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.

• Prof. Dr. Amir Bux Channa & Another vs Isra Islamic Foundation2022 SHC 566 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-21Read full judgment →
• Principal Public School Sangota, Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-11-26
  limitation periodadverse possessionrevenue recordJamabandiright to educationcivil suittime-barred suitfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a representative suit filed in 2002 by respondents challenging the ownership of land in District Swat, which had been in the possession of the Principal Public School, Sangota, since 1964. The plaintiffs alleged the land was village common land (shamilat), while the School and the Provincial Government maintained it was state property. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, a decision upheld by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the issue of limitation. The Court held that the suit was hopelessly time-barred, having been filed thirty-eight years after the School took possession and sixteen years after the initial revenue record entry. The Court rejected the argument that every updated Jamabandi creates a fresh cause of action in cases involving dispossession. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the suit. The Court emphasized that the State's failure to file a timely appeal demonstrated incompetence, noting the vital importance of protecting educational institutions, particularly girls' schools in the Swat region, as guaranteed under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the periodic updating of a Jamabandi (revenue record) provide a fresh cause of action for a suit involving dispossession?
  • Is a suit for possession of land maintainable if filed decades after the defendant assumed possession?
  • Can a suit be maintained when the plaint fails to provide particulars regarding the accrual of the cause of action?
  • Does the failure of the government to file a timely appeal against a judgment affecting public property constitute negligence?
  Read full judgment →
• Princely Jets (Private) Limited through Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PTD 1642 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-20Read full judgment →
• President, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, Head Office, Islamabad vs Kishwar2022 SCMR 1598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-06
  master and servantrejection of plaintreturn of plaintnon-statutory service rulescivil court jurisdictionimposition of penaltyfair trialdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed against a Peshawar High Court judgment that upheld lower courts' orders rejecting applications under Order VII, Rules 10 and 11, C.P.C. The dispute arose when Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL) issued an office memorandum directing respondent employees to deposit monetary penalties following an inspection by the State Bank of Pakistan. The employees challenged the imposition and recovery of penalties in a civil suit, whereupon ZTBL argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the relationship was governed by the master and servant rule and internal staff regulations provided an internal appeal mechanism. The Supreme Court held that since ZTBL's service regulations lack statutory backing and the employees are not covered by statutory service rules or labor laws, filing a civil suit under Section 9, C.P.C. is the only available legal remedy to challenge the penalty. Furthermore, principles of due process and fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution apply even within master and servant relationships. Finding no legal infirmity in the lower courts' concurrent decisions, the Supreme Court refused leave and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction under Section 9 C.P.C. to entertain a suit by an employee whose service is governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Can an internal service regulation without statutory backing operate as a bar to the jurisdiction of a civil court?
  • Does the principle of master and servant preclude an employee from filing a civil suit to challenge an illegal penalty or financial recovery?
  • Are the guarantees of fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution applicable in employment relationships governed by non-statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• President, The Bank of Punjab etc vs Authority under Payment of Wages2022 LHC 4215 · Lahore High Court
  trans-provincial organizationjurisdictionNational Industrial Relations CommissionPayment of Wages Actlabour disputeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses four consolidated constitutional petitions filed by the Bank of Punjab against orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which had dismissed the bank's applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC regarding lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether provincial labour authorities possess jurisdiction to adjudicate labour claims against trans-provincial organizations operating in more than one province. The Lahore High Court held that the status of the employer, rather than the nature of the dispute, determines jurisdiction. Relying on binding precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that provincial quasi-judicial forums have no jurisdiction over trans-provincial establishments, and exclusive jurisdiction vests in the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). Consequently, the petitions were allowed, the impugned orders of the Authority were set aside, and the employee's claims before the provincial authority were declared not maintainable, leaving them at liberty to approach the NIRC.

  Questions settled

  • Does a provincial authority under the Payment of Wages Act have jurisdiction to adjudicate labour claims against a trans-provincial banking organization?
  • Whether the nature of the dispute or the status of the employer determines the jurisdiction of labour forums in Pakistan?
  • Do provincial legislatures possess extra-territorial legislative competence to enact laws relating to trans-provincial establishments?
  Read full judgment →
• Premier Insurance Limited vs M/s Ihsan Yousaf Textile Private Ltd. etc.2022 LHC 7336 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Power Cement Limited, Thatta Cement Company Limited, Popular Cement2022 SHC 460, 2024 PLD Sindh 1 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• Postmaster General, Karachi and another vs Arshad Ali2022 PLC (C.S.) 1407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-02
  service tribunalmisconductdepartmental inquirycriminal acquittalcivil servantsupervisory negligenceremoval from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which had reinstated the respondent, a former officiating Head Postmaster, into service with back benefits following his dismissal for misconduct, inefficiency, and corruption relating to a massive savings bank fraud at a post office. The core legal questions involved whether a supervisory government employee could escape disciplinary liability for gross financial embezzlement occurring under his command on the ground of lack of direct knowledge, and whether an acquittal in criminal accountability proceedings shields a civil servant from departmental action. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and upholding the dismissal. The Court held that a supervisory officer is personally responsible under official job descriptions and departmental manuals to maintain vigilance and keep track of accounts; failure to detect large-scale misappropriation constitutes gross negligence and misconduct. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal trials, and a civil servant cannot escape administrative consequences or dismissal for misconduct merely on account of an acquittal or exoneration in criminal charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant escape departmental disciplinary proceedings and dismissal solely on the ground of his acquittal in criminal charges arising from the same transaction?
  • Whether a head postmaster in charge of an office can be held liable for misconduct and supervisory negligence when massive financial fraud occurs under his command?
  • What is the distinct scope and object of departmental inquiries compared to criminal trials under penal statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• Postal Life Insurance (Pli) vs Muhammad Iqbal2022 CLD 408 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Postal Life Insurance (Pli) and others vs Muhammad Ishaque Butt2022 CLD 309 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-26
  insurance claimrepudiation of insurance policyconcealment of material factsjurisdiction of insurance tribunalpostal life insurancenominee as trusteeliquidated damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Insurance Tribunal which allowed an application for the recovery of policy proceeds and liquidated damages filed by the nominee of a deceased policyholder against Postal Life Insurance. The core legal question was whether the appellant insurance entity could lawfully repudiate the insurance policy on the grounds of alleged concealment of material information regarding the assured's income in the proposal form under Rule 6(1) of the Post Office Insurance Fund Rules, 2001, and whether the Insurance Tribunal possessed jurisdiction over the matter. The Lahore High Court held that the appellants failed to establish any material concealment through credible or admissible evidence, noting that the inquiry report relied upon conjectures and that the insurer had accepted premiums for over four years after field verification. The Court further affirmed that the Insurance Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims against Postal Life Insurance because its management board is a body corporate under the Pakistan Postal Services Management Board Ordinance, 2002. Finally, the Court clarified that a policy nominee acts as a trustee to collect and distribute the proceeds among the legal heirs of the deceased under the applicable law of succession. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Insurance Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate insurance claims arising against the Postal Life Insurance?
