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.
- Mohammad Ali vs The Government of Sindh and others2020 SHC 1308 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Akram and 2 others vs The State and another2020 YLR 2428 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of three appellants under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Arms Ordinance, 1965, following their trial by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of police witnesses in the absence of private witnesses and the necessity of public witnesses for search and seizure operations under anti-terrorism laws. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions and sentences. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular accounts of police officials, which were corroborated by forensic reports from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency and the recovery of explosive materials. The Court established that police witnesses are as credible as private witnesses unless the defense demonstrates specific malice or enmity. Furthermore, the Court clarified that, pursuant to Section 19A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the requirement for public witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is excluded in such proceedings. The prompt registration of the FIR further negated claims of fabrication.
Questions settled- Are police witnesses inherently unreliable in criminal trials without proof of malice or enmity?
- Is the association of public witnesses mandatory for searches and arrests conducted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Does the prompt registration of an FIR exclude the possibility of deliberation or false implication of the accused?
- Mohammad Akbar Mengal vs The State2020 SHC 820 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-conviction bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant, Mohammad Akbar Mengal, who was charged and initially convicted for possessing 10 kilograms of Charas under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Although his conviction was earlier set aside in appeal for a retrial or remand to bring the FIR author on record due to a technical defect, the trial is now near its conclusion. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail pending the conclusion of proceedings following an appellate remand. The High Court held that the remand to cure a procedural or technical defect does not affect the merits of the prosecution case, and long incarceration alone is insufficient for bail when the trial is at its final stage. The bail application was consequently dismissed with a directive to the trial court to conclude the proceedings within one month.
Questions settled- Whether an accused whose conviction is set aside and remanded for a technical procedural correction is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does prolonged incarceration alone constitute sufficient ground for granting bail when the retrial is near its conclusion?
- Do observations made during a bail hearing affect the merits of the case at the subsequent trial?
- Moazam Ali Khan Abbasi vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary2020 CLC 1938 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-27Read full judgment →
- Mitra Javanmardi vs Her Majesty The Queen And Attorney General Of Quebec2020 P SC (Crl.) 687, 2020 SCMR 541 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
- Mithal son of Moula Bux Mugheri vs The State2020 SHC 1024 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following a recovery of a weapon upon secret information. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the appellant pleading guilty and relying exclusively on police testimony without independent corroboration or proof of safe custody of the weapon. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case due to the lack of independent witnesses despite daytime opportunities, the failure to prove safe transmission of the weapon to the Ballistic Expert, and uncorroborated police evidence. The court established the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt irrespective of a guilty plea, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does a plea of guilty by an accused relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
- Is the uncorroborated testimony of police officials sufficient to maintain a conviction when independent witnesses could have been easily secured?
- Does failure to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of a crime weapon to the Ballistic Expert vitiate the prosecution's case?
- How many circumstances creating doubt are required to entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
- Miss Rida Batool vs Khurram Shahzad Kazmi and 2 others2020 P Cr.L J 1307, 2020 IHC 120 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner-mother seeking the recovery and interim custody of her minor children from the respondent-father through a writ of habeas corpus, challenging an order passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing her application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the Islamabad High Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to entertain the habeas corpus petition when the minors resided and studied outside its territorial limits and the alleged removal did not occur within Islamabad. The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction because the corpus was not within the Islamabad Capital Territory, the minors were studying in Sargodha, and the school from which they were allegedly removed was located in Rawalpindi, placing the matter outside the purview of the Islamabad High Court. The key principle laid down is that for a High Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus or exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the person in custody or the place from where the custody was allegedly removed must fall strictly within the territorial limits of that court.
Questions settled- Does the Islamabad High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition when the minors are residing and studying outside the Islamabad Capital Territory?
- Can a writ of habeas corpus be issued under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 if the corpus is not within the territorial limits of the court and was not removed from within its jurisdiction?
- Does the appellate jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply beyond the territorial limits of the High Court?
- Miss Naureen Naz Butt vs Pakistan International Airlines through its2020 PLC (C.S) 1502, 2021 PLJ SC 39, 2021 P SC 1120, 2020 SCMR 1625, 2020 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside a Single Bench's order allowing the appellant's writ petition and instead dismissed her claim. The appellant, formerly employed as an airhostess on a contract basis by Pakistan International Airlines, had her contract expire and not renewed. The core legal questions involved whether a contract employee possesses a vested right to regularization or reinstatement upon the expiry of their contract, and whether a writ petition is maintainable for employees of Pakistan International Airlines whose service is governed by the principle of master and servant rather than statutory rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a contract employee whose period of employment expires by afflux of time carries no vested right to remain in employment or to be reinstated, and that writ petitions against Pakistan International Airlines are not maintainable as its service is governed by master and servant principles. The key principle laid down is that contract employees have no enforceable right to continued employment or regularization upon contract expiry, and non-statutory corporate employment is subject to master and servant rules.
Questions settled- Does a contract employee acquire a vested right to regularization or extension upon the expiry of their contract period?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against Pakistan International Airlines for service matters not governed by statutory rules?
- Can courts compel an employer to reinstate a contract employee after the expiration of their employment contract?
- Misal Khan vs Directorate of Industries & others2020 PHC 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
- Mirza Rauf Ahmed vs Addl. District Judge, etc2020 [M] C L R 843 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
- Mirza Muhammad Nazakat Baig vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and another2020 PLJ SC 226, 2020 SCMR 631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal, which upheld the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging an amendment to Rule 9(a) of the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan Rules, 1989. The appellant challenged the clubbing of Rawalpindi with Islamabad Capital Territory for the rotational presidency of the Supreme Court Bar Association. The core legal questions were whether the Supreme Court Bar Association and Pakistan Bar Council are bodies amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and whether the Association's rules are statutory. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that neither the Bar Council nor the Bar Association perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or Provinces within the contemplation of Article 199, as the executive exercises no administrative control over them. The Court established that the Supreme Court Bar Association is a non-statutory body, making its rules non-statutory and unenforceable through constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is the Supreme Court Bar Association amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Are the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan Rules, 1989 statutory or non-statutory in nature?
