Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Mr. Zarar Ahmed, Prop: Zarar Traders, Ghalla Mandi, G.T. Road, Lalamusa vs2022 ATIR 12 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-08-15Read full judgment →
- Mr. Yasir Abbas, Haripur vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Abbottabad2022 ATIR 13 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
- Mr. Shah Muhammad Khan, etc vs Election Commission of Pakistan, etc2022 [M] CLR 604 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mr. Saleem Ahmad vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education and others2022 PHC 260 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mr. Raza Ibrahim, etc vs Mr. Nasir Ibrahim, etc2022 LHC 4538 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-14Read full judgment →
- Mr. Naseer Ali Khan, 44 K, Block VI, Pechs, Karachi East vs Commissioner2022 ATIR 16 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mr. Muhammad Sajid Manzoor, Khushab vs Commissioner Inland Revenue2022 ATIR 14 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-09-01Read full judgment →
- Mr. Khan Zeb vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government and Rural Development, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2022 PHC 532, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1160 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the release of pensionary benefits and the appointment of his son against the quota reserved for children of retired Class-IV employees, following his retirement after serving as a peon/chowkidar and Naib Qasid on a contingent/temporary basis. The core legal question was whether a contingent or temporary employee whose services were never regularized or confirmed is entitled to pensionary benefits under Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations or Rule 2.3 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that temporary service in a temporary establishment does not ipso facto entitle an employee to pensionary benefits unless they are otherwise entitled and subsequently regularized or confirmed, as established by the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that the right to pension must be earned through qualifying regular service, and temporary or contingent service without subsequent regularization or confirmation does not qualify for pensionary benefits.
Questions settled- Whether temporary and officiating service in a temporary establishment entitles a government servant to pensionary benefits under Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations without subsequent regularization or confirmation?
- Is a contingent paid employee who was never regularized entitled to pension under Rule 2.3 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963?
- Can the children of a retired contingent or temporary employee claim appointment against the 25% quota reserved for children of retired Class-IV civil servants?
- Mr. Gohar Ali vs The State2022 PHC 604 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Mardan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the return of seized foreign currency (Saudi Riyals 2,22,500). The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who claimed ownership of the currency as sale consideration for property, was entitled to its interim custody (superdari) despite failing to provide proof of legitimate acquisition or authorization to deal in foreign currency. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of ownership, as inquiries revealed no record of the alleged property sale. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner lacked the requisite authorization from the State Bank of Pakistan to conduct foreign currency business. Consequently, the Court upheld the dismissal of the application, maintaining that in the absence of proof of legitimate source or legal authorization, the seized currency could not be released. The key principle laid down is that the right to trade under Article 18 of the Constitution is subject to legal qualifications, and persons dealing in foreign currency must strictly adhere to the regulatory mechanisms prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan.
Questions settled- Is a person entitled to the return of seized foreign currency on superdari without proving the legitimacy of the source of funds?
- Does the right to freedom of trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 permit the unauthorized dealing of foreign currency?
- Is a person required to obtain authorization from the State Bank of Pakistan to conduct a business involving foreign currency notes?
- Moulvi Iqbal Haider vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary and others2022 SHC 586 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
- Moulvi Iqbal Haider vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 IHC 142 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
- Moulvi Din Muhammad vs Bibi Shakira and others2022 PLJ SC 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to a High Court order that remanded a suit to the trial court after setting aside the rejection of a plaint. The plaintiffs' suit for declaration had been dismissed by the trial court due to the rejection of the plaint, a decision upheld in appeal. During the pendency of a civil revision petition, the High Court allowed legal heirs of a deceased defendant to file a fresh written statement and remanded the case. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court erred in setting aside the rejection of the plaint based on an application by legal heirs to file a new written statement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was legally unsustainable. It reasoned that the High Court should have focused on whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, rather than entertaining collateral applications regarding written statements or amendments while the plaintiffs' suit was effectively non-existent due to the prior rejection. The Court set aside the remand order and restored the civil revision petition for decision on its merits.
Questions settled- Can a High Court remand a suit based on an application to file a fresh written statement when the plaint has already been rejected?
- Is it legally appropriate for a revisional court to consider applications for amendment or fresh written statements before determining if the plaint discloses a cause of action?
- Does the rejection of a plaint preclude the filing of a fresh written statement by legal heirs of a defendant in a pending revision petition?
- Moula Bux alias Moulai Mallah and another vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 370 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two criminal bail applications where one applicant sought pre-arrest bail and the other sought post-arrest bail arising out of an FIR registered under sections 269, 270, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail in the absence of independent witnesses, lack of weight specification for alleged recovered substances, and absence of a chemical examiner report. The court held that the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the applicants, bringing their case within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where vital corroborative evidence is missing at the tentative assessment stage, the accused persons are entitled to the concession of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when no independent mashir is cited as a witness from populated areas?
- Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can pre-arrest and post-arrest bail be granted when the investigation is completed and no misuse of interim bail is alleged?
- Mosharraf Ali Zaidi and others vs President of Pakistan, through the Secretary Presidential Secretariat, etc2022 IHC 130, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1250 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the removal of the Chairperson of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) through executive notifications and subsequent legislative amendments to the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002. The core legal question was whether these amendments, which effectively curtailed the Chairperson's statutory tenure, constituted "colorable legislation" or impermissible person-specific legislation, and whether the executive removal was lawful. The Court held that the impugned notifications were issued without lawful authority. Applying the doctrine of "reading down," the Court interpreted the amendments as having prospective effect, thereby preserving the Chairperson's original four-year tenure. The judgment established that while the legislature is competent to enact laws, person-specific legislation is invalid unless supported by sufficient, objective justification. Without such justification, such laws may be declared ultra vires as "colorable legislation." Furthermore, the Court emphasized that statutory amendments should be interpreted to avoid undermining vested rights or security of tenure, ensuring that regulatory bodies like the HEC maintain their statutory autonomy and independence from improper executive interference.
Questions settled- Can legislation be declared ultra vires if it is found to be 'person-specific' without sufficient justification?
- Does the doctrine of 'colorable legislation' apply when a statute is ostensibly within legislative competence but in reality transgresses constitutional limits?
- Can statutory amendments be 'read down' to preserve their constitutionality and avoid undermining vested rights?
- Is the removal of a statutory office holder valid if the executive fails to establish the jurisdictional pre-conditions for such removal?
- Moosa Jumani vs Viith Additional District Judge (Mcac), Karachi South2022 YLR 1493 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
- Momin Khan Alias Mominay vs The State2022 MLD 1992 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act for possession of 4000 grams of chars. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether material contradictions in prosecution evidence and a broken chain of custody regarding FSL samples vitiate the conviction, and whether the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that significant discrepancies regarding the timing of police departure and drafting of documents, mismatched monograms on case property, and an unestablished chain of custody for the samples render the prosecution case doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether material contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding the time of departure from the spot and drafting of the murasilla create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Does a discrepancy in the monogram affixed on case property compared to the seizing officer's initials cast doubt on the recovery?
- Whether an unestablished chain of custody for sending representative samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory renders the FSL report unreliable?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to serious lapses and discrepancies?
- Mol Pakistan Oil and Gas Company vs The Islamabad Capital Territory2022 IHC 54 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mol Pakistan Oil and Gas Company through Authorized Officers vs The Islamabad Capital Territory Administration through Chief Commissioner and others2022 CLD 492 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mol Pakistan Oil and Gas Company through Authorized Officers vs The Islamabad Capital Territory Administration through Chief Commissioner and 4 others2022 PTD 737 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mol Pakistan Oil and Gas B.v vs Federal Board of Revenue, through Chairman, Islamabad and others2022 PTD 1624 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
- Moin Us Samad Khan vs Tanveer Qazi and another2022 SHC 366 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
- Mohzim Ali Danish vs Family Judge, Muzaffarabad and another2022 MLD 572 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
- Mohsin Rasool vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 LHC 8172 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-01Read full judgment →
- Mohsin Ali Khan vs Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection Against2022 CLC 1955 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Tanveer Ahmad vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Additional2022 PCRLJ 1636 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the registration of an FIR against his wife for the alleged theft of household items and a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the removal of property by a spouse from a residence registered in her name, where she held a bona fide claim of right, constitutes the offence of theft under Section 378, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court upheld the impugned order, dismissing the petition. The Court held that the essential elements of theft—specifically the dishonest removal of property from the possession of another without consent—were not met. Because the property was located in a residence registered to the accused and she possessed a bona fide claim of right over the items, the allegations failed to disclose a cognizable offence. The Court affirmed that a bona fide claim of right over property precludes a finding of theft.
Questions settled- Does the removal of property by a spouse from a residence registered in her name constitute theft under Section 378, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a person be charged with theft if they have a bona fide claim of right over the property in question?
- Is the registration of an FIR mandatory under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence?