  • Can an insurance policy be lawfully repudiated on the ground of concealment of income without credible and admissible evidence?
  • What is the legal status and responsibility of a nominee under an insurance policy regarding the distribution of policy proceeds?
  • Does acceptance of insurance premiums for several years after field verification preclude the insurer from later alleging material concealment in the proposal form?
  Read full judgment →
• Posco International Corporation vs Rikans International & others2022 LHC 4059 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
• Piyaro Gurgaje vs Ghulam Qadir Gurgage2022 SHC 114 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-08Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux and another vs The State through Deputy Prosecutor General and another2022 PCRLJ 1420 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-05
  exhumation of dead bodycriminal revisionjurisdiction of trial courtcognizance of offencecause of deathCode of Criminal Procedurepostmortem examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber, which directed the exhumation of the deceased's body to ascertain the cause of death in a pending trial. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the jurisdiction to order the exhumation of a dead body after taking cognizance of a case. The High Court held that the trial court acted without jurisdiction. It reasoned that the power to order exhumation is vested in the police under the Police Rules, 1934, or in a Magistrate under Sections 174 or 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, not in a Court of Session. The court emphasized that once a trial court has taken cognizance, it cannot direct investigative actions like exhumation. The key principle laid down is that where the law mandates a specific procedure for a legal act, it must be strictly followed; any order passed by a court lacking the requisite statutory jurisdiction is void and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Court of Session have the jurisdiction to order the exhumation of a dead body during a pending trial?
  • Can a trial court direct an investigation or exhumation after it has taken cognizance of a criminal case?
  • Is an order passed by a court that lacks the statutory jurisdiction to do so valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Peshawar High Court Bar vs The State etc2022 PHC 344, 2022 PLD Peshawar 248 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-15Read full judgment →
• PESCO, through Chief Executive PESCO House Peshawar and others vs Mohib Ullah Khan and another2022 PHC 164 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pervez Khan & others vs Ali Asghar Khan & others2022 SCP 230, 2022 SCMR 1857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-13
  30-year-old documentpresumption of genuinenessdowerburden of proofspecific performanceinheritanceproper custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns a dispute over the ownership of a house, where respondents claimed title based on a 1972 dower agreement. The core legal question was whether the lower courts correctly presumed the genuineness of this document under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and whether an unperformed agreement creates title. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by relying on a photocopy without the original, failing to establish proper custody, and lacking evidence of execution. The Court clarified that the presumption of genuineness for a thirty-year-old document is discretionary and requires strict adherence to the parameters of Article 100, including the production of the original. Furthermore, the Court established that an unperformed agreement does not create legal title or ownership; consequently, the property devolved upon the legal heirs upon the owner's death. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Appellate Court's decision in favor of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court presume the genuineness of a document under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without the production of the original document?
  • Does an unperformed agreement to transfer property create title or ownership rights in favor of the beneficiary?
  • What are the requirements for a court to establish the proper custody of a document for the purpose of evidentiary presumption?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a document relied upon by a party is disputed by the opponent?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervez Iqbal vs The State and another2022 LHC 1858 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-03
  murderbenefit of doubtrelated and chance witnessesmedical conflictprivate complaintpolice investigation innocencemotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, alongside a connected criminal revision for the enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions centered on the credibility of related and chance eyewitnesses, the presence of material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, delayed registration of the FIR and post-mortem examination, unexplained delay in filing a private complaint, and the evidentiary value of police investigations declaring the accused innocent. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to numerous infirmities, including unreliable eyewitness accounts, withheld natural witnesses, unproven motive, and conflict with medical evidence. The court laid down the principle that multiple cumulative doubts in the prosecution's narrative entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and the dismissal of the revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration when their presence at the scene is doubtful?
  • Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence provide sufficient ground to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of police findings declaring an accused innocent during successive investigations?
  • Is the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive sufficient to react against a murder conviction?
  • How does a delayed FIR and delayed post-mortem examination impact the credibility of a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Khan and another vs The State2022 SCMR 393, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-10
  murderbenefit of doubtocular evidenceacquittalmedical evidencedelayed FIRabscondencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a double murder case where the appellants were convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that seven accused persons, including the appellants, fired upon the deceased while they were in a car. The core legal question was whether the conviction of the appellants could be sustained on the same ocular evidence that was found unreliable and insufficient to convict three co-accused who were acquitted by the trial court. The Supreme Court observed that the role attributed to the acquitted accused was indistinguishable from that of the appellants and supported by medical evidence, yet they were granted the benefit of doubt. Furthermore, the Court identified several discrepancies: the presence of eye-witnesses on a tractor was doubtful, the source of light (tractor headlights) was unproven, there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting post-mortems, and the time of death recorded by the doctor contradicted the ocular account. Applying the principle of consistency, the Court held that evidence disbelieved for co-accused cannot sustain a conviction for others without independent corroboration. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the appellants were acquitted.

  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar and others vs Land Acquisition Collector and others2022 LHC 1641 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Abbasi vs Government of Punjab and others2022 LHC 6911, 2025 PLD Lahore 191 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
• Pepsi Cola International (Pvt.) Limited. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2022 LHC 6508, 2022 PCTLR 1595 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Pegasus Consultancy (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2022 SHC 334 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-21Read full judgment →
• Pegasus Consultancy (Private) Limited through Authorized Representative2022 CLC 2036 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-10Read full judgment →
• Peer Bux alias Peeral and others vs Mushtaque Ali and others2022 SHC 152 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-18Read full judgment →
• Pearl Continental Hotels National Labour vs National Industrial Relations2022 IHC 226 · Islamabad High Court
  constitutional jurisdictionalternative remedywrit petitionIndustrial Relations ActNational Industrial Relations CommissionCollective Bargaining Agentmaintainabilityreferendum proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an order passed by an 'Authorized Officer' of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) that halted referendum proceedings for the determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA). The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. The Court held that the order of the Authorized Officer, who exercised delegated powers of a Member of the Commission, is appealable before the Full Bench of the Commission under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing the principle that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, particularly when a special statute provides an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy. The Court emphasized that litigants must exhaust available statutory forums before approaching the High Court, as bypassing these forums undermines the legislative intent behind creating specialized adjudicatory bodies.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order of an Authorized Officer of the National Industrial Relations Commission when an appeal lies to the Full Bench of the Commission?