- Does the Pakistan Bar Council or Supreme Court Bar Association perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Mirza Muhammad Nazakat Baig vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law & Justice, Islamabad and another2020 P SC 695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition regarding an amendment to Rule 9(a) of the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan Rules, 1989. The amendment grouped Islamabad and Rawalpindi together for the rotational Presidency of the Supreme Court Bar Association. The appellant contended this was discriminatory and sought judicial intervention. The core legal questions were whether the Supreme Court Bar Association is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the Association's rules are statutory in nature. The Supreme Court held that the Supreme Court Bar Association is a non-statutory body and does not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, Provinces, or local authorities. Consequently, it is not subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that adequate alternative remedies exist under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, which the appellant failed to exhaust. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Are the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan Rules, 1989, statutory in nature?
- Does the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, Provinces, or local authorities?
- Mirza Muhammad Ali vs University Of The Punjab through Vice Chancellor2020 MLD 1870 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mirza Khan vs Director General Nadra Islamabad and another2020 PLC (C.S.) 552 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the petitioner's suit for the correction of his date of birth and father's name in his Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) was partially dismissed regarding the date of birth. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had successfully established his correct date of birth based on his service book against the entry in the CNIC. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of joining government service is final under the relevant rules, and since the petitioner proved his claim through cogent documentary and oral evidence which went unrebutted, the lower courts committed misreading and non-reading of evidence. The petition was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' judgments and decreeing the suit as prayed for. The key principle laid down is that the entry in a service book at the time of joining service serves as reliable proof for correcting corresponding personal details when supported by unrefuted evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the date of birth recorded in a service book at the time of joining government service is final for the correction of personal records?
- Can concurrent findings of lower courts be set aside in revisional jurisdiction on the ground of misreading and non-reading of evidence?
- Whether a plaintiff's unrebutted oral and documentary evidence regarding date of birth warrants a decree in a civil suit against NADRA?
- Mirza Kamran Baig vs University Of Azad Jammu And Kashmir, Muzaffarabad through Vice Chancellor and 5 others2020 MLD 736 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-10-21Read full judgment →
- Mirza Ali Adil Baig vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 780 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, who is accused of stealing natural gas for a plastic factory in an FIR registered under the Gas (Theft and Recovery) Act, 2016. The core legal question is whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds, including mala fide on the part of the complainant, to warrant the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any ulterior motive or mala fide on the part of the gas company officials. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases where the accused can prove victimization or abuse of process. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court held that in the absence of proven mala fides, and given the serious nature of the offence involving the theft of national natural resources, the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. The interim bail previously granted was consequently recalled, and the application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is pre-arrest bail available to an accused in the absence of proven mala fide on the part of the complainant?
- What are the essential conditions that must be satisfied to obtain the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the theft of natural resources constitute a ground for refusing pre-arrest bail?
- Mirza Abid Baig vs Zahid Sabir (decd.) through L.Rs2021 PLJ SC 161, 2020 PSC 585, 2020 SCMR 601, 2020 SCP 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a long-standing inheritance dispute where the appellant, a brother, sought to deprive his sisters of their legal shares in their deceased father’s estate. The core legal questions involved the validity of an alleged compromise application and a subsequent agreement purportedly executed by the deceased sister, Zahida Sabir, relinquishing her inheritance rights for monetary consideration. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the execution of these documents, which were found to be fabricated and non-existent on the court record during the relevant period. The Court emphasized that inheritance rights vest immediately upon the predecessor's death under Shariah, and any purported relinquishment of such rights by female heirs is often contrary to public policy. Furthermore, the Court clarified that an application to withdraw a suit does not constitute a withdrawal until formally accepted by the court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, noting the appellant’s persistent, frivolous attempts to delay the distribution of the estate for forty-five years.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an application to withdraw a suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 automatically result in the withdrawal of the suit?
- Is a relinquishment of inheritance rights by a female heir contrary to public policy under Islamic jurisprudence?
- Can a party rely on a compromise agreement that lacks evidence of consideration under Section 25 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Does the burden of proving the execution of a compromise agreement lie on the party asserting its existence?
- Mirza Aamer Hassan vs Commissioner of Income Tax, etc2020 P C T L R 1353, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 1263, 2020 P SC 1287, 2020 SCMR 1218, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, an Inspector in the Income Tax Department, challenged a major penalty of reduction to the lowest time-scale imposed under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, following allegations of misconduct and inefficiency. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal, leading to the present proceedings before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of reduction to a lower post or pay scale could be imposed without specifying a duration. The Supreme Court held that such a penalty must be time-bound. Relying on Fundamental Rule 29, the Court reasoned that the purpose of the penalty is to punish for a specific lapse, not to permanently relegate a civil servant to a lower position indefinitely. The Court emphasized that failing to specify a duration renders the penalty disproportionate and contrary to the service rules. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeal, setting a fixed period of three years for the penalty and directing the department to rectify the appellant's service record accordingly.
Questions settled- Can a major penalty of reduction to a lower post or pay scale be imposed without specifying a duration?
- Does Fundamental Rule 29 require that a penalty of reduction in rank or pay scale be time-bound?
- Is a major penalty of reduction to a lower position intended to permanently relegate a civil servant to a lower status?
