Latest Judgments

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

• Fahad Parekh vs The State2019 PLD Sindh 585 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-19
  post-arrest bailsentencing legalityrevisional jurisdictioninterpretation of statutesseparate sentencessuo motu powersEmigration Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under the Emigration Ordinance 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the trial court's sentencing of a co-accused—who was convicted of multiple offences but received only a single, non-specific fine—was legally valid, and whether the applicant is entitled to similar treatment. The Court held that the trial court's judgment was illegal because it failed to award separate, specific sentences for each distinct offence as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court clarified that where a statute provides for imprisonment, such punishment is often mandatory/obligatory, and the word 'or' in penal provisions is disjunctive, not interchangeable with 'and'. The key principles laid down are that a valid judgment must specify the offence and the corresponding section of law for which an accused is convicted, and separate sentences must be awarded for each distinct offence. Failure to do so renders the conviction and sentence illegal. Consequently, the Court exercised its suo motu revisional jurisdiction to examine the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Is the word 'or' in penal provisions interchangeable with 'and'?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require separate sentences for each distinct offence in a single judgment?
  • Can a court exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality of a sentence?
  • Is the imposition of a fine sufficient when a statute mandates imprisonment for a specific offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad Faruqui vs Szabist through President and another2019 P Cr. L J 806 · Provincial Ombudsman, Sindh · 2018-10-23
  sexual harassmentworkplace harassmenteducational institutionteacher-student relationshipinquiry committeeservice terminationfiduciary duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the termination of an Assistant Professor by an educational institution following an Inquiry Committee's finding of sexual harassment against a student. The core legal questions were whether the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 applies to student-teacher relationships and whether the inquiry procedure was procedurally fair. The Ombudsman held that educational institutions constitute an "organization" and "workplace" under the Act, as the student-teacher relationship involves an indirect contract of service. Consequently, the Act applies to harassment complaints by students against faculty. The court found the inquiry proceedings transparent and rejected the appellant's procedural objections, noting his active participation without prior protest. The holding emphasized that teachers occupy a position of authority and trust; thus, any form of friendship between a teacher and student is inherently inappropriate and prone to bias. The judgment established that the burden of proof lies upon the teacher to refute allegations of harassment due to the power imbalance. The dismissal was upheld, with an additional penalty of compensation imposed on the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 apply to harassment complaints filed by students against faculty members?
  • Can an educational institution be considered a 'workplace' under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010?
  • Does the Inquiry Committee under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 have the authority to regulate its own procedure?
  • Is a delay in filing a complaint under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 fatal to the merits of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad Ali vs District Returning Officer, District Sanghar and 5 others2019 CLC 1496 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-14Read full judgment →
• Excel Techno Solutions Fze, UAE and another vs Mls. Oil & Gas Development2019 KLR Civil Cases 1, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ex-Colonel Khalid Rashid vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2019 PLC (C.S.) 370 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-06
  armed forcesconstitutional petitiondismissal from serviceservice record tamperinglacheswrit jurisdictionmilitary authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a former Colonel in the Pakistan Army challenging his dismissal from service resulting from military authorities' proceedings regarding the tampering of his confidential service record for promotion. The core legal questions involved whether the dismissal order was tainted with malice, coram non judice, or passed without jurisdiction, thus bypassing the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, and whether the petition was barred by gross laches due to a nine-year delay. The Lahore High Court held that the petition suffered from gross laches as it was filed nine years after the dismissal, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in similar matters, and that the petitioner failed to establish any mala fides, lack of jurisdiction, or coram non judice in the dismissal order passed by the competent authority under the relevant rules. The key principles laid down are that the constitutional bar under Article 199(3) regarding personnel of the Armed Forces can only be crossed if explicit and robust evidence of mala fides or absence of jurisdiction is shown, and that high standards of meritocracy and integrity must be strictly maintained within the military service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an Armed Forces personnel suffer from laches when filed after a delay of nine years?
  • Is the bar contained in Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 absolute regarding orders passed by military authorities?
  • Can a High Court reappraise evidence or substitute findings of a competent military forum in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  • Does the dispensation of a court of inquiry under Rule 269-A(c) of the Army Regulation Rules render a dismissal order by military authorities coram non judice or without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ewiz Khan vs The State etc2020 MLD 649, 2020 MLD 690, 2020 MLD 690, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 740, · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-02
  narcotics possessionsafe custodychain of custodyreasonable doubtcriminal appealdeath sentence confirmationheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the possession of 11 kilograms of heroin under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and integrity of the recovered contraband from the moment of seizure until its chemical analysis. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies regarding the timing of the FIR and the deposit of the recovered substance. Crucially, the prosecution failed to examine the warehouse in-charge or the individual responsible for transporting the samples to the chemical examiner, leaving a gap in the chain of custody. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution bears the burden of proving safe custody through cogent evidence. The principle laid down is that where the chain of custody is broken or doubtful, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, rendering conviction unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the warehouse in-charge and the person transporting samples to the chemical examiner break the chain of custody in narcotics cases?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions in the timing of FIR registration and the deposit of recovered contraband on the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction for narcotics possession sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody of the recovered substance?