  • Does the order of an Authorized Officer, acting under delegated powers of a Member of the Commission, constitute an order appealable under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Should the High Court exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 when an adequate statutory remedy is available and the relevant forum is functional?
  Read full judgment →
• Parveen Rani vs Chief Executive Officer and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 338 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-29
  regularization of servicecontract employeeposthumous benefitsdeceased government servantconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the wife of a deceased contract educator seeking regularization of her late husband's service posthumously and entitlement to consequential benefits. The core legal question was whether a government employee, whose case for regularization was processed and who was found eligible during his lifetime under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, can be denied regularization merely because he passed away before the issuance of a formal notification. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that an eligible employee cannot be prejudiced by the delay or acts of public functionaries in issuing formal orders, and that accrued rights and benefits survive a government servant's death for the benefit of their legal heirs. The Court laid down the principle that the right to regularization, once accrued upon statutory promulgation and established by departmental scrutiny during the employee's lifetime, does not abate upon death, and failure of authorities to formalize it cannot prejudice the legal heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government employee's right to regularization abates upon his death if his case was already processed and he was found eligible during his lifetime?
  • Can legal heirs claim the benefit of regularization of a deceased employee whose formal notification was delayed by public functionaries?
  • Are public functionaries permitted to prejudice an individual's rights through administrative delay in issuing formal orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Parvaiz Akhter Bhatti and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet Division, Islamabad and 5 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1035 · Islamabad High Court
  Public sector companyCorporate governanceMaster and servant doctrineWrit jurisdictionIndependent directorConflict of interestAppointment legality
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple writ petitions challenging the appointments of the Chairman, Managing Director, and Board of Directors of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC), along with amendments to PTVC service rules and the termination of certain employees. The core legal questions involve whether these appointments complied with the Companies Act, 2017 and Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, and whether the PTVC service rules are statutory, thereby allowing judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court held that the appointments of the Chairman and several Directors were illegal due to failure to select candidates from the SECP data bank, conflicts of interest, and non-compliance with fit and proper criteria. Conversely, the appointment of the Managing Director and other staff was upheld. Regarding service rules, the Court ruled that PTVC rules are non-statutory, invoking the Master and Servant doctrine, thus rendering petitions regarding internal service conditions non-maintainable. The key principle laid down is that public sector companies must strictly adhere to statutory appointment procedures and transparency requirements, and that internal service rules of such corporations are generally not enforceable via writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of a Chairman and Directors of a public sector company without selecting from the SECP data bank is illegal?
  • Does the Master and Servant doctrine apply to the service rules of the Pakistan Television Corporation?
  • Can the High Court interfere in the internal service conditions of a public sector company under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Whether a person with a conflict of interest or pecuniary interest in a public sector company is eligible to be appointed as a Director?
  Read full judgment →
• Pan Islamic Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Additional District Judge and others2022 CLC 247 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda), Wapda2022 PCTLR 1578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-26
  Income Tax Ordinancerevisional jurisdictionwrit petitionremandnon-resident agentquestions of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, concerning the assessment years 1991-1992, 1992-1993, and 1993-1994, where the petitioner was determined to be an agent of a non-resident consultant under section 78 of the Ordinance. The petitioner challenged the revisional order passed by the Commissioner under section 138 of the Ordinance through a writ petition before the High Court, which dismissed the petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition solely by rejecting the contention that the revisional order was a recycled version of an earlier order, without addressing other legal grounds and questions of law raised in the memo of the petition. The Supreme Court converted the leave petition into an appeal, held that the High Court ought to have considered all raised grounds and questions of law once the preliminary objection was resolved, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh determination on the remaining grounds while upholding the finality of the finding regarding the nature of the revisional order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court is justified in dismissing a writ petition challenging a revisional order solely on the ground of rejecting one contention without addressing other substantial grounds and questions of law raised in the petition?
  • Is an order in revision passed by the Commissioner under the Income Tax Ordinance appealable before the Appellate Tribunal?
  • What is the appropriate legal recourse when a revisional order passed under the Income Tax Ordinance is non-appealable?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited Through GM (Regulatory2022 MLD 1914 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-26Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf through its Secretary General Mr Asad Umer vs The Election Commission of Pakistan, through its Chief Election Commissioner & another2022 IHC 182 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf through its Secretary General Mr Asad Umar vs Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan through its Secretary National Assembly Sectt. & 126 others2022 IHC 214 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf & others.,Monem Zafar Khan & another vs Province of Sindh & others.,Election Commission of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 516 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Sugar Mills Association & others vs Federation of Pakistan &2022 SHC 266 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited vs Sindh & others2022 SHC 30, 2024 CLD 580 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Services Limited vs Full Bench, Nationa Industrial Relations2022 IHC 228 · Islamabad High Court
  trans-provincial establishmentindustry-wise trade unioncollective bargaining agentreferendumwrit of certiorariprospective operation of judgmentlocus standi of employerNational Industrial Relations Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of four writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Full Bench and Single Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) regarding the registration of industry-wise trade unions and the holding of a referendum for determining the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) in Pearl Continental Hotels. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner-company, Pakistan Services Limited, is a trans-provincial establishment, whether the Registrar of Trade Unions (RTU) possessed jurisdiction to register industry-wise trade unions, and whether the rule of law laid down in Chevron Pakistan Lubricants (Pvt.) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan applies retrospectively. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner-company is indeed a trans-provincial establishment operating a chain of hotels across multiple provinces with its head office in the Islamabad Capital Territory. The court further held that while subsequent jurisprudence establishes that the NIRC—not the RTU—has exclusive jurisdiction to register industry-wise trade unions, that legal interpretation operates prospectively and cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate past registrations that constitute closed transactions. Finally, the court ruled that employers lack locus standi to challenge the registration of trade unions under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. Consequently, all writ petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer has the locus standi to challenge the registration of a trade union or an industry-wise trade union under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Whether the rule of law laid down regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission to register industry-wise trade unions applies retrospectively to past registrations?