- Mohammad Shoaib alias Shahoo and others vs The State2022 YLR 1837 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment disposes of two criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentencing them to life imprisonment for the murder of a police constable during a protest in 2011. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons, identification parades were held after a delay of over six years without prior description, no crime weapons were recovered, and no specific role of firing was attributed to the appellants by the eyewitnesses. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants due to unreliable evidence, unexplained delays in identification, and lack of incriminating recoveries. The court laid down the principle that a criminal charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Can an identification parade conducted more than six years after the incident, without a prior physical description or hulia in the initial statement, form the sole basis for a safe conviction?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to recover crime weapons or matching empties from the crime scene create a reasonable doubt requiring the acquittal of the accused?
- Is an extra-judicial or police-recorded admission of guilt admissible when not recorded before a judicial magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the effect on the prosecution's case when an FIR is initially registered against unknown persons and material witnesses fail to attribute specific roles of firing to the accused during trial?
- Mohammad Saleem vs Mst. Safia Begum and another2022 YLR 1033 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Nazir and 10 others vs Alim Deen and 9 others2022 MLD 1320 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Asghar vs Additional Sessions Judge and 3 othersPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 543 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular account of the complainant, which was disbelieved by the trial court regarding four co-accused who were consequently acquitted, could still be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the petitioner. The High Court held that the prosecution's evidence, having been discredited regarding the majority of the accused, could not be selectively applied to convict the petitioner. Emphasizing the principle that the testimony of an injured witness establishes presence but does not automatically guarantee truthfulness, the Court set aside the convictions. The key principle laid down, citing Supreme Court precedent, is that the rule 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is an integral part of Pakistani criminal jurisprudence; therefore, when an ocular account is discredited regarding co-accused, it cannot be relied upon to convict the remaining accused, as the court must reject the evidence in its entirety.
Questions settled- Can an ocular account be relied upon to convict one accused when the same evidence has been disbelieved to acquit co-accused in the same case?
- Does the presence of injuries on a complainant serve as a stamp of truth for their testimony?
- Is the rule 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' applicable in criminal cases in Pakistan?
- Mohammad Arshad Qureshi vs Government of Pakistan, etc.2022 LHC 7575 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Anwar vs Pakistan & others2022 SHC 270 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Amir Safdar vs The Bank Alfalah Ltd. Park in Hotel, Choaba2022 PCTLR 434 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Ahmad Ansari vs Interglobe Commerce Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., &2022 SHC 280 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
- Moeen Adnan Taj vs Mst. Rabia Arif and others2022 IHC 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-17Read full judgment →
- Model Customs Collectorate, Islamabad vs Aamir Mumtaz Qureshi2022 SCP 228, 2022 SCMR 1861, 2022 PTD 1683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Model Customs Collectorate against the acquittal of the respondent, Aamir Mumtaz Qureshi, under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. by the Special Court (Customs, Taxation & Anti-Smuggling), an order subsequently upheld by the Islamabad High Court. The core legal question revolved around the appropriate application of Sections 265-K and 249-A Cr.P.C. for acquittal at an early stage, particularly when there is material on record suggesting a probability of conviction. The Supreme Court held that acquittals under these sections are only justified when there is no probability of conviction; if even a remote probability exists, evidence must be recorded. The Court further clarified that acquittals at intermediary stages do not possess the same sanctity as those based on a full-fledged trial, and the principle of double innocence is inapplicable. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the orders of the trial court and High Court, and remanded the case for recording evidence and decision on merits.
- Miss Uzma Amjad Ali and Mrs. Asma Mahmood Dr. Nafees Zubair and others vs Mrs. Saeeda Bano, Miss Uzma Amjad Ali and Mrs. Asma Mahmood and others2022 SCP 596, 2024 MLD 1115 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-22Read full judgment →
- Misbah Khanum vs Kamran Yasin KhaN and another2022 SCMR 1629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding a decree for specific performance obtained through alleged fraud. The core legal questions were whether a conditional decree for specific performance remains valid after the failure to comply with its terms within the stipulated timeframe, and whether an appellate court can validly decree a suit based on an attorney's conceding statement without verifying the authorization or the status of the initial decree. The Supreme Court held that the initial conditional decree became void upon the failure to deposit the balance sale consideration within the prescribed period. Consequently, the subsequent appellate decree was unsustainable. The Court established that a conditional decree dies a natural death upon non-compliance. Furthermore, it held that an attorney's conceding statement lacks evidentiary value if the power of attorney is not properly exhibited or proven, and that courts must apply their judicial mind to the legality of transactions rather than acting mechanically on concessions.
Questions settled- Does a conditional decree for specific performance automatically lapse if the condition of payment is not met within the stipulated time?
- Can an appellate court pass a decree based on a conceding statement of an attorney without the underlying power of attorney being exhibited or proven in evidence?
- Is there a legal bar to a party pursuing multiple simultaneous remedies under the law, where a decision in one renders the others infructuous?