  Read full judgment →
• Esham-Ud-Din vs The State2019 P Cr. LJ 1696 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-12
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtcontradictory ocular testimonydishonest improvementsmedical evidenceacquittalhurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge Pishin, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment and Daman. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and medical evidence, and whether the contradictions and improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses warranted the extension of the benefit of the doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the ocular testimony suffered from dishonest improvements and material contradictions, medical evidence contradicted the site of injury, and crucial recoveries like the crime weapon and empties were missing, creating serious doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt, reinforcing the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions and dishonest improvements in the testimony of an injured complainant are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal?
  • Does medical evidence alone constitute corroboration regarding the identity of an accused person?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when multiple circumstances create a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Ershaad Khan vs Bilal and others2019 PLD Peshawar 199 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-17
  juvenile justiceage determinationmedical boarddocumentary evidencecriminal revisionjuvenile status
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, which dismissed the complainant's application for a medical board examination to determine the accused's age. The accused had claimed juvenile status by producing a Matriculation Detailed Marks Certificate (DMC) before the framing of charges, which the trial court accepted as authentic. The core legal question was whether Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, mandates a medical board examination for age determination in every instance where juvenility is claimed. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the trial court correctly relied on the documentary evidence provided. The court reasoned that a medical board is not mandatory when credible documentary proof of age exists and remains unchallenged. The key principle laid down is that where an accused produces an authentic educational certificate to prove minority, and its validity is not contested as fraudulent or bogus, the trial court is not obligated to resort to a medical board for age determination under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to constitute a medical board for age determination in every case where an accused claims to be a juvenile?
  • Can a trial court rely on a Matriculation Detailed Marks Certificate to determine the age of an accused for the purposes of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does the existence of documentary proof of age preclude the necessity of a medical examination under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Engineers & Professionals Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs The Institute2019 SHC 16 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Engineer Raja Qamar Ul Islam and others vs National Accountability2019 P Cr. L J 582 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-30
  post-arrest bailmisuse of authorityNational Accountability OrdinancePunjab Procurement Rulesprinciple of consistencywater filtration plantscorruption reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses multiple writ petitions filed by Engineer Raja Qamar Ul Islam, Waseem Ajmal, and others seeking post-arrest bail in NAB Reference No. 93 of 2018. The petitioners, former officials and members of the Punjab Saaf Pani Company (PSPC) South, faced allegations of misusing their authority under Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, by awarding a contract for water filtration plants to KSB Pumps at allegedly exorbitant rates, making post-bid changes in violation of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, and causing losses to the national exchequer. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations, the principle of consistency with co-accused already bailed, and the applicability of Section 9(a)(vi) regarding misuse of authority. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of consistency with co-accused, the absence of any personal pecuniary gain or kickbacks, compliance with procurement rules permitting post-bid negotiations for technical goods, and the fact that decisions were approved unanimously by the Board of Directors. The key legal principle laid down is that a mere procedural irregularity or proper exercise of corporate/official functions without dishonest intent or personal gain does not constitute the offense of misuse of authority under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and massive documentary evidence requiring a lengthy trial warrants pre-trial release.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted on the principle of consistency when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been released on bail?
  • Does a mere procedural irregularity in decision-making amount to the misuse of authority constituting an offence under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Are post-bid negotiations permissible for goods of a highly technical nature under Rule 57 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014?
  • Whether the absence of any allegation regarding personal pecuniary gain, kickbacks, or bribery entitles an accused to post-arrest bail in NAB cases involving massive documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Eng. Saeed Ahmed and others vs Chairman National Highway Authority, Islamabad and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1475, 2019 PLD Balochistan 109 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-14
  Sacked Employees (Re-Instatement) Act 2010Constitutional petitionWrit jurisdictionService matterReversion of scaleMaintainabilityJudicial comity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, former contract employees of the National Highway Authority, were reinstated under the Sacked Employees (Re-Instatement) Act 2010. Initially granted a higher pay scale under Section 4(a) of the Act, they were subsequently reverted to their original contract scales under Section 4(b) following a judgment by the Sindh High Court in a case to which the petitioners were parties. The petitioners challenged this reversion before the Balochistan High Court. The core legal question was whether a High Court can entertain a constitutional petition challenging an administrative order passed in compliance with a judgment rendered by another High Court. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable. It established that no Bench of a High Court possesses the jurisdiction to issue a writ against an order passed by another High Court or to challenge the implementation of such a judgment. The Court emphasized that since the petitioners were parties to the original Sindh High Court proceedings, their proper legal remedy was to challenge that judgment before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, rather than initiating fresh litigation in a different High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition challenging an administrative order passed in compliance with a judgment of another High Court?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order passed by another High Court in a case where the petitioner was a party?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a party aggrieved by a judgment of a High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Energy Solution (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The President of Pakistan through Director (Legal) and another2019 CLD 1194 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Energy Solution (Pvt) Ltd. vs The President of Pakistan through Director (Legal) and another2019 CLC 1639 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Enar Khan & 02 others vs Zafar Khan, etc2020 CLC 499, 2019 PHC 318 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Employees of Regular Maintenance Staff (Dying Cadre) of Water and Power Department District Ghizar through Representatives and 10 others vs Provincial Government through Chief Secretary and 27 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 973 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-07
  dying cadreseniority listservice matteradministrative negligenceregularization of serviceswrit jurisdictionGilgit-Baltistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by employees of the 'dying cadre' of the Water and Power Department, District Ghizer, seeking inclusion in the seniority list of regular staff. The core legal question was whether the respondents, specifically the Water and Power Department, failed to discharge their administrative duty by neglecting to finalize the seniority list of dying cadre employees as directed by departmental policy. The Court observed that despite explicit directives issued in August 2017 requiring the constitution of a committee to determine inter-se seniority and integrate these employees with the regular cadre, the relevant authorities failed to act for over eighteen months, causing prejudice to the petitioners. The Court held that the respondents' inaction was irresponsible and lethargic. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to include the petitioners at the bottom of the seniority list of regular staff, effective from their date of regularization in July 2013, and to circulate a fresh seniority list. The judgment reinforces the principle that administrative authorities have a mandatory duty to maintain and update service records, including seniority lists, to prevent the violation of the rights of low-paid government employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition be maintained against the failure of a government department to prepare a seniority list for its employees?