  • Whether a company operating hotels across multiple provinces qualifies as a trans-provincial establishment under Section 2(xxxii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Whether a High Court can issue a writ of certiorari to interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower tribunals in the absence of a patent jurisdictional error?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways through CEO/G.M vs Dilawar Hussain and others2022 PLJ Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Post Office Employees Cooperative Housing Society Through Authorized Persons vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and Others2022 PCRLJ 1687 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-26
  caution noticefreezing orderNational Accountability Ordinanceproperty rightsjudicial oversightcooperative housing societyprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Cooperative Housing Society, challenged the enforcement of caution notices placed on its land under Section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which effectively prevented the society from dealing with its property. The core legal question was whether the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) could indefinitely enforce caution notices on property without initiating formal freezing orders under Section 12 of the Ordinance, particularly when the petitioner was not an accused party in the relevant inquiries. The Court held that the caution notices were unsustainable and set them aside. It reasoned that Section 23 is intended to prevent an accused from alienating property acquired through illegal means, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that NAB cannot bypass the procedural requirements and judicial oversight mandated by Section 12 by resorting to the 'surreptitious' use of caution notices under Section 23. Where the law prescribes a specific manner for freezing property, that procedure must be strictly followed, or the action is invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Can the National Accountability Bureau enforce a caution notice on property under Section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, without first exercising the power to freeze property under Section 12?
  • Is it permissible for the National Accountability Bureau to place a caution on property to prevent its transfer when the owner is not an accused party in the relevant inquiry?
  • Does the National Accountability Bureau have the authority to bypass the judicial oversight required for freezing orders by issuing caution notices instead?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. Through authorized attorney and others vs Spec2022 CLC 1412 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Limited through Senior Manager vs Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division and Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another2022 PTD 1742 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-23
  rejection of plaintimplied bar of jurisdictionshow-cause noticerepresentative of non-residentIncome Tax Ordinance 2001special forumtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the rejection of a plaint challenging a show-cause notice issued under Section 172(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The Plaintiff sought to restrain the tax authorities from declaring it a representative of a non-resident company for tax purposes. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction in a civil suit to interfere with a show-cause notice, despite the existence of a special grievance redressal mechanism under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The Court held that while the ouster clause in Section 227(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 does not strictly bar the High Court of Sindh from entertaining civil suits, there exists an 'implied bar' under Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, requiring parties to exhaust special statutory remedies unless specific jurisdictional defects or exceptions are demonstrated. Finding no such exceptions, the Court rejected the plaint, ruling that a show-cause notice does not constitute an adverse order infringing rights, and parties must first respond to the notice before the relevant tax authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the ouster clause in Section 227(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 bar the High Court of Sindh from entertaining civil suits?
  • Can a civil suit be maintained to challenge a show-cause notice issued by tax authorities before the final order is passed?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with the proceedings of a special tribunal or statutory authority despite an implied bar under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a show-cause notice considered an adverse order that infringes upon legal rights sufficient to invoke the writ or civil jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) through its Secretary General Mr. Farhatullah Babar and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Law and Justice Islamabad and others2022 SCP 46, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-07
  vote of no-confidencedissolution of assemblyDeputy Speaker rulingPrime Ministerconstitutional petitionrestoration of assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions and proceedings arising from the ruling of the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly delivered on 03.04.2022, whereby a vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister under Article 95 of the Constitution was dismissed, followed by the dissolution of the National Assembly by the President on the Prime Minister's advice. The core legal questions relate to the constitutionality of the Deputy Speaker's ruling, the validity of the dissolution of the Assembly, and the status of the no-confidence resolution. The Supreme Court declared the Deputy Speaker's ruling, the Prime Minister's advice to dissolve the Assembly, and the President's dissolution order to be contrary to the Constitution, setting them aside and restoring the National Assembly, the Prime Minister, and the federal cabinet to their positions as of 03.04.2022. The Court held that the no-confidence resolution remained pending and subsisting, and mandated the Speaker to immediately summon the Assembly to conduct the business of the House, including voting on the no-confidence resolution in accordance with the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ruling of the Deputy Speaker rejecting a vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister is constitutional?
  • Can the Prime Minister advise the dissolution of the National Assembly while a notice of a resolution for a vote of no-confidence is pending against him?
  • Whether the dissolution of the National Assembly by the President upon the advice of the Prime Minister is lawful?
  • What are the duties of the Speaker of the National Assembly regarding the convening of sessions for a pending no-confidence resolution?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Muslim League vs Sardar Dost Muhammad Mazari etc2022 LHC 2789, 2022 PLD Lahore 469 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-15
  Deputy SpeakerProvincial Assemblyelection of Chief Ministerinternal proceedingsArticle 69 immunityjudicial reviewRules of Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses Intra Court Appeals arising from a judgment passed in writ petitions concerning the powers of the Deputy Speaker of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab to preside over a session scheduled for the election of the Chief Minister. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of Article 53(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 regarding the Deputy Speaker acting as Speaker when the Speaker is unable to perform functions, the justiciability of such matters under Article 69 of the Constitution, and whether a Speaker's order withdrawing delegated powers from a Deputy Speaker constitutes internal parliamentary proceedings immune from judicial review. The court held that since the Speaker was a candidate for the Chief Minister portfolio, he was unable to perform his functions, thereby automatically empowering the Deputy Speaker under operation of law and the relevant Rules of Procedure to preside over the assembly session. Furthermore, administrative actions and orders affecting the constitution of the House do not enjoy immunity under Article 69 and are amenable to judicial review. The appeals were disposed of with directions to the Deputy Speaker to ensure a fair and transparent election strictly in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Deputy Speaker is empowered to act as Speaker under Article 53(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan when the Speaker is contesting the election for the office of Chief Minister?
  • Does an order passed by the Speaker withdrawing powers delegated to the Deputy Speaker fall within the ambit of internal parliamentary proceedings barred from judicial scrutiny under Article 69 of the Constitution?
  • Can a Deputy Speaker against whom a motion of no-confidence has been moved legally preside over a session of the Provincial Assembly where such no-confidence resolution is not under consideration?
  • Whether the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of administrative actions and rulings issued by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the Provincial Assembly?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Muslim League (N) through Parliamentary Party Leader in Senate2022 PLD Islamabad 64 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-10-01Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Microfinance Ltd. & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 68, 2022 CLD 894, 2022 [M] CLR 867, 2022 PCTLR 924 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Medical Commission vs Province of Sindh and others2022 CLC 1848 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Managing Director vs Amna Fraz and others2022 SCMR 1852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-24
  maintainability of writ petitioncompensation packagedeceased employeevested rightassistance packagePakistan International Airlines Corporationlegal heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a High Court order directing Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) to grant compensation to the widow of a deceased employee under Administrative Order No. 16/2014 dated 08.07.2014. The petitioner-Corporation challenged the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that it was a company and that the compensation package was non-statutory and had been held in abeyance by a subsequent notification dated 30.06.2015. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was maintainable under the public function and control test, noting that the claim was made by legal heirs rather than impacting internal service structures. Furthermore, because the employee died while Administrative Order No. 16/2014 was actively in force, a vested right accrued to the respondent. The subsequent temporary abeyance did not permanently extinguish this right, particularly when a revised package introduced a later cut-off date. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to decide the respondent's applications within two months and ensure proper apportionment of benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional writ petition maintainable against Pakistan International Airlines Corporation at the instance of legal heirs claiming compensation benefits of a deceased employee?