- Does the failure to file a decree sheet with an appeal constitute a violation of Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mirza Shahzeb vs City Police Officer, Etc2022 LHC 8404 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mirza Shahnawaz Agha vs Securities and Exchange Commission Of Pakistan through Additional Registrar2022 CLD 1017 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal revision applications challenging an order of the Special Court (Offences in Banks) which dismissed the applicant's requests for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan could prosecute corporate officers under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of the Companies Ordinance 1984, and whether criminal proceedings against company directors must cease upon the company entering liquidation. The Court dismissed the applications, holding that the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan is empowered to prosecute under the general law, specifically the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the special law does not address the specific allegations of fraud and misappropriation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that winding-up proceedings do not preclude criminal prosecution of directors. The Court affirmed that criminal trials should proceed when allegations require evidence for adjudication and that the existence of a special law does not automatically exclude the application of the general law unless the special law explicitly covers the alleged offences.
Questions settled- Can the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan prosecute corporate officers under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the Companies Ordinance 1984 does not cover the specific allegations?
- Does the winding-up of a company under the Companies Ordinance 1984 bar criminal proceedings against its directors?
- Is a Special Court (Offences in Banks) competent to take cognizance of a complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan?
- Mirza Shah Nawaz Agha vs Securities and Exchange Commission Of Pakistan (SECP) through Joint Registrar of Companies and another2022 PCRLJ 1303 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged a trial court order allowing the substitution of an authorized officer representing the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) in a pending criminal complaint. The applicant contended that the law does not permit the substitution of a complainant in criminal proceedings. The core legal question was whether a body corporate, having initiated a criminal complaint, could validly continue the prosecution through an officer different from the one who initially filed the complaint. The Court held that the SECP, as a body corporate and juristic person, possesses the right to sue and be sued. Because a juristic entity must act through natural persons, it is not required to be represented by the same individual from the inception of a case until its conclusion. The Court reasoned that litigation is a protracted process, and requiring the same officer to remain involved despite potential retirement, transfer, or death would be impractical and defeat the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court's order, permitting the substitution of the authorized representative.
Questions settled- Can a body corporate initiate criminal proceedings in its own name?
- Is a body corporate required to be represented by the same authorized officer throughout the duration of a criminal trial?
- Does the substitution of an authorized representative in a criminal complaint filed by a juristic person constitute an illegality?
- Mirza Hamayoon vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1648 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a conviction and sentence imposed by a Special Court (Offences in Banks) regarding the misappropriation and embezzlement of funds by a bank teller. The appellant, having been convicted under sections 409 and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, initially contested the conviction but subsequently conceded the prosecution's case, requesting only a reduction in sentence based on mitigating factors. The core legal question concerned the appropriate exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing, specifically whether mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction of the imposed term. The Court held that while the conviction was soundly based on consistent evidence, sentencing is not a mechanical exercise but requires a conscious application of mind to factors such as the gravity of the offence, the accused's remorse, and potential for reformation. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence, emphasizing that imprisonment in default of fine is a punishment for non-payment, not a substitute for the fine itself, which remains recoverable under the law.
Questions settled- Is sentencing a mechanical exercise or does it require a conscious application of judicial discretion?
- Does serving a term of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine discharge the liability to pay that fine?
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence based on mitigating factors even when the conviction is maintained?
- Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 70, 2022 CLD 352 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
- Mir. Ahmad Khan vs Said Ghulam and 6 others2022 YLR 363 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-16Read full judgment →
- Mir Waiz vs The State2022 SCMR 2105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and safe transmission of the recovered contraband from the police station to the Chemical Examiner. Upon review, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce the Moharrar Malkhana to prove the safe custody of the sample parcels during the period between recovery and delivery to the laboratory. Furthermore, the constable responsible for the transmission of the samples was not produced to establish the integrity of the parcels during transit. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that the failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples is a fatal defect in the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce the Moharrar Malkhana to testify regarding the custody of narcotic samples constitute a fatal defect in the prosecution's case?
- Is the prosecution required to establish the safe transmission of sample parcels from the police station to the Chemical Examiner to secure a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the integrity of the chain of custody of recovered contraband?
- Mir Muhammad Tahir Zehri vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2022 SHC 588 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mir Karam Ali Khan & 28 others vs Province of SIndh and Others2022 SHC 198 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioners assailing the minutes of the meeting dated 31.08.2021 of the Departmental Promotion Committee of the Irrigation Department, whereby their promotion to Executive Engineer (BPS-18) was deferred on the ground that they lacked the requisite five years of service in BPS-17. The petitioners contended that their seniority was ignored and that private respondents were adjusted against direct recruitment quotas. The respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arguing that service matters exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Sindh High Court evaluated the rival contentions and held that the petitioners indeed lacked the mandatory length of service required for promotion to BPS-18, rendering their claim premature. The Court reiterated that eligibility is distinct from fitness, and that promotion requires both statutory criteria and an unblemished service record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain service matters of civil servants in view of the bar contained in Article 212?
