib.) 942 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2021-11-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sharmeen Foods (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Additional Collector of Customs, Mcc Exports, Custom House, Karachi and others2023 PTD 1365 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2023-02-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shamim Tin Merchant through Proprietor vs The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Karachi and another2023 PTD (Trib.) 899 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2023-03-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shaheen Chemist through Proprietors and 3 others vs Zahid2023 CLD 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-28
  Intellectual Property Tribunaltrademark invalidationtrademark revocationexclusive jurisdictionimplied repealnon-obstante clauseTrade Marks Ordinance 2001IPO Act 2012
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil miscellaneous appeals were filed against an order of the Intellectual Property Tribunal, Islamabad, which returned applications seeking invalidation and cancellation of a registered trademark, directing that such matters be filed before the District Judge. The primary legal question was whether the Intellectual Property Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over civil proceedings seeking statutory remedies under Intellectual Property Laws, including applications for declaration of invalidity or revocation of registered trademarks, or if such jurisdiction remains with the District Court under the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001. The Islamabad High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order. The Court held that the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, being a subsequent special law containing non-obstante provisions under Section 39, impliedly repealed conflicting forum-specifying provisions of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, including Sections 73, 80, and 117. The key principle established is that Section 18(1) of the Act applies to all actions concerning the 'infringement of Intellectual Property Laws' in the broader sense of breach or violation, vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Intellectual Property Tribunal for all civil proceedings arising thereunder.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Intellectual Property Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain applications seeking revocation or invalidation of a registered trademark?
  • Whether the provisions of the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 impliedly repeal conflicting jurisdiction clauses in the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the phrase 'infringement of intellectual property laws' under Section 18(1) of the IPO Act, 2012 encompass all civil proceedings and statutory remedies under intellectual property statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Samba Bank Limited vs Messrs Hotel Hill View (Pvt.) Limited through Chairman2023 [M] CLR 144 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Salam International and others vs Secretary Ministry of Law And Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others2023 CLC 1965 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sajid Plastic Factory vs Federation of Pakistan through Chairman2023 PTD 1701 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sadiq Poultry (Pvt.) Ltd vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2023 PLD Supreme Court 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-27
  suo motu jurisdictionArticle 199trichotomy of powersprice fixationexport prohibitionpolicy mattersFederal Legislative List
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a High Court order issuing directions regarding the pricing and export of livestock, dairy, and poultry products. Aggrieved by High Court orders banning exports and establishing a pricing formula, a poultry company sought constitutional remedy before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions addressed were whether a High Court possesses suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, whether it can intervene in executive policy matters like commodity pricing, and whether it can issue orders regarding export restrictions. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, holding that High Courts lack suo motu powers under Article 199, unlike the Supreme Court under Article 184(3). The Court emphasized the constitutional principle of trichotomy of powers, ruling that fixing commodity prices and regulating imports or exports fall strictly within executive domain. Furthermore, import and export regulation is a federal subject under Item No. 27 of the Federal Legislative List and Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, which High Courts cannot transgress.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court possess suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a High Court fix product pricing formulas or intervene in executive policy matters under Article 199?
  • Does a Provincial High Court have jurisdiction to order restrictions or bans on the import and export of goods?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sabir Traders Sole Proprietorship and another vs National Bank of Pakistan through Manager2023 CLD 247 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs S.M. Nisar and Company through Managing Partner and others vs Askari Bank Limited, Branch High Street, Sahiwal2023 CLD 1021 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Riaz & Sons through Director Operations vs Secretary, Communication And Works Department, Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 5 others2023 CLC 155 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rana Enterprises vs Collector of Customs (Adjudication-I) Customs2023 PTD (Trib.) 698 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2022-04-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs R.L. Paper Board Mills through Managerand others vs Messrs Sui2023 CLC 1445, 2025 PLJ Quetta 34 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Punjab Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs Commissioner Inland2023 PTD (Trib.) 717 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Presson Descon International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan2023 PTD 516 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Power Cement Ltd. through Company Secretary vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Energy and others2023 CLC 1136 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Peshawar Electricity Supply Company. (Pesco) vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Peshawar2023 PTD (Trib.) 332 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-02-07Read full judgment →