  • Does the failure of administrative authorities to implement departmental directives regarding seniority constitute a violation of the rights of government employees?
  • From what date should the seniority of regularized employees be calculated when the department has failed to maintain an updated seniority list?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ullah vs Provincial Government through Chief Secretary Gilgit-2019 PLC (C.S.) 1255 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-02-02
  writ petitionpublic appointmentinterview marksmeritnepotismselection policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of vaccinators in District Diamer, alleging that merit was bypassed and respondents awarded maximum interview marks to favored candidates despite the petitioner securing higher marks in the written test. The court examined the record and heard the Director EPI, who revealed that the petitioner had concealed his prior employment in the Police Department and lied during the interview, resulting in low interview marks. The court noted that it lacks a mechanism to gauge interview performance and dismissed the petition. However, expressing concern over potential manipulation through heavy interview weighting, the court directed the Chief Secretary to formulate a uniform selection policy and mandated that interview marks should not exceed ten in total for all future public appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court interfere with interview marks when the candidate's own conduct regarding concealment of facts is established?
  • Whether excessive interview marks can be regulated to prevent manipulation in public sector selections?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Textile Mills Limited etc vs Federation of Pakistan etc2020 PLD Lahore 261, 2019 LHC 4013 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmed Sandhu and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan2019 SCP 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-05-31
  Election Commission of Pakistanre-pollelectoral sanctityconstitutional mandatelocal government electionsjudicial reviewadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges the dismissal of an Intra Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the Election Commission of Pakistan's decision to order a re-poll at a specific polling station. The core legal question was whether the Election Commission possessed the authority to order a re-poll in the absence of an explicit statutory provision, and whether such an order required prior notice to the candidates. The Supreme Court held that the Election Commission, as a constitutional body tasked with ensuring honest, just, and fair elections under Article 218(3) of the Constitution, possesses inherent and wide-ranging powers to issue necessary instructions and orders, including ordering a re-poll, to maintain the sanctity of the electoral process. The Court affirmed that when ballot papers are stolen or the electoral process is compromised by large-scale malpractices, the Commission acts within its jurisdiction to order a re-poll. The principle established is that the Election Commission’s constitutional mandate to conduct fair elections empowers it to take corrective measures, such as ordering re-polls, without requiring specific legislative authorization for every procedural step.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the authority to order a re-poll in the absence of an explicit statutory provision?
  • Is the Election Commission of Pakistan required to issue prior notice to candidates before ordering a re-poll due to electoral malpractice?
  • Can the Election Commission of Pakistan's decision to order a re-poll be interfered with if it is not shown to be illegal, mala fide, or arbitrary?
  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the power to issue instructions necessary to ensure elections are conducted honestly and fairly?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad vs The State2019 MLD 507 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-07
  post-arrest bailmurderabsconsionrule of consistencyheinous crimetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant Ejaz Ahmed sought post-arrest bail under Section 497, Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 121/2013 registered under Sections 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi, for the murder of Arshad alias Daniyal. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his co-accused caused fatal injuries to the deceased during a wedding ceremony following a previous dispute over a motorcycle. The applicant contended that he was innocent, sustained severe injuries during a fight initiated by the deceased, and was entitled to the rule of consistency since a co-accused was released under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the applicant's status as an absconder for a long period and his specific nomination in the FIR. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was nominated with a specific role, admitted his presence and injuries sustained during the incident, and had remained an absconder, which would delay trial proceedings if released. The court concluded that reasonable grounds existed to connect the applicant with the heinous crime and dismissed the post-arrest bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who remained an absconder for a long period is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused persons are placed in different factual circumstances regarding their roles in the crime?