- Is a civil servant who lacks the requisite length of service eligible for promotion to a higher grade?
- What is the distinction between eligibility for promotion and fitness for promotion under civil service law?
- Can seniority be claimed from a retrospective date when regular appointment has not been made from such date?
- Mir Hassan Kalhoro vs Muhammad Chuttal alias Imran and another2022 PLD Sindh 165 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal revision application challenging an order by an Additional Sessions Judge that directed a Judicial Magistrate to entertain a direct complaint against a Senior Civil Judge. The respondent, a revenue official, alleged that the judge abused and detained him during court proceedings. The core legal question was whether a judicial officer is subject to criminal or civil proceedings for acts performed during the discharge of official duties. The High Court held that judicial officers are protected by immunity for acts done in good faith while exercising judicial powers. The Court emphasized that such immunity is essential for the independence of the judiciary and to ensure judges can perform duties without fear. The Court ruled that no criminal or civil action lies against a judge for judicial acts, noting that the respondent failed to obtain the mandatory sanction required under the law for prosecuting public servants. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, declared the proceedings against the judge void, and directed disciplinary action against the respondent for hindering judicial independence.
Questions settled- Can a judicial officer be prosecuted for acts performed in the discharge of official judicial duties without prior sanction?
- Does the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 provide immunity against both civil and criminal proceedings for judicial acts?
- Is a judge liable for criminal or civil action for acts done in good faith while exercising judicial powers?
- Mir Ghulam Abbas Jakhrani vs Director General Nab and 2 others2022 PCRLJ 781 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference, citing lack of incriminating evidence and inordinate delay in the trial. The petitioner, accused of being a benamidar for the main accused, argued that he had no connection to the alleged offences and that his incarceration for over 29 months without significant trial progress violated his rights. The Court examined the trial record, noting that only 7 out of 49 witnesses had been examined in over two years, with the majority of delays not attributable to the petitioner. The Court held that the lack of sufficient incriminating material, combined with the inordinate and unconscionable delay in the trial, entitled the petitioner to bail. The Court emphasized that the right to an expeditious trial under Article 10A of the Constitution must be meaningful and that prolonged incarceration without trial progress is unjust. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate and unconscionable delay in the conclusion of a trial constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Is an accused person entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to produce sufficient incriminating material to justify continued detention?
- Does the right to an expeditious trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 protect an under-trial prisoner from prolonged incarceration due to delays not caused by the accused?
- Mir Baz through L.Rs. and 3 others vs Mst. Noor and 16 others2022 YLR 475 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
- Mir Akbar son of Mir Baz, r/o Doobian Nowshera Kalan, District Nowshera vs2022 PHC 6 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mir Abdullah Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan2022 SHC 352 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-13Read full judgment →
- Mian Trust through Representative/Trustee vs Lyari Expressway2022 CLC 543 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mian Shahzad Iqbal vs The State and others2022 MLD 993 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for pre-arrest bail arising from a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 447, 452, 511, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners have made out a case for pre-arrest bail, given the varying nature of their alleged roles—ranging from behind-the-scenes abetment and delayed implication without specific initial naming, to active participation involving specific firearm and baton injuries resulting in a fatality and multiple injuries. The Lahore High Court held that petitioners assigned roles involving managed abetment or delayed, mala fide implication without recovery or necessity of custodial interrogation were entitled to pre-arrest bail, whereas those attributed with specific, corroborated violent overt acts and injuries were not entitled to extraordinary relief. The key principles laid down include that post-incident maneuvering in naming accused persons or introducing abetment evidence points toward mala fide and further inquiry, and that accused persons assigned specific active roles supported by medical evidence and statements are not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person alleged to have provided behind-the-scene abetment introduced via subsequently managed witness statements is entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Does the unexplained omission of an accused person's name from the initial crime report, followed by a later supplementary statement, indicate mala fide for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Are accused persons attributed with specific firearm and baton injuries supported by medical evidence entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Mian Muhammad Shafique vs Azad Government Of The State Of Jammu &2022 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 42 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Shafique vs Azad Government Of The State Of Jammu &PLJ 2022 AJK 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves multiple clubbed writ petitions filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974. The petitioners, former civil servants who had recently retired or resigned, challenged the constitutionality of Ordinance VIII of 2021 and Act XIII of 2021 (specifically Section 5 thereof), which amended Section 31 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Election Act, 2020. The amendment imposed a two-year bar on retired or resigned civil servants from contesting general elections from the date of their retirement or cessation of service. The petitioners contended that the Ordinance was promulgated without prior Cabinet approval, violating the Rules of Business, 1985, and infringed their fundamental rights. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petitions, holding that the Prime Minister had lawfully exercised emergency powers under Rule 23(2) of the Rules of Business, 1985, with subsequent Cabinet ratification. The Court ruled that contesting an election is a statutory right, not an absolute fundamental right, and is subject to reasonable restrictions. The two-year restriction was found to be constitutionally valid and aligned with Article 63(k) of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Questions settled- Whether an Ordinance promulgated by the Prime Minister in an emergency without prior Cabinet approval is valid if it is subsequently ratified by the Cabinet at the earliest opportunity?