  • Does an employee's death during the validity of an administrative compensation scheme create a vested right in favour of their legal heirs?
  • Does the temporary suspension or placing in abeyance of an administrative assistance package extinguish accrued compensation rights of legal heirs when a subsequent revised package sets a later cut-off date?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Engineering Council through its Chairman & 3 others vs Federal2022 IHC 284 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Karachi Development Authority & another2022 SHC 424 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Dental Association through President 9 and others vs The Province of Sindh through Secretary Finance Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 3 others2022 PTD 1491 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-18Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, through Secretary vs Mrs.2022 CLC 735 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority vs Mst. Gul Rukh Samina Butt &2022 SHC 590 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Beverage Ltd vs State Bank of Pakistan & Another2022 SHC 452 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Air Traffic Controllers' Guild vs Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority, etc2022 LHC 3759 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitylocus standiaggrieved personservice matterssuspension orderinquiry boardassociation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by the Pakistan Air Traffic Controllers' Guild, challenging an order dated 07.06.2021 suspending the services of one of its members, Ms. Rizwana Akram, and an order dated 29.09.2021 constituting a board of inquiry against her. The petitioner contended that the inquiry proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction, coram non judice, and void. Conversely, the respondents raised objections regarding the non-statutory nature of the service rules and contended that the association lacked locus standi because the affected employee had not challenged the orders herself. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable. The Court held that to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in service matters, the aggrieved or affected party must file the petition in her own name, and an association cannot represent or act on behalf of an individual employee to challenge personal disciplinary and suspension orders absent applicable exceptions.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employees' association maintain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution on behalf of an individual member to challenge disciplinary proceedings?
  • Must an aggrieved or affected party in a service matter file a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution in their own name?
  • Does an association have locus standi to challenge a suspension order and the constitution of an inquiry board when the affected employee has not challenged them?
  Read full judgment →
• Pak Leather Crafts Limited and others vs Al-Barka Bank Pakistan Limited2022 SCP 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
• Pak Leather Crafts Limited and others vs Al-Baraka Bank Pakistan Limited2022 CLD 1296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-04
  limitation periodtime requisitecertified copiesfinancial institutions recoverydeeming provisionstatutory interpretationappellate procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Sindh High Court judgment dismissing an appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the time consumed by a litigant in paying the requisite fees for certified copies of a judgment or decree constitutes "time requisite" for exclusion under Section 12(5) of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that "time requisite" for obtaining certified copies does not include delays caused by the litigant's failure to pay fees promptly. The Court clarified that Section 12(5) of the Limitation Act, 1908, creates a legal fiction where the period between the application and the intimated delivery date is excluded, but this presupposes that the application is validly made upon payment of costs. A litigant cannot unilaterally extend the limitation period by delaying fee payment. The burden lies on the applicant to demonstrate diligence and produce the receipt indicating the delivery date. Consequently, the time spent by the appellants in paying fees was not excludable, rendering the appeal time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does the time consumed by a litigant in paying the cost for certified copies constitute 'time requisite' for exclusion under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Does the filing of an application for certified copies without payment of the prescribed fee stop the period of limitation?
  • What is the effect of the deeming provision in Section 12(5) of the Limitation Act, 1908, regarding the computation of limitation?
  • Is a litigant required to produce a receipt or chit from the copying agency to claim the benefit of Section 12(5) of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Packages Limited through Factory Manager/Personnel Manager vs Punjab2022 PLC 79 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-22
  labor lawgrievance noticelimitation periodmisreading of evidenceconstitutional petitiondismissal from serviceappellate remand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate order that had remanded a labor dispute to the Labour Court for a decision on merits. The underlying dispute involved a security guard dismissed for misconduct, whose initial grievance petition was dismissed by the Labour Court due to the failure to serve a grievance notice within the statutory limitation period. The appellate authority subsequently set aside this dismissal, reasoning that the employer had admitted in its written reply to receiving the grievance notice on a specific date, thereby waiving the limitation defense. The High Court, upon reviewing the pleadings, found that the employer’s written reply merely acknowledged receipt of a notice without admitting the specific date of service. The Court held that the appellate authority had misread the record by inferring an admission of timely service where none existed. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the Labour Court's original judgment, affirming that admitted facts require no proof, but courts must not misinterpret the scope of such admissions regarding statutory limitation periods.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court remand a matter based on a misinterpretation of a party's written pleadings?
  • Does an employer's admission of receiving a grievance notice constitute an admission of the date of service?
  • Is a grievance notice served after the statutory limitation period valid for maintaining a grievance petition?
  Read full judgment →
• P.T.C.L vs Federation of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 284, 2024 PLC 25 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-23
  NIRC jurisdictioncontempt of courtIndustrial Relations Actsubordinate legislationconstitutional petitionreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of the NIRC Single Bench and a subsequent contempt notice issued to the President/CEO of the petitioner by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) for non-compliance with a reinstatement order. The core legal question was whether a member of the NIRC possesses the jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings and punish for contempt under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, given previous judicial pronouncements regarding subordinate legislation and Article 204 of the Constitution. The Sindh High Court held that the NIRC derives its contempt powers independently from Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which is an independent primary statute rather than a subordinate legislation hit by the ruling in the Muslim Commercial Bank case (which dealt with the Federal Ombudsman Constitutional Reforms Act, 2013). The court established the principle that statutory tribunals possessing independent primary legislative mandates to punish for contempt are not constrained by limitations applicable to subordinate legislation flowing directly from Article 204 of the Constitution, though summoning the foreign CEO was deemed unnecessary at this stage provided an authorized officer appeared to ensure compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has the power to punish for contempt under Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Is Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 considered subordinate legislation hit by the principles governing Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does a specialized tribunal's power to initiate contempt proceedings remain valid independently of the rules governing ombudsman or other subordinate bodies?