  • Can bail be refused when an accused is specifically nominated in the FIR with an active role in a heinous crime supported by tentative assessment of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsanullah Khan etc vs Govt. of Pakistan etc2019 PLJ Lahore 510 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-09Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Elahi Industries Private Limited vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal2021 [M] C L R 483, 2019 PLC 263, 2019 LHC 1729 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-29
  industrial relationsremand of caseappellate tribunalgrievance petitionreinstatementback benefitsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from constitutional petitions challenging a common judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside a Labour Court's order and remanded a grievance petition regarding employee termination under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions concern the legality of remanding a case when sufficient evidence is already available on record, and the propriety of granting reinstatement as an interim measure while simultaneously remanding the matter for a fresh decision. The Lahore High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in remanding the case instead of deciding the appeal on merits based on the existing evidence, and further acted without lawful authority by granting the main relief of reinstatement prior to a final adjudication. The Court laid down the principle that appellate forums should avoid unnecessary remands and must decide cases on merits when adequate evidence is available on record, rather than shifting the adjudicative burden or issuing self-contradictory interim reliefs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate tribunal is justified in remanding a case to the trial court when sufficient evidence is already available on record to decide the matter?
  • Can an appellate court grant the main relief of reinstatement in a grievance petition while simultaneously remanding the case for a fresh decision?
  • Does an appellate tribunal possess the competence to decide an industrial appeal on its merits instead of ordering a retrial?
  Read full judgment →
• Egon Zehnder Ltd vs Tillman2019 SCMR 1837 · Supreme Court of United Kingdom · 2019-07-03Read full judgment →
• Education Dept vs Mst. Fardous & Others2019 SC AJK 32 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-06Read full judgment →
• East West Insurance Co. Limited vs Federal Insurance Ombudsman and Others2019 SHC 20 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• E-Vision Manufacturing Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2020 CL. 132, 2019 PTD 1565 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-07Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad and another vs State, etc2020 YLR 470, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 190 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-17
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtplea under section 342 Cr.P.C.grave and sudden provocationprosecution burden of proofocular accountacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellants murdered the deceased by beating him with sotas following a motive of a previous dispute over a passage. The trial court disbelieved the prosecution's ocular account and motive, but convicted the appellants based on their plea of grave and sudden provocation taken under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon appeal, the Lahore High Court held that once the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, an accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a plea raised in a statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. The High Court found the defense version plausible, noted that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the spot, and that the FIR was the result of prior consultation with legal advice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants and acquitting them of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a plea raised in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution has failed to prove its case?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish its case entitle the accused to an acquittal even if the accused has admitted to the killing?
  • Is an FIR lodged after consultation with legal experts and legal advice considered reliable for the safe administration of criminal justice?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of close relative witnesses who failed to rescue the deceased despite being greater in number render their presence at the scene doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Dubai Islamic Bank vs Jalat Khan etc2020 MLD 780, 2019 PHC 404 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Dual nationality of Civil Servants and Officials vs N/A2019 PLD Supreme Court 201, 2019 P.S.C. 341, 2019 SCP 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-17
  dual nationalitydisqualification of parliamentariansArticle 63(1)(c)interpretation of statutesrenunciation of citizenshipnomination papersSenate elections
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the interpretation of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, regarding the disqualification of dual nationals from holding public office, specifically as members of the Senate. The core legal question was whether the word 'or' in Article 63(1)(c) should be read conjunctively as 'and', thereby requiring a person to lose their Pakistani citizenship upon acquiring foreign citizenship to be disqualified. The Court held that the word 'or' is used disjunctively, creating two distinct categories of disqualification: ceasing to be a Pakistani citizen, or acquiring foreign citizenship. The Court affirmed that acquiring foreign citizenship is a standalone ground for disqualification, which persists until the foreign citizenship is effectively renounced or relinquished. Consequently, candidates who held dual nationality on the last date for filing nomination papers were deemed disqualified. The Court established that the critical date for determining qualification is the last date for filing nomination papers, and subsequent renunciation cannot cure a disqualification that existed at that time.

  Questions settled

  • Does the word 'or' in Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 function as a disjunctive or conjunctive term?
  • Is the disqualification under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 triggered by the mere acquisition of foreign citizenship?
  • Can a candidate cure a disqualification arising from dual nationality by renouncing foreign citizenship after the last date for filing nomination papers?
  • What is the critical date for determining whether a candidate is qualified or disqualified regarding dual nationality in Senate elections?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmed Malik vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 83 · Federal Service Tribunal
  date of birth correctionsuperannuationcivil servantsservice appealretirementsRule 12-A
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed a suit before the High Court seeking a declaration and correction of his recorded date of birth from 01.06.1959 to 08.12.1960 and setting aside his retirement notification, which was remitted to the Federal Service Tribunal for adjudication as a service appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether a civil servant nearing superannuation can seek alteration of their date of birth recorded at the time of entry into service, notwithstanding subsequent changes in educational certificates, national identity cards, or passports. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that under Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, the date of birth once recorded upon entry into government service is final and no subsequent alteration is permissible. The Tribunal held that belated attempts by civil servants to alter their date of birth near retirement are strictly prohibited and that civil service statutes and rules prevail over provisions of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant seek alteration of their date of birth recorded at the time of entering service when approaching the age of superannuation?