- Mir Wali Khan vs The State through F.I.a2020 MLD 1237 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946, following allegations by the FIA that he was a foreigner whose CNIC had been cancelled. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, claiming to be a Pakistani national, was entitled to bail given the evidence presented and the nature of the alleged offences. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he produced a valid Form-B issued by NADRA indicating residency in Swat, and a death certificate for his father confirming familial ties in Pakistan. Furthermore, the Court observed that the offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, establishing the principle that bail should be granted when the offence is non-prohibitory and prima facie evidence supports the accused's claim of citizenship.
Questions settled- Does an offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a bailable offence?
- Can a petitioner be granted post-arrest bail when they produce official documentation like Form-B to contest allegations of being a foreigner?
- Mir Shahabuddin Shah alia Mri Shah vs The State2020 YLR 1338 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 2600 grams of charas. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the police-only arrest and recovery from a public place without associating private witnesses, despite allegations of police animosity, and defects in the chain of custody regarding the chemical examiner report. The Sindh High Court held that the mode of recovery was highly doubtful due to the failure to associate private witnesses despite availability, and the unexplained gaps in sending the property to the chemical examiner created fatal flaws in the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that serious doubts in the prosecution story, or a failure to associate independent witnesses when police highhandedness is alleged, entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the appellant's acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of police to associate private witnesses during a narcotics recovery from a public place renders the case doubtful?
- Does an allegation of police animosity or highhandedness obligate the prosecution to produce independent corroboration?
- Is a defect or omission in the transmission of case property to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution's case?
- What is the legal effect of multiple circumstances creating reasonable doubt in a criminal trial?
- Mir Mujib-ur-Rehman Muhammad Hassani vs Returning Officer, PB-41, Washuk & Others2021 P SC 860, 2020 PLD Supreme Court 718, 2020 SCP 182 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dismissing an election petition concerning the provincial assembly constituency PB-41, Washuk. The core legal questions involve the interpretation and mandatory scope of vote recount provisions under section 95(5) of the Elections Act, 2017, the application of the doctrine of election when a party abandons a remedy during preliminary litigation, and the mandatory statutory requirements for framing an election petition alleging corrupt practices under sections 142 and 144 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that once an aggrieved candidate abandons a challenge relating to pre-consolidation recounts and alternative appellate remedies attain finality, the same issues cannot be re-agitated through a subsequent election petition. Furthermore, election petitions lacking precise material facts, credible particulars, and specific evidence regarding alleged irregularities remain legally deficient and non-proceedable. The Court dismissed the appeal with costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the Election Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate who abandons a pre-consolidation recount plea in earlier constitutional proceedings can re-agitate the same matter through a subsequent election petition?
- Does section 95(5) of the Elections Act, 2017 make a vote recount mandatory for the Returning Officer when the margin of victory falls below the specified threshold?
- Are the conditions regarding the margin of victory and the reasonableness of a recount request under section 95(5) of the Elections Act, 2017 to be interpreted conjunctively or disjunctively?
- What are the mandatory legal requirements for the contents and particulars of an election petition alleging corrupt and illegal practices under section 144 of the Elections Act, 2017?
- Mir Muhammad vs Sip Asadullah Shah & Others2020 SHC 28 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad Shaikh vs The State and 2 others2020 PLD Sindh 556 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge acting as an ex-officio Justice of Peace, whereby directions were issued to the revenue authorities regarding entries in the record of rights concerning a disputed property involving a petrol pump. The core legal question was whether an ex-officio Justice of Peace possesses the jurisdiction under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. to entertain civil-natured disputes and issue directions to revenue authorities concerning immovable property and revenue entries. The Sindh High Court held that the powers of an ex-officio Justice of Peace are strictly limited to matters concerning police authorities as specified under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. and do not extend to entertaining civil disputes or issuing directions to revenue officials regarding property entries. The court laid down the principle that an ex-officio Justice of Peace acts without lawful authority when exercising jurisdiction outside the statutory domain defined in section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and such matters of civil nature or property disputes must be resolved through a competent civil court rather than through proceedings before a Justice of Peace.
Questions settled- Does an ex-officio Justice of Peace have the jurisdiction under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. to issue directions to revenue authorities regarding entries in the record of rights?
- Can an ex-officio Justice of Peace entertain complaints and pass orders relating to immovable property disputes of a civil nature?
- What are the statutory limits of the powers exercisable by an ex-officio Justice of Peace under section 22-A(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mir Muhammad Raza vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 52020 YLR 1103 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad Raza Talpur vs National Data Base and Registration2020 YLR 739 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-29Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad Khan vs Haider & others2020 PLD Supreme Court 233, 2020 PLJ SC 283, 2020 P SC 312, 2020 SCP 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated matters before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of pre-emption suits by the Lahore High Court. The primary legal controversy concerned whether a pre-emptor is mandatorily required to specify the exact date, time, and place of performing 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' (the immediate demand) within the pleadings, and whether the stringent requirements established in the case of Mian Pir Muhammad v. Faqir Muhammad (PLD 2007 SC 302) apply retrospectively to pending litigation. The Supreme Court held that the right of pre-emption is a fragile, piratical right that must be exercised strictly according to Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The Court ruled that mentioning the date, time, and place of the first demand is a material fact under Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, essential for calculating statutory timelines for subsequent demands. Furthermore, the Court clarified that judicial interpretations of statutes are declaratory of existing law and thus apply retrospectively to all pending cases unless the Court explicitly directs otherwise. Consequently, the failure to plead the specific time of the demand was fatal to the suits.