- Is the right to contest an election an absolute fundamental right or a statutory right subject to conditions and restrictions imposed by law?
- Can the legislature validly impose a two-year post-retirement restriction on former civil servants wishing to contest legislative assembly elections?
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs State through Chairman, National2022 PLD Islamabad 13 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of an Accountability Court convicting the appellant, who subsequently absconded after being released on bail pending appeal. The core legal question was how an appellate court should proceed with an appeal when the appellant becomes a fugitive from law and refuses to submit to the court's process, particularly in light of constitutional guarantees to a fair trial. Reviewing established precedents, the Islamabad High Court held that a fugitive from justice loses the right of audience and cannot seek the aid or discretionary relief of the court while defying its orders. The court concluded that since the appellant received a fair trial at the original stage and chose to abscond at the appellate stage, his appeal must be dismissed, subject to the condition that it may be resurrected if and when he surrenders or is captured. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not act in aid of a fugitive from justice, and an absconding convict forfeits the right to be heard on appeal.
Questions settled- Does a convict who becomes a fugitive from law forfeit the right of audience in a criminal appeal?
- Whether an appellate court can dismiss an appeal when the appellant absconds and fails to appear for hearings?
- Does Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 entitle an absconding convict to a hearing during an appeal despite being a fugitive from justice?
- Can an appeal dismissed due to the appellant's abscondence be resurrected upon their subsequent surrender or capture?
- Mian Muhammad Faisal vs Muhammad Faisal Vawda and 4 others2022 [M] CLR 497 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-03Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Arshad vs Saba Gul and 5 others2022 MLD 1280 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent dismissal of the petitioner's objection petition regarding the transfer of an execution proceeding arising from a family court decree. The core legal question centered on whether an execution petition under the Family Courts Act, 1964 can be transferred to another district through provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or if the transfer mechanism under Section 25-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 exclusively applies. The Lahore High Court held that execution proceedings fall squarely within the definition of 'proceedings' under Section 25-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, and that the Act being a special statute provides an exclusive framework for case transfers, precluding the direct application of general transfer provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court laid down the principle that execution petitions cannot be transferred outside the district except in accordance with Section 25-A, as special laws override general procedural laws.
Questions settled- Whether execution proceedings fall within the meaning of 'proceeding' under Section 25-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Can provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be invoked for transferring execution petitions when a specific mechanism exists in the Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Does a Family Court or executing court have the jurisdiction to directly transfer an execution petition to another district without complying with Section 25-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Mian Javed Akhtar and another vs Rana Muhammad Ismail and others2022 LHC 8374, 2024 YLR 251 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mian Iqbal Hussain vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa thorugh Chief2022 PHC 502 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian Imran Saeed and others vs Mst. Salima Bibi and others2022 CLC 349 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-16Read full judgment →
- Mian Hikmatullah Jan vs Chairman And Members Of Selection Board2022 PLJ SC 149 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Peshawar High Court, wherein the petitioner challenged his disqualification for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner's candidacy was rejected after verification revealed that his name had been struck off from the Roll of Advocates by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council. The petitioner contended that his license was merely suspended and that the High Court erred in verifying his Wakalatnamas. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a candidate whose name is struck off from the Roll of Advocates under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, ceases to be a practicing advocate and is ineligible for judicial posts requiring active practice. The Court further observed that filing Wakalatnamas during a period when one's name is struck off constitutes professional misconduct, directing the provincial Bar Council to take legal action. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an advocate whose name has been struck off from the Roll of Advocates claim to be a practicing advocate for the purpose of judicial appointment?
- Whether a candidate who is not an active practicing advocate at the time of application is eligible for appointment as an Additional District and Sessions Judge?
- What action should be taken when an advocate continues to file Wakalatnamas after their name has been struck off from the Roll of Advocates?