  • Does Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 prevail over entries modified under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 for service purposes?
  • Are non-departmental documents such as updated identity cards, passports, or duplicate matriculation certificates binding on a civil servant's parent department for altering date of birth?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The State & anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1329, 2020 YLR 2503, 2019 PHC 356 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmed Malik vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2019 SCMR 1973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-31
  service lawdate of birth correctionvested rightsretrospective application of rulescivil servantvires of rulesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding a request to change his recorded date of birth from 01.06.1959 to 08.12.1960. The petitioner argued that Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, could not be applied retrospectively as it was inserted on 31.07.2000. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had extensively examined the matter and supporting case law. The Court held that the issue of retrospectivity was not relevant because the rule was enacted while the petitioner was in service, and a civil servant cannot claim a vested right in rules that are subject to government alteration. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to challenge the vires of Rule 12-A. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim a vested right in service rules that are subject to government alteration?
  • Does the retrospective application of a service rule arise if the rule was enacted while the civil servant was still in service?
  • Is a challenge to the vires of a rule a prerequisite for claiming the benefit of its non-application?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Yasmeen Jaffar vs Dr. Shehla Sami and others2019 PLJ SC 539, 2019 P.S.C. 1346, 2019 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-02
  proforma promotionretrospective promotionseniorityservice tribunalaudi alteram partemleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which had set aside a notification granting the petitioner retrospective proforma promotion as an Assistant Professor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could validly be granted proforma promotion from a retrospective date when she lacked the requisite experience and when affected parties were condemned unheard. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was fully justified in setting aside the notification, finding that the petitioner did not meet the criteria under the Proforma Promotion Policy at the relevant time and that the principle of audi alteram partem had been violated by failing to hear affected colleagues. The Court laid down that retrospective proforma promotion cannot be granted to a civil servant who was ineligible at the material date, nor without affording an opportunity of hearing to persons whose inter se seniority would be adversely affected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can be granted proforma promotion with retrospective effect when ineligible for promotion at the material date due to a lack of relevant experience?
  • Does granting a retrospective proforma promotion that alters a final seniority list without hearing affected civil servants violate the principle of audi alteram partem?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Waqar Hameed vs The State & another2020 P SC (C rl.) 300, 2020 P SC (C rl.) 307, 2019 SCP 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-09
  criminal breach of trustpublic servantmisappropriationsection 342 CrPCappreciation of evidencepreventive corruptionsplit verdict
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from concurrent judgments of the lower courts convicting the petitioner, a Senior Medical Officer, under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, while acquitting him of other charges. The core legal question concerned whether the ingredients of criminal breach of trust were established and whether the conviction could be sustained given the evidentiary record and the handling of the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court delivered a split decision. The majority held that the prosecution failed to prove entrustment and failed to put crucial incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused during his examination under Section 342, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the petitioner's acquittal. Conversely, the dissenting opinion maintained that statutory entrustment was proved and the withdrawal and subsequent delayed re-deposit of the funds justified upholding the conviction. The key principle laid down emphasizes that incriminating evidence not put to an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used against him, and criminal breach of trust requires strict proof of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code is attracted when the foundational ingredients of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation are not established by the prosecution?
  • Can a piece of incriminating evidence or document that was not put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be used against him?
  • Does the subsequent deposit of allegedly misappropriated government funds back into the treasury after the initiation of an inquiry absolve an accused of the charge under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Uzma Shaheen Pirzada vs Province of Sindh through Secretary and 22019 PLC (C.S.) 1100 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-04
  voluntary retirementcompulsory retirementpension benefitsqualifying servicecivil servicepensionable servicestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, sought a declaration of entitlement to pension and retirement benefits after voluntarily retiring upon completing 22 years of service. The core legal question was whether the 20-year service threshold for retirement under Section 13(i) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, applied to voluntary retirement, thereby entitling the petitioner to pension benefits, or whether the 25-year qualifying service requirement under the Civil Service Regulations and the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, remained the governing standard. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 13(i) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, specifically concerns compulsory retirement initiated by the competent authority in the public interest, not voluntary retirement. The Court clarified that voluntary retirement is governed by the 25-year qualifying service period prescribed in the Civil Service Regulations and the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963. Consequently, the petitioner, having completed only 22 years, did not meet the requisite threshold for pensionable voluntary retirement. The judgment establishes that the 20-year provision in the Act and the 25-year requirement for voluntary retirement are distinct legal concepts.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 13(i) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, apply to voluntary retirement or only to compulsory retirement?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to pension benefits after completing 22 years of service if they retire voluntarily?