  Read full judgment →
• P.C. Nasir Hussain vs Hasnain Shah and 2 others2022 MLD 425 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11
  terrorismAnti-Terrorism Actjurisdictionpersonal enmityprivate vendettatransfer of casecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant challenged an order by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Sukkur, which transferred a criminal case involving an attack on police personnel to the Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether an act of violence against law enforcement, falling under Section 6(2)(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, automatically constitutes "terrorism" regardless of the underlying motive. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the Anti-Terrorism Court correctly determined the matter did not constitute terrorism. The Court emphasized that Section 6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, cannot be read in isolation. To qualify as terrorism, an action must satisfy the criteria in Section 6(2) and be designed to achieve the objectives specified in Section 6(1)(b) or (c) of the Act, such as coercing the government or terrorizing the public. The Court reiterated the principle that actions committed in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta, even if violent and grave, do not fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as they lack the requisite design or purpose to terrorize society.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act of violence against a police officer automatically constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Must Section 6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 be read in conjunction with Section 6(1) to determine if an act constitutes terrorism?
  • Can an order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 be challenged via Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Owais Qureshi vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir2022 PLJ AJ&K 128 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-05-09Read full judgment →
• Outfitters Stores (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2022 LHC 8442, 2024 PTD 8 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-28Read full judgment →
• Orix Leasing Pakistan Limited through duly authorized attorney vs Province2022 MLD 1815 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
• Omer Nazeer vs The State etc2022 LHC 2884, 2022 PLJ Lahore 642, 2025 MLD 724 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Obs Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Manager Legal vs Federation Of Pakistan2022 PTD 290 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-17
  rectification of mistakeWorkers' Welfare Fundtax refund adjustmentIncome Tax Ordinance 2001prospective effectconstitutional petitionapparent mistake
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging notices issued under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the validity of an FBR circular dated 25.05.2021, which prohibited the adjustment of Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) liability against outstanding tax refunds. The core legal questions were whether Section 221 permits the rectification of previous assessments involving such adjustments and whether the circular is ultra vires. The Court held that the power of rectification under Section 221 is strictly limited to 'mistakes apparent from the record,' such as clerical or calculation errors, and cannot be invoked for contentious legal issues requiring deliberation or interpretation. Consequently, the Court ruled that notices issued under Section 221 to reverse past adjustments are unlawful. Furthermore, the Court determined that while the impugned circular is lawful, it possesses only prospective effect. The key principle laid down is that Section 221 cannot be utilized as a substitute for an appeal or to reopen assessments involving debatable legal questions, as such matters fall beyond the scope of simple rectification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power of rectification under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 extend to contentious legal issues requiring deliberation?
  • Can the Federal Board of Revenue prohibit the adjustment of Workers' Welfare Fund liability against tax refunds through a circular?
  • Does the FBR circular dated 25.05.2021 regarding the adjustment of Workers' Welfare Fund liability have retrospective effect?
  • Is the rectification of a deemed assessment under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 permissible for issues that are not clerical or calculation errors?
  Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Aftab vs Rabeah Hussain and 4 others2022 LHC 3139, 2025 PLD Lahore 366 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-06Read full judgment →
• Numan alias Nomi, Asif, Awais, Muhammad Akbar vs The State2022 LHC 7201 · Lahore High Court
  forensic evidenceelectronic documentvideo recordingde novo trialfair trialsupply of copiesgang raperemand
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions under sections 376(ii) and 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the Lahore High Court. During the appeal proceedings, it was discovered that a video and photographs generated from an accused's cell phone by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency had been exhibited through the investigating officer without being played in court or provided to the accused, yet were relied upon by the trial court after being put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the admissibility and proper procedure for bringing on record electronic and forensic evidence when procedural safeguards regarding supply of copies and exhibition had been bypassed. The Lahore High Court held that while digital recordings constitute both electronic documents and real evidence requiring strict adherence to fair trial standards and supply of copies under sections 162 and 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a limited remand rather than a complete de novo trial is appropriate. The court laid down principles governing electronic evidence under Articles 139, 162, and 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, setting aside the judgment and remanding the case for proper exhibition of the forensic evidence after supplying copies to the defence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal status of audio and video clips under the law of evidence as electronic documents and real evidence?
  • Whether improper admission of forensic evidence warrants a complete de novo trial or a limited remand for rectifying procedural defects?
  • Can digital forensic evidence be used against an accused without supplying copies of the same during the trial process?
  • How must electronic or video evidence be properly exhibited and brought on record through witness testimony and court inspection?
  Read full judgment →
• NRSP Micro Finance Bank Ltd vs Ex-officio Justice of Peace, etc2022 LHC 2455 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• NP Waterproof Industries (Private) Ltd. Et others vs NP Spinning Mills Limited2022 SHC 442 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Nouman Mushtaq vs The State2022 MLD 905 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-22
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesborderline caseFSL reportfurther inquiryspeedy trialfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, filed by the petitioner, Nauman Mushtaq, who was charged under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1350 grams of charas. The core legal questions were whether the recovery of 1350 grams of narcotics constitutes a 'borderline case' warranting bail, and whether the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report makes the case one of further inquiry. The Court held that the recovery of 1350 grams of charas falls within the borderline criteria established by precedent, and the non-availability of the FSL report renders the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial, noting the lack of trial progress due to COVID-19. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that borderline quantities of narcotics and the absence of FSL reports are valid grounds for bail in narcotic cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of 1350 grams of charas qualify as a borderline case for the purpose of granting bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the non-availability of a Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding recovered narcotics make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the delay in trial proceedings due to external factors like a pandemic justify the grant of bail to an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Norab Khan vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 402 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-19
  narcoticssafe custody of sampleschain of custodycriminal appealacquittalFSL reportcontradictions in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court (CNSA), Kurram, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(D) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine following the alleged recovery of 5000 grams of charas from a motorcar driven by him. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the chain of safe custody of the recovered samples was maintained. The Peshawar High Court held that numerous contradictions in the prosecution evidence, overwriting on the FIR, and an unexplained delay in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, coupled with the failure to examine the constable who transported the samples, broke the chain of safe custody, rendering the FSL report unreliable. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must establish an unbroken and secure chain of safe custody of narcotic samples from recovery to testing, and any lapse vitiates the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of safe custody of narcotic samples vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Whether contradictions regarding the quantity of separated samples and delayed transmission to the FSL are sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce the official who transported the samples to the forensic laboratory to authenticate safe transit?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Zaman vs The State2022 SCP 18, 2022 SCMR 1002, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 60, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-22
  triple homicideSection 342 Cr.P.C.ocular evidenceforensic reportpresumption of regularitycapital punishmentprocedural formality
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction for triple homicide, where the petitioner was sentenced to death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt, specifically citing the absence of motive in the Section 342 Cr.P.C. examination and questioning the forensic evidence due to the timing of the casing dispatch. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular evidence consistent with medical reports and the crime scene inspection. The Court held that the examination of an accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. is not a dogmatic ritual but a procedural tool to ensure the accused is aware of the evidence; since the petitioner was aware of the motive through cross-examination, the omission did not cause prejudice. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the presumption of regularity for official acts regarding forensic dispatch. Ultimately, the Court declined leave to appeal, ruling that procedural formalities cannot override the administration of justice in cases of callous, proven homicide.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to put the motive to an accused during examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. automatically vitiate a conviction?