- Mir Lasfikari Raisani vs Qasim Khan Soori and others2020 YLR 2031 · Election Tribunal · 2019-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This election petition challenged the election of the returned candidate for NA-265 Quetta-II, alleging massive rigging, illegal practices, and non-compliance with mandatory voting procedures under the Elections Act, 2017. The core legal question was whether the reported irregularities, including the casting of bogus votes, impersonation, and failure to follow prescribed voting protocols, materially affected the election result. The Election Tribunal, relying on a forensic report from NADRA, found widespread discrepancies, including invalid CNIC entries, missing fingerprints, and unauthenticated votes, which indicated a failure to conduct the election in a free, fair, and transparent manner. Holding that the mandatory voting procedures under Section 84 of the Elections Act, 2017 were violated, the Tribunal concluded that these irregularities materially affected the election outcome. Consequently, the Tribunal declared the election of the returned candidate void and ordered fresh polling for the entire constituency, emphasizing that strict adherence to statutory election procedures is essential to ensure the integrity of the electoral process and that non-compliance leading to material impact necessitates setting aside the election results.
Questions settled- Does the failure to follow mandatory voting procedures under the Elections Act, 2017, constitute sufficient grounds to declare an election void?
- Can an Election Tribunal order re-polling in an entire constituency based on findings of widespread irregularities and non-compliance with election laws?
- Is the non-authentication of a significant percentage of votes by NADRA sufficient to establish that an election result was materially affected?
- Does the Returning Officer have an obligation to recount votes when a request is made within the statutory margin of victory?
- Mir Hassan vs The State2020 YLR 2514 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on closely related eye-witnesses, a significant delay in FIR registration, and the absence of independent corroboration. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution's case was inherently unreliable. The Court found the ocular evidence contradictory, noting that the witnesses' presence was doubtful and their account of the incident defied natural human conduct. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 undermined the prosecution's credibility. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that conviction must rest on unimpeachable evidence, and where the substantive ocular account is discarded, secondary factors like abscondence cannot sustain a guilty verdict.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of abscondence if the substantive ocular evidence is found unreliable?
- Is the evidence of closely related witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does the failure to put a specific incriminating circumstance to an accused during a Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examination preclude the court from using that circumstance against the accused?
- Mir Hassan Jamali vs The State2020 SHC 194 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mir Hassan & another vs The State2020 SHC 1054 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mir Aziz Ullah Khan Through Legal Attorney vs Muhammad Sabir and another2020 YLR 1741 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
- Mir Ali vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 1060 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application assailed an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate returning a final charge sheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for submission before an Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether an order by an ordinary Magistrate returning a charge sheet for submission before a Special Court could be assailed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that such an order by an ordinary Magistrate is merely administrative, does not amount to taking cognizance or disposal of the case, and has no binding effect on the Special Court, rendering any challenge to it premature. The key principle laid down is that the inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be invoked as an alternative or substitute remedy when no final determination of jurisdiction or prejudice has occurred, and the Special Court must independently determine the question of jurisdiction upon presentation of the police report.
Questions settled- Whether an order by an ordinary Magistrate returning a charge sheet for its submission before a Special Court could be assailed by way of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.?
- Does a Magistrate act as a criminal court when concurring with or cancelling a report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C.?
- Is the opinion of an ordinary Magistrate regarding the applicability of anti-terrorism provisions binding upon a Special Court?
- What powers does a Judge of an Anti-Terrorism Court exercise during the course of investigation per section 19(6) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Mir Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 53 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order by a Magistrate who, upon receiving a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, disagreed with the investigation and returned the charge sheet to the Investigating Officer with directions to submit it before an Anti-Terrorism Court, citing the potential application of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether an order by an ordinary Magistrate returning a charge sheet for submission before a Special Court is amenable to the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that such an order by a Magistrate is merely administrative and not binding on the Special Court, which retains the independent authority to determine its own jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as premature, as the Magistrate's opinion did not constitute a final determination of jurisdiction or a grievance requiring intervention under Section 561-A. The principle laid down is that an ordinary Magistrate's view on the transfer of a case to a Special Court is not binding, and the Special Court must independently decide the question of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is an order by an ordinary Magistrate returning a charge sheet for submission before a Special Court amenable to the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an ordinary Magistrate's opinion regarding the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 bind the Anti-Terrorism Court?
- Can a Magistrate return a police report for submission to a Special Court without taking formal cognizance of the offence?
- Does a Special Court have the power to transfer a case to a regular court if it determines the offence is not a scheduled offence?
- Mir Akbar Askani vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1166 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-04Read full judgment →
- Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit Baltistan, Government of Paki_98b4ab192021 YLR 2337, 2020 SC AJK 94 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-08-20Read full judgment →
- Mian Zafar Ali and another vs Mian Khursheed Ali2020 PLJ SC 214, 2020 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the alleged private partition of agricultural land between the heirs of Mian Rustam Ali and his brother, Mian Khursheed Ali. The appellants (sons of Mian Rustam Ali) sought a declaration that a private partition occurred in 1960, preventing the respondent from seeking a fresh partition before revenue authorities. While the Trial Court dismissed the suit, the Appellate Court reversed this, relying on an arbitration award. The Lahore High Court set aside the Appellate Court's decision, noting that the suit lacked necessary parties, specifically the widow and daughters of Mian Rustam Ali, and that revenue officials were not impleaded despite ongoing partition proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed that while Order I, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prevents dismissal for non-joinder, the nature of the dispute regarding joint khata necessitated the presence of all co-sharers. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the case to the Trial Court, directing the appellants to implead all legal heirs and relevant revenue officials to ensure a comprehensive adjudication of the partition claim.
Questions settled- Does the non-joinder of necessary parties in a suit for declaration regarding land partition warrant the dismissal of the suit?
- Are the legal heirs of a deceased co-sharer necessary parties in a suit challenging the partition of joint agricultural land?
- Can a suit regarding the partition of joint khata proceed without impleading the relevant revenue officials when partition proceedings are pending before them?