- Mian Ejaz Amir vs Haji Muhammad Ibrahim2022 LHC 4110 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
- Mian Baber Rasheed vs Learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, Etc2022 LHC 4601 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
- Mian Asad Omer Maggo vs Hewlett-Packard Singapore (Sales) Pvt Limited2022 CLD 918 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mian Ansar Hayat vs The State and 10 others2022 PCRLJ 1770 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which had accepted a criminal revision against a Magistrate's order. The Magistrate had disagreed with a police cancellation report and directed the submission of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate's order declining to accept a police cancellation report constitutes a judicial order amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that when a Magistrate deals with a police cancellation report, they function in an administrative, not judicial, capacity, provided no summoning order is issued. Consequently, such an order is not subject to revisional jurisdiction. The Court established that administrative orders of this nature are not revisable and must be challenged under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge was set aside, and the Magistrate's original order was restored.
Questions settled- Is an order passed by a Magistrate disagreeing with a police cancellation report a judicial order?
- Can a Sessions Judge exercise revisional jurisdiction against an administrative order passed by a Magistrate?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy to challenge an administrative order passed by a Magistrate regarding a police cancellation report?
- Does a Magistrate act as a court when concurring with or rejecting a police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Mian Abdul Jabbar and another vs The Chairman, National Accountability2022 YLR 1040 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-28Read full judgment →
- Mi Hosiery and another vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2022 PLJ Lahore 8 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
- MFG Insurance Company Limited vs Securities & Exchange Commissioner2022 SHC 26, 2022 CLD 1055 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Zia Steel Re-Rolling Mills, Islamabad vs Commissioner Inland2022 PTD (Trib.) 1722 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-09-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Zarif Khan Hussain Zai And Brothers through Authorised2022 PTD 779, PTCL 2022 CL. 862 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Azam Khan and 6 others vs Mohammad Bashir Khan and 92022 CLC 1580 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Aslam vs P.I.A.C & Ors2022 SHC 268 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner, a former Deputy General Manager Human Resources at Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), challenging his compulsory retirement dated December 31, 2006, and the subsequent appellate order rejecting his departmental appeal under a downsizing policy. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against PIAC under non-statutory service rules, whether an employee of PIAC can seek reinstatement rather than damages, and the legality of the premature retirement. The court held that PIAC is a statutory body, but its service regulations (such as the PIA Employees (Service & Discipline) Regulations, 1985) are non-statutory as they lack statutory framing requirements like notification in the official gazette. Consequently, the relationship between PIAC and its employees is governed by the principle of 'master and servant,' and an aggrieved employee cannot seek reinstatement or invoke constitutional jurisdiction for the enforcement of terms of service, but is restricted to claiming damages before a court of plenary jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) for the enforcement of service terms?
- Do the service regulations framed by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) have statutory force?
- Can an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) seek reinstatement in service along with back benefits upon termination or compulsory retirement?
- What is the nature of the employment relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) and its employees in the absence of statutory service rules?
- Messrs Zahir Khan And Brothers (ZKB) vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary, Investment Department, Karachi and 3 others2022 PLD Sindh 135 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Zaheer Soap Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad and others vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Rto, Faisalabad and others2022 PTD (Trib.) 967 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-08-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs Yunus Textile Mills Limited through Constituted Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad and 4 others2022 PCTLR 1509 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Younus & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. Karachi West vs The Collector of Customs, Mcc Appraisement And Facilitation (East), Karachi and another2022 PTD (Trib.) 1515 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Warid Telecom (Pvt.) Limited through Head of Tax, Corporate and Regulatory Litigation vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Through Chairman, Atir Divisional Branch, Islamabad and 4 others2022 PTD 1220 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Vision 2000 + Pharmaceuticals through Managing Partner, Peshawar and 10 others vs Habib Bank Limited2022 CLD 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Travel International Limited and another vs Habib Bank Limited2022 CLC 1491 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Town Crier (Pvt.) Ltd., Sargodha Road, Faisalabad vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Rto, Faisalabad2022 PTD (Trib.) 749 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Telenor Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and 4 others2022 PTD 1097, 2022 PLJ Islamabad 87 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a telecommunication company, challenged a tax recovery notice issued under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, via a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether recovery proceedings under Section 138 are contingent upon the passing of appeal effect orders under Section 124 for all adjudicated matters, or if recovery can proceed for a specific determined tax liability independently. The petitioner argued that recovery could not be initiated until a consolidated determination of all tax liabilities was concluded. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is a self-contained fiscal statute where tax liability, once created, is immediately payable unless stayed by a competent forum. The Court clarified that Section 124 does not mandate a consolidated order for all adjudicated matters before recovery can commence. The key principle laid down is that fiscal statutes must be interpreted literally, without recourse to equity or intendment, and tax liability is independent and enforceable upon assessment unless explicitly stayed.