  • What is the qualifying period of service required for a government servant to be eligible for a retiring pension under the Civil Service Regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Tariq Iqbal vs The Govt. of KPK through Secretary Administration2019 KLR Supreme Court 417, 2019 PLC (C.S) 821, 2019 SCMR 859, 2019 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-27
  government accommodationstatutory interpretationpurposive approachallotment rulesgeneral poolKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings Actadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the interpretation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018, and the Residential Accommodation at Peshawar Procedure for Allotment Rules, 2018. The core legal questions involved the validity of pre-existing government accommodation allotments, the eligibility of offspring and spouses of deceased or retired employees for such housing, and the criteria for general pool eligibility for employees whose departments maintain their own residential pools. The Court held that pre-2018 allotments are protected only if consistent with the 2018 Act. Regarding offspring and spouses, eligibility is contingent upon the accommodation being part of the specific quota reserved under Section 7(5) of the Rules. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 7(3) of the Act does not preclude an employee from general pool housing if their department’s pool is restricted to specific designations they do not hold. Emphasizing a purposive and beneficial approach to statutory interpretation, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the cases to the Secretary, Administration, Government of KPK for individual factual determinations.

  Questions settled

  • Are government accommodation allotments made prior to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018 automatically protected?
  • Does the existence of a departmental residential pool automatically disqualify an employee from eligibility for general pool accommodation under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018?
  • Under what conditions are the offspring and spouses of retired or deceased public office holders eligible for government residential accommodation?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Tariq Iqbal vs The Govt of KPK2019 SCP 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-27
  government accommodationallotment of official residencestatutory interpretationbeneficial legislationgeneral pool housingdepartmental housing poolcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions concerning the interpretation and legal effect of various provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018 and the Residential Accommodation at Peshawar Procedure for Allotment Rules, 2018. The core legal questions relate to the protection of pre-existing allotments, the eligibility criteria for offspring and spouses of retired or deceased employees under special quotas, and the interpretation of disqualification provisions regarding employees whose departments maintain a separate housing pool. The Supreme Court held that prior allotments are protected only if consistent with the new Act, that special quota housing for relatives of deceased or retired employees requires factual verification, and that an employee is only barred from the general housing pool if they are actually eligible for accommodation in their own department's pool. The Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and remanded the individual cases to the Secretary Administration, Government of KPK, for fresh determination.

  Questions settled

  • Are residential allotments made prior to the promulgation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018 automatically protected?
  • Does an employee whose department maintains a separate housing pool completely lose eligibility for the general housing pool even if they are not entitled to the departmental accommodation?
  • What is the scope of the special quota for residential accommodation reserved for the offspring and spouses of retired or deceased public office holders under the Act of 2018?
  • Should a purposive and liberal approach of interpretation be adopted for beneficial statutes governing public office housing?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Tariq Iqbal and 8 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 SCMR 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-27
  government accommodationallotment rulesstatutory interpretationpurposive approachgeneral pooldepartmental poolcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions concerning the interpretation and legal effect of various provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018 and the Residential Accommodation at Peshawar Procedure for Allotment Rules, 2018. The core legal questions relate to the protection of pre-existing allotments, the rights of offspring and spouses of retired or deceased employees under special quotas, and the eligibility for general pool accommodation of employees belonging to departments maintaining their own residential pools. The Supreme Court held that prior allotments are protected only if consistent with the 2018 Act, that special quota allotments for families of retired or deceased servants are permissible if eligible, and that employees whose departmental pool accommodation is not actually available or designated for them remain eligible for general pool accommodation. The impugned judgments were set aside and the matters remanded to the competent authority for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Are pre-existing allotments of government residential accommodation protected under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018?
  • Does an employee whose departmental pool accommodation is designated only for specific designations remain eligible for general pool accommodation?
  • How should beneficial statutory provisions regarding government residential accommodation be interpreted?
  • What is the scope of special quota allotments for offspring and spouses of retired or deceased public office holders under the Act of 2018?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Tahir Masud vs Amjad Ali Khan and 4 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1167 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-28
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantnon-statutory ruleslachescontractual employmentconstitutional petitionmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a single bench judgment that allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent, the former Managing Director of National Engineering Services Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited (NESPAK), against his retirement. The core legal question was whether the writ petition was maintainable given that the respondent’s service terms were governed by non-statutory rules, and whether the petition was barred by laches due to the respondent’s conduct. The Lahore High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The court ruled that where service conditions are regulated by non-statutory rules rather than statutory provisions, the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant, precluding the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the respondent’s acceptance of retirement benefits and the five-month delay in filing the petition constituted laches, disentitling him to discretionary relief. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy for a contractual employee in such circumstances is a civil suit for damages, not a constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a private limited company where the terms and conditions of service are governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Does the acceptance of retirement benefits and a delay in filing a petition constitute laches sufficient to dismiss a constitutional petition?