- Mian Syed Hussain and 13 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary2020 PLC (C.S.) 268 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court seeking posting orders and release of salaries for posts in the Regional Directorate of Food, Karachi Region, after their service appeals were dismissed by the Sindh Service Tribunal. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against an order of the Sindh Service Tribunal, given the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 212(3). The High Court held that the petition is not maintainable due to the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction, as challenges to orders of the Service Tribunal lie exclusively before the Supreme Court by way of a petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service that fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 212(3).
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal?
- Does Article 212(3) of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters decided by a Service Tribunal?
- What is the appropriate forum to challenge the dismissal of a service appeal by the Sindh Service Tribunal?
- Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs National Accountability Bureau and others2020 YLR 1571 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Riaz and other vs Mst. Marhaba and others2020 MLD 1436, 2020 PHC 200 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The State through Chairman, National2020 IHC 154 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal appellate proceedings wherein the court examined the efforts made by the Foreign Office and the Pakistan High Commission in London to execute non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against the appellant, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. The core legal question concerned the appropriate judicial course of action when an appellant deliberately avoids service of warrants and fails to appear despite being aware of the pendency of the appeal. The court held that despite diligent efforts by state functionaries, the warrants could not be served personally, but the appellant could not be deemed unaware of the proceedings, particularly given the prior appearance of his principal counsel. Consequently, the court decided to initiate proceedings under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by ordering the issuance of a formal proclamation for the appellant's appearance, to be published in designated national newspapers and served through the Pakistan High Commission in the United Kingdom. The key principle laid down is that where an appellant evades arrest warrants in a criminal appeal, the court may resort to proclamation proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure to compel attendance.
Questions settled- What procedure is to be adopted when an appellant in a criminal appeal evades the service of non-bailable warrants of arrest?
- Can a court issue a proclamation under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when warrants cannot be executed through diplomatic missions?
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs State through Chairman, National2020 IHC 140 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for exemption from personal appearance filed by the appellant, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, in an appeal pending before the Islamabad High Court. The appellant, whose bail and suspension of sentence had previously been granted by the Court for eight weeks with liberty to seek extension from the Provincial Government under Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, had his extension request rejected by the Government of Punjab. Consequently, the appellant's bail and suspension of sentence lapsed. The appellant sought exemption from appearance citing medical grounds, despite not being hospitalized. The Court observed that the appellant failed to inform the Court regarding his departure abroad or the removal of his name from the Exit Control List. The Court held that the appellant, being no longer on bail, must surrender to the authorities. It granted the appellant a final opportunity to appear and surrender before the next date of hearing, failing which legal proceedings, including those under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999, would be initiated against him.
Questions settled- Does the expiry of a time-bound suspension of sentence granted by the High Court render the appellant an absconder if they fail to surrender?
- Can an appeal be decided on merits even if the appellant is declared an absconder?
- Does an order from another High Court permitting travel abroad override the suspension of sentence conditions set by the court hearing the appeal?
- Mohammad Iqbal vs Al-Karam Textile Mills2020 PLJ Tr.C (NIRC) 32 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed under Section 54(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2008 against an order of the Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, which had dismissed the appellant's grievance petition filed under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The appellant, claiming to be a permanent workman, alleged unfair labour practices and wrongful termination of employment. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred, having been filed before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal on November 7, 2009, despite the impugned order being delivered on June 10, 2009. The National Industrial Relations Commission examined the timeline and found that the appeal was filed well beyond the prescribed 30-day limitation period. Furthermore, the appellant failed to provide any plausible explanation or sufficient cause for the delay in the condonation application or supporting affidavit. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the appeal as time-barred, maintaining the order of the Labour Court.
Questions settled- What is the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Relations Act 2008?
- Can an appeal be entertained if it is filed beyond the statutory limitation period without a plausible explanation for the delay in the condonation application?
- Mian Muhammad Aslam vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 PLD Islamabad 352, 2020 IHC 100 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-01Read full judgment →
- Mian Latif Shah vs Munir Khan and another2021 CLC 650, 2020 PHC 410 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-22Read full judgment →
- Mian Khan vs Mst. Nasim Bibi, etc.2020 [M] C L R 387 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mian Karim Jan vs Additional Sessions Judge-IX, West Karachi and 32020 P Cr. L J 1657 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application impugns the concurrent findings of the lower courts whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a dishonoured cheque and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the issuance of the cheque under duress while the accused was in custody in another case, and as surety for a business activity rather than for a loan or repayment of a loan/future obligation, attracted criminal liability under Section 489-F. The Sindh High Court held that the evidence established the cheques were issued under durance while the accused was in police custody and that a cheque given merely as 'surety' does not fulfill the legal requirements of a loan or future obligation or dishonest issuance under Section 489-F. The Court laid down the principle that a cheque issued under duress or as a surety for business promotion rather than strictly for a genuine loan or repayment of a loan does not constitute an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sufficient material creating doubt in the prosecution case warrants the acquittal of the accused.
Questions settled- Whether a cheque issued under duress while the accused is in custody attracts criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the issuance of a cheque as a surety for a business promotion activity fulfill the requirement of a loan or future obligation under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can concurrent findings of conviction by lower courts be set aside in revisional jurisdiction when important aspects of the defense and prosecution contradictions are overlooked?