  • Can a delayed dispatch of crime scene casings to a forensic laboratory be viewed with suspicion in the absence of specific proof to the contrary?
  • Is the examination of an accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. a dogmatic ritual or a procedural tool to prevent surprise?
  • Does the presumption of genuineness attach to official acts under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Zaman vs Mst. Gullan (deceased) through L.Rs2022 PLJ Lahore 993 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Noor Wali and another vs The State and another2022 SCP 38, 2022 SCMR 1153, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-16
  post-arrest bailsmugglingreasonable groundscriminal transgressionState functionaryleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail by the Peshawar High Court. The petitioners were accused of running over a Customs official, Mian Irfan Ullah, who was performing his duty at a blockade set up to intercept a vehicle carrying smuggled contraband. The petitioners argued that the death was accidental. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the blockade was deliberately breached by the petitioners, resulting in the death of a State functionary, which constitutes a serious criminal transgression. The Court observed that the recovery of smuggled items following the incident provided credible support for the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court held that the material collected by the prosecution established 'reasonable grounds' under the relevant criminal procedure law, creating an insurmountable impediment to the grant of bail. Finding that the lower courts had correctly assessed the situation and that no further probe was required, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the deliberate breaching of a Customs blockade resulting in the death of an official constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a plea of accidental death be sustained when the accused deliberately runs over a State functionary performing official duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ullah vs The State etc2022 PHC 358 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Shah Ali Khan alias Nawarish Ali Khan deceased through legal heirs2022 PHC 24, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-02Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State through A.G Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 PHC 246 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Anwar vs Haji Zar Badshah2022 PHC 644 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-07Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Anwar & 33 others vs Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad2022 PHC 634 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad (decd) through L.Rs. and others vs Muhammad Ashraf2022 SCP 26, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 324, PLD 2022 Supreme Court · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  revisional jurisdictionremand ordercivil procedurenecessary partyproperty disputecondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside an appellate court's remand order and restored a trial court's decree in a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is restricted to either affirming or setting aside a remand order, or if it possesses the authority to decide the merits of the case itself. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction. It determined that the appellate court erred in remanding the matter for the impleadment of a party whose interests were already adequately represented by existing parties. The Supreme Court affirmed that Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not restrict the High Court to merely remanding a case; rather, it empowers the Court to make such orders as it deems fit. The key principle laid down is that where evidence on record is sufficient for a final adjudication, a remand order is unnecessary and unjustified.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have the jurisdiction to decide a case on its merits instead of remanding it to the appellate court?
  • Is a remand order justified when the record contains sufficient evidence to decide the controversy between the parties?
  • Can the High Court set aside an erroneous remand order and restore the trial court's judgment if the interests of the party seeking impleadment are already represented?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs Sher Khan and 11 others2022 MLD 1910 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-02Read full judgment →
• Noor Haider vs State2022 PHC 372 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Habib Shah vs State2022 PHC 548 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
• Noor Aslam son of Muhammad Khan resident of Aba Khel Tehsil and Dist_a2a0f8e52022 PHC 12, 2024 MLD 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-19Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 846 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18
  narcotics recoverychain of custodychemical analysiscriminal appealmalkhanaControl of Narcotics Substance Actwitness contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, following the recovery of 80 bags of cannabis from the appellant’s truck. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the narcotics and whether alleged contradictions between the complainant and the investigation officer regarding sample transmission warranted acquittal. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction and sentence. The court held that minor, insignificant contradictions in witness testimony do not undermine the prosecution's case when the chain of custody is otherwise intact. It established that depositing recovered narcotics at a notified police station equipped with a malkhana (storeroom) and proper record-keeping facilities satisfies the statutory requirements of Section 27 of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997. Additionally, the court affirmed that the burden of proving police animosity rests on the accused, and in the absence of such proof, a positive chemical analyzer report regarding the contraband is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor contradiction between the complainant and the investigation officer regarding the transmission of samples for chemical analysis vitiate a narcotics conviction?
  • What constitutes compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 27 of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997?
  • Is the failure to examine the in-charge of the police storeroom (malkhana) fatal to the prosecution's case in narcotics recovery matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed and others vs Syed Muhammad Raheem and others2022 PLD Balochistan 89 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed alias Ahmed Agha vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1126 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-15
  circumstantial evidenceretracted confessionjudicial confession on oathballistic reportbenefit of the doubtmurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Model Criminal Trial Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Pishin, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including a retracted judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, recovery of a crime weapon, and Call Data Records. The core legal questions involved the voluntariness and admissibility of a retracted confessional statement recorded on oath in violation of Section 5 of the Oaths Act 1873, and the evidentiary value of delayed ballistic reports and recoveries. The Balochistan High Court held that the confessional statement was involuntary, tainted by police torture, vitiated by the administration of an oath contrary to law, and lacked independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court found material flaws in the recovery of the weapon and ballistic analysis. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession can be made the basis of a capital conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of administering an oath to an accused person prior to recording a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the simultaneous dispatch of crime empties and recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory cast doubt on the ballistic report?
  • Can medical evidence alone serve as corroborative proof to identify and connect an accused to a crime in the absence of ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Noman Maqsood vs Appellate Authority & four others2022 LHC 2547 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-29Read full judgment →
• Noman Ashraf vs Sardar Nazar Muhammad Khan and 2 others2022 YLR 1771 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
• Noman Amanat, Advocate vs Government of Punjab through Chief2022 PLC (C.S.) 1594 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-07
  quo-warrantoProvincial Police OfficerInspector General of PolicePolice Order 2002constitutional petitionappointment validitysubstantial compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking a writ of quo-warranto against the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the Provincial Police Officer (PPO) of Punjab. The core legal questions revolved around whether the appointment violated the procedure outlined in Article 11 of the Police Order 2002 by failing to provide a panel of three officers, whether an officer in basic scale 21 (BS-21) holding the rank of Additional Inspector General of Police could be appointed to the post, and whether the appointment infringed upon provincial autonomy by being initiated federally. The Lahore High Court held that consensus between the Federal and Provincial Governments constituted substantial compliance with Article 11 of the Police Order 2002, that neither the Police Act 1861, the Police Order 2002, nor the Police Rules 1934 restrict the office strictly to a Grade-22 officer, and that the terms Provincial Police Officer and Inspector General of Police are used synonymously upon appointment. The petition was consequently dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a consensus between the Federal and Provincial Governments regarding the appointment of a Provincial Police Officer amount to substantial compliance with Article 11 of the Police Order 2002?