  • Can a contractual employee of a private limited company invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for reinstatement?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a contractual employee whose service is terminated in violation of non-statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Iqbal Raza vs Justice of Peace, Islamabad etc2019 IHC 126 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Iqbal Raza vs Justice of Peace, etc2019 CLD 881, 2019 IHC 78 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-30Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Iqbal Raza and others vs Justice of Peace, Islamabad and others2019 CLD 642, 2019 P Cr. L J 1059 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-21
  FIA jurisdictioncopyright infringementprivate disputewrit petitionintellectual property tribunalSection 22-A Cr.P.C.statutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to investigate a private copyright dispute and the dismissal of an application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. by the Justice of Peace. The core legal question was whether the FIA possesses the authority to investigate copyright infringement disputes between private parties, and whether the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 grants exclusive jurisdiction to its tribunals. The Court held that the FIA lacks jurisdiction in this matter. It ruled that while the FIA Act, 1974 includes copyright offences in its schedule, the agency's mandate is limited to matters concerning the Federal Government. It cannot intervene in private civil disputes or copyright infringements between private parties. Furthermore, the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 confers exclusive jurisdiction to its tribunals for such offences. The Court affirmed the principle that for the FIA to exercise jurisdiction, there must be a clear nexus between the offence and the Federal Government; otherwise, the FIA's investigation is without lawful authority and mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have the jurisdiction to investigate copyright infringement disputes between private parties?
  • Is there a requirement for a nexus between an offence and the Federal Government for the Federal Investigation Agency to exercise its investigative powers?
  • Does the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 grant exclusive jurisdiction to its tribunals over offences related to the Copy Right Ordinance, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shamsher Ali Khan and 27 others vs Government of Khyber2019 MLD 87 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-25
  constitutional petitionpromissory estoppellegitimate expectationhouse job stipendstate functionariesjudicial reviewfairness in public actions
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who are graduates from private medical colleges, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court seeking payment of their discontinued stipends for house jobs performed at Ayub Teaching Hospital, Abbottabad, pursuant to an offer letter dated 22.04.2016. The core legal question was whether state functionaries can resile from a clear promise or representation regarding stipends once the other party has acted upon it to their detriment. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that state functionaries cannot act unfairly or arbitrarily, and are bound by their commitments under the equitable doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The court laid down the principle that where a government or state institution makes a clear and unequivocal promise or representation which is acted upon by an individual, creating a legal relationship or causing them to alter their position, the government is bound by such promise, and its withdrawal or refusal to abide by it is subject to judicial review by constitutional courts on grounds of fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether state functionaries can resile from a commitment or promise made to citizens regarding financial benefits after such promise has been acted upon?
  • Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply as a cause of action against the government or its functionaries?
  • Can the actions of a public authority be corrected by a constitutional court on the principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and promissory estoppel?
  • What are the recognized limitations on invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the government or a government functionary?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shaista Shah vs Province of Sindh & others2019 SHC 598 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitycivil servanttransfer and postingexclusive jurisdictionservice tribunalout of own pay scale
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, impugned a transfer notification through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, alleging mala fides and challenging the appointment of a private respondent. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition by a civil servant regarding terms and conditions of service is maintainable in the face of the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212, rendering the constitutional petition barred. The court established that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain service matters where an alternative remedy before the Service Tribunal is provided under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant regarding transfer and posting is maintainable in view of the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Does the jurisdiction of the High Court extend to service matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants?
  • Can an appointment on out of own pay scale or stopgap arrangement continue for an unlimited period of time in violation of relevant rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahzad Niazi vs The Election Appellate Tribunal and 3 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1457 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-12
  election disputenomination papersservice of Pakistandisqualification of candidateadhoc employeecooling-off periodelection appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order of the Election Appellate Tribunal setting aside the acceptance of the petitioner's nomination papers by the Returning Officer. The core legal question was whether a person appointed on an adhoc basis as a Consultant Gynecologist governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1974 falls within the definition of being in the "service of Pakistan" and is thereby subject to the two-year cooling-off disqualification period under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution before contesting elections. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's service under the Provincial Government constituted being in the "service of Pakistan," rendering her disqualified under Article 63(1)(k) since two years had not elapsed since she ceased to be in that service upon her resignation. The court laid down the principle that adhoc or time-bound employment in connection with the affairs of a province constitutes service of Pakistan, attracting the mandatory two-year disqualification period for electoral candidates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an adhoc government employee falls within the definition of "service of Pakistan" for the purposes of electoral disqualification?
  • Does the two-year restriction under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution apply to a person who has resigned from government service prior to contesting elections?
  • Whether appointment as a Consultant Gynecologist under the Provincial Government constitutes holding an office of profit or service under Article 63(1)(k)?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahbaz Mujtaba Ghauri vs Punjab Public Service Commission through its Chairman, Lahore & others2020 PLC (C.S.) 127, 2019 LHC 1895 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-11
  special zone quotaprovincial civil servicedelegated legislationconstitutional discriminationfundamental rightspublic employmentquota system
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a notification issued by the Government of the Punjab, which reserved 20% of government vacancies (BS-16 and above) for residents of a designated "special zone." The core legal question was whether the executive could continue to reserve quotas based on residence or area after the expiry of the time limits prescribed by the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, and Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned notification was illegal and ultra vires. The court reasoned that the 20-year period for such reservations under Rule 20 of the 1974 Rules and the 40-year period under Article 27 of the Constitution had both lapsed. It established that delegated legislation cannot exceed the scope of the parent statute or conflict with constitutional provisions. Consequently, the court struck down the quota, emphasizing that while the state may address under-representation, it must do so through valid legislative amendments rather than administrative notifications that violate established constitutional and statutory timeframes.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government reserve quotas for specific geographical areas in public employment after the expiry of the time limits prescribed by Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does Rule 20 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, authorize the reservation of posts for specific areas beyond the 20-year period stipulated therein?