- Mian Din Muhammad and others vs Mst. Zaitoon and others2020 YLR 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mian Ali Asghar vs Government of the Punjab etc2020 LHC 3311 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mian Ali Asghar vs Government of the Punjab and others2020 CLC 157 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by traders and citizens against the Government of Punjab regarding ongoing protests and strikes by employees of the Punjab Land Records Authority (PLRA) and other groups at the Mall Road 'Red Zone' in Lahore. The petitioners contended that these protests blocked public access, disrupted trade, and hindered the provision of essential land record services, thereby infringing upon fundamental rights to life, movement, and property. The court examined the balance between the right to peaceful assembly and the rights of the general public. It held that while the right to protest is a fundamental democratic right, it cannot be exercised in a manner that infringes upon the rights of others or violates the law. The court emphasized that obedience to the Constitution is an inviolable obligation under Article 5(2). Consequently, the court directed the PLRA to negotiate with employees but authorized stern action, including contract termination under Section 10(2) of the PLRA Act 2017, against those continuing to obstruct the Red Zone. It also restricted media coverage of such illegal protests to prevent further public disorder.
- Messrs_Pgs Consortium Ltd., Lahore vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Lahore2020 PTD (Trib.) 1876 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs: Oil And Gas Development Company Ltd vs Commissioner Inland2020 PT D 1826 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Zonish Traders, Karachi vs The Deputy Collector (Group-v) and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 1172 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-08-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ziauddin University, Karachi vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I2020 PTD (Trib.) 1583 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs Zak Re-Rolling Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Appellate Tribunal Inland2020 P SC 964, 2020 PTD 382, 2020 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a tax dispute regarding whether a Steel-melter/Re-rolling Mill chargeable to sales tax under the special procedure provided in Rule 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 is also liable to the levy of further tax under Section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for supplies made to unregistered persons. The three forums below held that payment of sales tax under Rule 58H does not exempt a registered person from the levy of further tax under Section 3(1A). The Supreme Court affirmed the lower forums' rulings, holding that special procedure assessment does not relieve a taxpayer of further tax liabilities. Additionally, the Court declined to entertain new points of law not raised in the Reference application before the High Court or noted in the impugned judgment. The key principles affirmed are that Rule 58H special procedure does not override Section 3(1A) further tax, and under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court only considers legal questions previously raised before the forum below. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does payment of sales tax under the special procedure in Rule 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 exempt a taxpayer from further tax under Section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
- Is further tax under Section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 applicable to supplies made by registered persons to unregistered persons under Rule 58H special procedure?
- Can the Supreme Court entertain questions of law under Article 185(3) of the Constitution that were not raised before the forum below or noted in the impugned judgment?
- Messrs Yousuf Enterprises, Karachi vs The Assistant Director and 3 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 1222 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-04-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs United Ethanol Industries Ltd. through Authorized2020 CLD 945 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Sections 305 and 314 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, seeking the compulsory winding up of the respondent company, JDW Sugar Mills Ltd., on the grounds of its alleged inability to pay debts arising from a failed molasses supply contract. The core legal question was whether a winding-up order is appropriate when the respondent company is commercially solvent and a bona fide dispute exists regarding the alleged debt. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that winding-up proceedings cannot be utilized as a "vehicle of oppression" to resolve disputed claims. The Court emphasized that where a company is financially sound and a bona fide dispute exists—evidenced here by pending civil litigation between the parties—the creditor must pursue recovery through a civil suit rather than a winding-up petition. The judgment reaffirms that the primary objective of winding-up proceedings is to determine the solvency of a company, not to adjudicate contested debts. Consequently, as the respondent was a solvent, running concern, the petition was found to be without merit.
Questions settled- Can a winding-up petition be maintained against a company that is commercially solvent?
- Does the existence of a bona fide dispute regarding a debt preclude a winding-up order?
- Is a winding-up petition an appropriate forum for adjudicating disputed claims between a creditor and a company?
- Can winding-up proceedings be used as a vehicle of oppression to recover disputed debts?
- Messrs Umar Haroon Traders, Peshawar vs The Superintendent, Directorate2020 PTD (Trib.) 526 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the confiscation of black pepper seized by Customs officials while in transit within Pakistan. The core legal questions concern whether Customs authorities have the jurisdiction to intercept goods in domestic transit on mere suspicion of smuggling, the burden of proof regarding the legality of such goods, and whether the appellate order was time-barred. The Tribunal held that the appellate order was passed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 193A of the Customs Act, 1969, rendering it void ab initio. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that Customs officials cannot intercept goods in transit within the country without evidence of smuggling as defined under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969. The judgment establishes that once an importer provides valid import documents and invoices, the burden of proof shifts to the Customs authorities to establish the illegality of the goods. Additionally, Customs officials lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate compliance with the Sales Tax Act, 1990, as they are not authorized officers under that statute.
Questions settled- Does the Customs Act, 1969 authorize the interception and seizure of goods in transit within the territory of Pakistan on mere suspicion of smuggling?
- Can an appellate order passed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed in Section 193A of the Customs Act, 1969 be considered valid?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the Customs authorities once an importer produces import documents and invoices for goods in transit?
- Are Customs officials empowered to adjudicate compliance with Section 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 regarding banking instruments for transactions?
- Messrs Tics (Pvt.) Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner, SRB, Karachi2020 PTD (Trib.) 2131 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-08-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs The New York Pizza Against Messrs New Yorker Pizza_ In the matter of vs N_a2020 CLD 1398 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2020-06-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Telecom Foundation vs Messrs Asko Enterprises2020 [M] C L R 1387, 2020 CLC 1605 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenged a trial court's decision to set aside an arbitration award. The core issues were whether an award rendered beyond the four-month statutory period is invalid, whether engrossing a previously signed award on stamp paper constitutes misconduct, and whether the limitation period for filing an award in court under Section 14(2) commences without formal notice under Section 14(1). The Court held that an award rendered beyond four months is not void if parties participated in proceedings without objection, as such conduct constitutes waiver and estoppel. Furthermore, engrossing an award on stamp paper is a ministerial act, not misconduct. Finally, the Court ruled that the 90-day limitation period under Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908, only begins upon service of formal written notice as required by Section 14(1) and Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1940; knowledge gained otherwise is insufficient. Consequently, the Court extended the time for the award, dismissed the objections, and made the award a Rule of Court.