  • Can an officer of basic scale 21 (BS-21) holding the rank of Additional Inspector General of Police be appointed as a Provincial Police Officer under the Police Order 2002?
  • Are the terms Provincial Police Officer and Inspector General of Police used as synonymous under the Police Order 2002?
  • Whether a writ of quo-warranto can be issued against a public official when the appointing authority and the provincial government are satisfied with the appointment procedure.
  Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin & Others vs Muhammad Usman & another2022 SHC 242, 2024 YLR 645 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
• Nisar Bibi w/o Gohar Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Through2022 PHC 142 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed and others vs Capital Development Authority2022 PLC 111 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2020-05-11
  regularization of servicepermanent workmanmuster roll basis89 days extensionCDA service regulationsnon-statutory rulesNational Industrial Relations Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved two petitions filed before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) by Horticulture Supervisors and Malis employed by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) seeking regularization of their services. The petitioners were initially appointed in 2010 on a muster roll/daily-wage basis and were repeatedly extended through successive 89-day contracts while continuously performing work of a permanent nature. The respondent CDA resisted on grounds that its service regulations were statutory, thereby excluding the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and that the petitioners had no vested right to regularization. The NIRC held that since the CDA Service Regulations were approved by the CDA Board rather than the Federal Government, they were non-statutory, making the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 fully applicable. Applying Standing Orders 1(b) and 1(e), the Commission ruled that employees continuously performing permanent job duties for an extended period attain the status of permanent workmen. The NIRC allowed the petitions and directed the regularization of the petitioners' services.

  Questions settled

  • Are service regulations approved by a corporate board rather than the Federal Government non-statutory in nature?
  • Does a workman performing job duties of a permanent nature continuously on extended daily-wage or 89-day contracts attain the status of a permanent workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can long-serving temporary or daily-wage employees working against permanent posts be directed to be regularized by labor courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad Afzal vs D.G. Anti-Corruption, etc2022 LHC 5645 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-15Read full judgment →
• Ningyali vs The State2022 PHC 350 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
• Nina Industries Limited and 6 Others vs Not2022 CLD 630 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad & 03 others vs Muhammad Riaz & 09 others2022 LHC 2396 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-10Read full judgment →
• Niaz Khan vs The State2022 LHC 4296, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 209 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01
  mental incapacityfair trialschizophreniacriminal proceduremedical boardremandinsanity defensedue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a mandatory inquiry into the appellant's mental capacity to stand trial, despite the court's own initial observation of the appellant's abnormality and medical reports suggesting schizophrenia. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted with undue haste and failed to comply with the procedural requirements for determining mental incapacity. The court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for a fresh, comprehensive inquiry. The key principle laid down is that once a court forms a prima facie opinion that an accused may be incapable of understanding trial proceedings, it is legally obligated to conduct a structured inquiry under Sections 464 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. This process must include a detailed medical board report and the examination of the board's head as a court witness to ensure the constitutional right to a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court obligated to conduct an inquiry into an accused's mental capacity if it forms a prima facie opinion that the accused is incapable of understanding the proceedings?
  • What is the mandatory procedure for a trial court to follow when an accused raises a plea of mental illness during trial?
  • Can a trial court reject an application to examine the head of a medical board as a court witness when the accused's mental capacity is in question?
  • Does the failure to determine an accused's capability to stand trial violate the constitutional right to a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain Soomro vs The State2022 SHC 164, 2024 YLR 1233 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-14
  criminal appealmurderdelayed FIRocular evidenceabscondenceinterested witnessmedical evidencecommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether a twelve-hour delay in lodging the FIR, the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence, and the reliance on related witnesses invalidated the prosecution's case. The Court held that the conviction was sound, dismissing the appeal. It established that a delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal if the delay is explained by the exigencies of saving the victim's life. Regarding the acquittal of a co-accused, the Court ruled that different roles, such as being armed versus unarmed, justify disparate outcomes, meaning the acquittal of one does not mandate the acquittal of another. Furthermore, the Court clarified that relationship to the deceased does not automatically render a witness interested or unreliable; consistency and lack of motive to falsely implicate are the true tests. Finally, the Court held that while abscondence allows for a negative inference, no adverse inference arises from an accused's failure to testify on oath under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted when a co-accused with a different role has been acquitted on the same set of evidence?
  • Does the failure of an accused to testify on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create an adverse inference of guilt?
  • Is the testimony of a relative of the deceased inherently unreliable as an interested witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed Qureshi vs Sect: School Education & Literacy Dept: & Others2022 SHC 176 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah Khan Advocate and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2022 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-16
  amenity plotsencroachmenturban planningpublic interest litigationK-IV water projectKarachi Development Authoritydemolition of illegal structures
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of civil miscellaneous applications and petitions regarding urban planning, encroachment on amenity plots, and infrastructure development in Karachi and Jacobabad. The core legal questions involve the unauthorized conversion of amenity plots for private or commercial use, the implementation of court-ordered demolition of illegal encroachments on public parks, and the facilitation of essential public infrastructure projects, specifically the K-IV water supply scheme. The Court held that amenity plots, such as those designated for hospitals or public use, cannot be diverted for private commercial purposes. Consequently, the Court ordered the issuance of show-cause notices to private entities occupying such plots and directed the Karachi Development Authority to submit comprehensive reports on the status, allotment, and master plan usage of all amenity plots. Furthermore, the Court mandated the removal of unauthorized encroachments from public parks, specifically Aladin Park, and directed relevant authorities to ensure the restoration of these spaces for their intended public use. The principle laid down is that public amenity land must be preserved for its designated purpose and cannot be alienated for private gain.

  Questions settled

  • Can amenity plots designated for public use in a master plan be legally converted for private or commercial purposes?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the demolition of unauthorized commercial structures built on public park land?
  • Are government authorities obligated to ensure the removal of encroachments on land designated for educational or public health purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamat Bibi, etc vs Muhammad Rafique, etc2022 LHC 6959, 2024 MLD 1522 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-29Read full judgment →