Questions settled- Does Section 124 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, require a consolidated determination of all tax liabilities before recovery proceedings can be initiated for a specific adjudged tax liability?
- Is the initiation of recovery proceedings under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, contingent upon the passing of appeal effect orders in all other adjudicated cases against a taxpayer?
- Does Section 57 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, have any relevance to the recovery of tax that has become due under the Ordinance?
- Messrs Telenor Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad and others2022 PTD 1632 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs T & N Pakistan Private Limited vs The Collector Customs and others2022 SCMR 1119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court in a Custom Reference under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, which was decided against the petitioner. The petitioner had imported a Polyester Fibre Manufacturing Plant from China and claimed exemption from custom duties and taxes under SRO 659(1)/2007. However, the customs authorities denied the exemption because the petitioner failed to produce a valid, signed Certificate of Origin matching the specimen signatures circulated by the Federal Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its referral jurisdiction under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, could adjudicate upon factual controversies regarding the non-production of mandatory compliance documents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the remedy of reference under Section 196 is strictly meant for deciding questions of law arising from the Appellate Tribunal's order. The Court laid down the principle that the High Court cannot embark upon factual inquiries or resolve factual controversies in its referral jurisdiction, and the failure to produce mandatory statutory documents to claim an exemption is a factual failure that does not raise a question of law.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in its referral jurisdiction under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 can embark upon or resolve factual controversies?
- Is the failure of an importer to produce a valid, signed Certificate of Origin to claim a tax exemption under an SRO a question of law or a question of fact?
- Can a taxpayer claim the benefit of a preferential concession SRO without strictly complying with the mandatory procedural requirements, such as presenting the original Certificate of Origin?
- Messrs Superior Connections (Pvt.) Limited through Director vs Federation2022 MLD 1179 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Spectrum Enterprises through Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PTD 732 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs SKB-KNK Joint Venture Contractors through Regional Director vs Water and Power Development Authority and others2022 SCMR 1615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition challenging a High Court order that restored a First Appeal against Order (F.A.O.) by condoning a delay of over six months after it was dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the High Court appropriately condoned the delay and restored the appeal without a demonstration of sufficient cause under the law of limitation. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the High Court's restoration order. The Court held that the respondent failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay or explain the absence, noting that no medical certificate was attached to justify the counsel's illness and that the counsel had actively appeared in executing court proceedings while the appeal remained dismissed. The Court laid down that government departments are treated on par with ordinary litigants, and limitation cannot be dismissed as a mere technicality, as the expiration of the limitation period creates accrued valuable rights in favor of the opposing party.
Questions settled- Are government departments treated on equal footing with ordinary litigants regarding the law of limitation?
- Does the expiry of the period of limitation create a valuable legal right in favor of the opposing party?
- Can a delay in filing a restoration application be condoned without providing sufficient cause or supporting documentary evidence such as a medical certificate?
- Messrs Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Sida) vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad Zone, Hyderabad and another2022 PTD 1679 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sieyuan-Neie-Naeem & Company vs The Federation Of Pakistan2022 CLC 516 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shann's Cosmetics and Chemicals through Managing Partner vs Registrar of Trade Marks and another2022 CLD 176 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shakarganj Foods Product (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner Pra, Faisalabad2022 PTD (Trib.) 320 · Appellate Tribunal Punjab Revenue Authority · 2019-12-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs Samba Bank Limited vs Messrs Hotel Hill View (Pvt.) Limited through Chairman2022 CLC 845 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs Salman Paper Products (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs The Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collector Appraisement (East), Karachi and others2022 PTD (Trib.) 1922 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2022-08-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Saleem Battery Center, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Rto, Faisalabad2022 PTD (Trib.) 368 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sakrand Sugar Mills Limited through Authorized2022 PTD 901 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs S.S. Trading Company, Karachi vs The Deputy Collector, Group-VII, MCC Of Appraisement-East, Customs House, Karachi and another2022 PTD (Trib.) 349 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs S.G. Polypropylene (Private) Ltd. through Directors/Chief Executive2022 CLD 1494 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Relief International through Authorized Representative vs Securities2022 CLD 432, 2022 PCTLR 1181 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Quick Contractor and Traders and others vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PTD 1302 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Qazi & Company and 4 others vs The Additional Collector of Customs, Collectorate Of Customs (Adjudication-I), Karachi and another2022 PTD (Trib.) 1447 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2020-05-20Read full judgment →