Questions settled- Does an arbitration award rendered beyond the four-month statutory period become invalid if the parties participated in the proceedings without objection?
- Does an arbitrator commit misconduct by signing an award on plain paper and subsequently engrossing it on stamp paper?
- Does the 90-day limitation period for filing an arbitration award in court under Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908, commence without formal service of notice as required by Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Can an appellate court exercise the power to extend the time for making an arbitration award under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Messrs Taunsa Gypsum (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Habib Bank Limited and another2020 CLD 740 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs Tameer-E-Mashrique (Private) Ltd vs Government Of Pakistan2020 MLD 2025 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Tagers, Karachi vs The Deputy Collector of Customs and anothers2020 PTD (Trib.) 1359 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-04-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Systech Engineering Solutions (Pvt.) Limited vs Assistant2020 PTD (Trib.) 156 · Sindh Revenue Board · 2019-03-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Symbios Pk, Karachi vs Director, Directorate General Of Intelligence2020 PTD (Trib.) 1890 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed by an online mega store against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) upholding the confiscation of various electronic items and imposition of a redemption fine and penalties. The core legal questions involved whether customs authorities could conduct a search of a warehouse situated within city limits without a warrant under Section 162 of the Customs Act, 1969, whether goods freely available in the open market carry a presumption of lawful import and duty payment, and whether an appellate order passed beyond the statutory time limit is void. The Customs Appellate Tribunal held that the search conducted without complying with Section 162 was illegal, that goods freely available in the market are presumed to be duty-paid, and that the appellate order passed beyond the 120-day limit stipulated in Section 193A was time-barred and void ab initio. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal, establishing key principles regarding statutory search limits, the burden of proof under customs law, and the mandatory nature of decision timelines.
Questions settled- Whether customs authorities can conduct a search of a warehouse within city limits without obtaining a search warrant from a Judicial Magistrate under Section 162 of the Customs Act 1969?
- Whether goods freely available in the local market carry a legal presumption of being lawfully imported and duty-paid?
- What is the effect of an appellate order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) beyond the mandatory 120-day time limit prescribed under Section 193A of the Customs Act 1969?
- Whether the submission of valid local market purchase invoices discharges the initial burden of proof resting on a person whose goods are seized under the Customs Act 1969?
- Messrs Steel Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director and others vs Director2020 PTD (Trib.) 1566 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Attorney2020 PLC (C.S.) 60 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a single-judge order directing the State Life Insurance Corporation to increase employee pensions based on a Federal Government Office Memorandum. The core legal question is whether such government circulars apply ipso-facto to the Corporation's employees, and whether Regulation 16(3)(iv) of the State Life Employees' Pension Regulations, 1986, mandates automatic implementation of these increases. The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Office Memorandum does not apply automatically. It declared the precedent relied upon by the respondent per incuriam for failing to consider Regulation 4 of the 1986 Regulations, which vests pension-sanctioning power in the Corporation’s competent authority, and Article 25 of the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972, which governs policy directions. The Court established that statutory regulations must be read harmoniously; specific powers of a competent authority cannot be rendered redundant by general indexing provisions. Furthermore, a statutory corporation is not bound by Federal Government circulars unless issued in accordance with the formal policy-direction mechanisms prescribed in the parent statute.
Questions settled- Does an Office Memorandum issued by the Federal Government regarding pension increases apply ipso-facto to the employees of the State Life Insurance Corporation?
- Can Regulation 16(3)(iv) of the State Life Employees' Pension Regulations, 1986, be interpreted in isolation to override the sanctioning authority of the Corporation?
- Is a judgment rendered in ignorance of relevant statutory regulations and parent legislation considered per incuriam?
- Does Article 25 of the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972, require written policy directions from the Federal Government to bind the Corporation?
- Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan and others vs Mst.2020 SCMR 1844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises from the denial of insurance benefits by the appellant insurance corporation to the respondent widow of the deceased employee. The core legal questions involve whether the deceased breached his re-appointment declaration by holding concurrent employment as a school teacher, and whether the claim was barred under Section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 regarding the jurisdiction of the Insurance Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the declaration given at the time of re-appointment in 2002 did not prohibit other government or private employment outside of insurers, rendering the denial of benefits unlawful. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 does not apply to employment-connected insurance schemes such as group insurance and self-subscribed compulsory insurance where no formal insurance policy is issued to the employees. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Questions settled- Whether an employee's concurrent government employment violates a declaration against working for any other insurer.
- Does Section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 apply to employment-connected group and compulsory insurance schemes where no policy is issued?
- Messrs Spectrum Developments (Private) Ltd. through Director vs Pakistan2020 MLD 1571 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Soofi Steel Industries (Pvt.) Limited, Deen Road, Badami Bagh, Lahore vs The Collector of Customs Sales Tax and Federal Excise (Appeals), Peshawar2020 PTD (Trib.) 1091 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-04-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sindh Club and another vs Mazhar Hussain and others2020 PLC 19 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from constitutional petitions filed by the Petitioner-Club impugning concurrent judgments of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and Sindh Labour Court, which ordered the reinstatement of the private respondents (a Baker and a Cook) with back benefits following their termination. The core legal questions involve whether the private respondents qualified as permanent workers or workmen under applicable labour laws, whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction, and whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked against concurrent findings of fact. The High Court held that the respondents were workmen performing manual duties, that the Petitioner-Club was a commercial establishment subject to labour laws, and that concurrent findings of fact by the lower fora based on evidence and admissions cannot be disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction absent perversity or legal error. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, upholding the reinstatement of the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether employees working as a Baker and Cook in a club qualify as 'worker' or 'workman' under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
- Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction to entertain grievance applications against the termination of club employees?
- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower labour courts in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Whether an employee whose appointment letter is not issued and who serves for more than nine months is entitled to reinstatement and back benefits upon illegal termination?
- Messrs Shell Pakistan Limited through Authorized Officer vs Rana Azhar2020 CLC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shan Associates through Sole Proprietor vs Messrs Getz Pharma2020 CLD 808 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sham Wedding Hall vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PTD 2063 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shaheen Stone Crusher through Owner vs Environmental2020 CLD 107 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2019-11-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shaheen Foundation (Paf) vs Commissioner-Ii, SRB, Karachi2020 PTD (Trib.) 1809 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-05-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shahbaz Goth Residents Welfare Society through President and another vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary Land Utilization Department Board of Revenue and 10 others2020 MLD 1239 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shah Sons Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabd2020 PTD 1029 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2020-01-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shaban Steel Industry through Authorized Attorney and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Federal Board of Revenue and others2020 P C T L R 984, 2021 PLJ Quetta 95, PTCL 2021 CL. 522, 2020 PTD 594 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Services through Authorised Person vs The Assistant Collector2020 PTD 271 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Seri Sugar Mill Limited through Admn. Manager vs Union Council2020 CLC 946 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Schlumberger Seaco Inc. Karachi vs The Deputy CommissionerPTCL 2020 CL. 477, 2020 PTD 386 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sardar Mohammad Ashraf D. Baloch Private Limited through Authorized Representative vs Punjab Irrigation Department through Project Director and 6 others2020 CLC 1303 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sapna Enterprises, Peshawar vs Collector of Customs2020 PTD (Trib.) 50 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-04-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Saleh Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Federation of Pakistan and 162020 PTD 1245 · Lahore High Court · 2020-05-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs S.R.T. Associates through Proprietor vs The Director General Frontier2020 CLC 1927 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rose Associates vs Messrs Saudi Pak Industrial And Agricultural2020 CLD 1320 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs RMC Construction Company vs Gujranwala Development2020 CLD 60 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Riegn Nutro Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 671, 2020 MLD 324 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal quashment petition challenged the trial court's order rejecting an acquittal application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution of the petitioners under the Drugs Act 1976 for the alleged non-registration of a 'Zinc Supplement' was maintainable following the enactment of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012 and the subsequent Alternative Medicines and Health Products (Enlistment) Rules 2014. The High Court held that the proceedings were not maintainable. It determined that after the promulgation of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012 and the 2014 Rules, the regulation and enlistment of 'food supplements' and 'nutraceuticals' fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Provincial Quality Control Board under the Drugs Act 1976. The court established that once a specific regulatory framework for health products is enacted, the general provisions of the Drugs Act 1976 regarding drug registration cannot be invoked for products classified as food or dietary supplements under the new statutory regime.
Questions settled- Does the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012 oust the jurisdiction of the Provincial Quality Control Board to prosecute food supplements under the Drugs Act 1976?
- Are food and dietary supplements subject to the registration requirements of the Drugs Act 1976 after the enactment of the Alternative Medicines and Health Products (Enlistment) Rules 2014?
- Can proceedings be quashed under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecuting authority lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter?
- Messrs Radium Silk Factory, Karachi and others vs The Deputy Collector, Group-Iv, Mcc Of Appraisement-East Customs House, Karachi and 2 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 2172 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-11-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Quetta Textile Mills Ltd. through Authorized Representative vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and 4 others2020 CLC 1414 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Prix Pharmaceutical (Pvt.) Ltd vs Additional Commissioner Enf-III, Pra Lahore2020 PTD (Trib.) 1924 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Prime Enterprises through Proprietor vs Federation Of Pakistan2020 PTD 1972 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, through Chief Las Officer vs Member, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others2020 PLC 145 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges a decision of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the termination of a permanent employee of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. The core legal question is whether the Corporation could lawfully terminate the employee's services under a termination simpliciter provision for unauthorized absence when the absence was due to incarceration following a criminal charge, without holding an inquiry or issuing a show-cause notice for misconduct. The High Court held that an arrest and detention behind bars, where the employee was later acquitted and had submitted representations upon release, does not dispense with the statutory requirement of a reasoned inquiry under the applicable labour laws, and a termination disguised as a simpliciter order while actually based on alleged misconduct is unsustainable. The court laid down the principle that while an employer cannot be burdened with back benefits for the period an employee was incarcerated and not rendering service, termination on account of arrest requires proper adherence to procedural safeguards and cannot bypass statutory inquiry provisions.
Questions settled- Can an employer terminate an employee's services under termination simpliciter provisions for absence caused by arrest without holding an inquiry?
- Whether incarceration resulting from a criminal charge subsequently ending in acquittal constitutes habitual absence amounting to misconduct?
- Is an employee entitled to back benefits for the period spent behind bars when the employer was not responsible for the arrest?
- Does the failure to grant gratuity and terminal dues indicate that a termination purportedly simpliciter was actually based on alleged misconduct?
- Messrs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation through Chairman vs Major2020 YLR 294 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan State Oil Ltd vs Additional Commissioner Enf-III, Pra, Lahore2020 PTD (Trib.) 2058 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-12-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Services Limited Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies-II, KarachiPTCL 2020 CL. 405, 2020 PTD 439 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Re-Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi vs The Commissioner2020 PTD (Trib.) 63 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-08-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan International Bulk Terminal (Pvt.) Ltd. Karachi vs Assistant Commissioner, SRB, Karachi2020 PTD (Trib.) 348 · Sindh Revenue Board · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakarab Fertilizers Limited through Duly Authorized Representative2020 CLD 430 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-04Read full judgment →