  • Can delegated legislation, such as a government notification, validly override the substantive provisions of the parent statute or the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Seema Irfan and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PLD Sindh 516 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Dr. Seema Irfan and 5 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 2 others2019 PTD 1678, 2019 PLD Sindh 516, 2022 PLJ Karachi 54 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sajjad Haider Shami vs Mst. Sadaf Pervaiz and others2019 CLC 562 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Saif-Ud-Din and another vs The State, etc2019 KLR Criminal Cases 142, 2019 YLR 1321, 2019 IHC 44 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-01-08
  criminal appealmurdertest identification paradebenefit of doubtmedical evidencesite planforensic mismatchcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 337-L of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment. The prosecution's case originated from an incident involving an altercation over playing loud music in a car, leading to firing and the subsequent death of one person and injury to another. The core legal questions involved the reliability of test identification parades without prior physical descriptions in the FIR, the evidentiary value of site plans, the credibility of recoveries and forensic mismatch, and the benefit of doubt in criminal convictions. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt due to delayed and flawed identification proceedings, lack of specific role attribution, forensic mismatch of recovered weapons, and material discrepancies in ocular and medical evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentences were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a test identification parade where the accused's physical features were not mentioned in the FIR or initial statements?
  • Can a site plan serve as a substantive piece of evidence to prove the guilt of an accused in a criminal trial?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when a firearm recovered from an accused does not match the crime empties according to the forensic report?
  • Does the absence of specific role attribution in ocular accounts vitiate the conviction of accused persons in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sadaf Yaqoob vs Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir2019 P.S.C. 1568 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Dr. Sadaf Yaqoob vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary Health and 4 others2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 125 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan vs Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Sargodha and others2020 [M] C L R 802, 2019 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Dr. Obaid ur Rehman & others vs Mrs. Neelofer Khalid & others2020 YLR 1783, 2019 SHC 110 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Numan Muhammad Khan vs Ca&DD through Secretary and others2019 MLD 97 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-05-27
  constitutional petitioneducational admissionmerit listfundamental rightsright to educationequal treatmentselection committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Dr. Numan Muhammad Khan seeking a direction against the respondents to grant him admission in the MDS (Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery) Course on the ground of merit, alleging that he was wrongfully ignored and placed on the waiting list while candidates with inferior academic records and lower test scores were selected through arbitrary action. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was unlawfully deprived of admission due to the non-consideration of his credentials and distinction certificates, violating his fundamental rights to equality and education. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner possessed superior marks and qualifications which were improperly omitted from evaluation due to an untenable excuse by the respondents. The Court decided that the petitioner was entitled to admission and directed the respondents to accommodate him in the MDS course without disturbing the candidates already selected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an educational institution can deny admission to a candidate by failing to consider their distinction certificates and academic credentials?
  • Does the arbitrary omission of a qualified candidate's marks violate the fundamental right to equality under the Constitution?
  • Can the High Court direct admission for an aggrieved candidate in a constitutional petition without disturbing already selected candidates?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Naheed Fatima and 3 others vs Messrs Pakistan International Air2019 MLD 606 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-06Read full judgment →
• Dr. Naeem Memon vs Fed. of Pakistan and ORs2019 SHC 376 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-18
  National Command Authoritycompulsory retirementsupersessionmaster and servantstatutory rulesconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner, a former Senior Medical Officer of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission whose services were merged into the National Command Authority, seeking to declare Chapter II of the National Command Authority Employees Service Rules 2011 as ultra vires the National Command Authority Act 2010 and Articles 4, 9, and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and to set aside his compulsory retirement order. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of the petition given the master-servant relationship, the statutory status of the service rules, and the validity of the disciplinary action and compulsory retirement based on multiple supersessions and adverse performance evaluation reports. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the rules framed under the National Command Authority Act 2010 are statutory, but that the petitioner's compulsory retirement resulting from multiple supersessions and adverse reports was carried out in accordance with the applicable service rules and established legal principles. The court established that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interfere with subjective evaluations of employee fitness and performance or to substitute the findings of competent departmental authorities where no fundamental right or mandatory law has been violated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether rules framed under Sections 7, 9, and 15 of the National Command Authority Act 2010 possess statutory status?
  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution substitute its own evaluation for the subjective assessment of a departmental promotion committee or competent authority regarding an employee's fitness for promotion?
  • Does multiple supersessions and the accumulation of adverse annual performance evaluation reports provide sufficient legal basis under service rules for the compulsory retirement of a public employee?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable to challenge service termination matters of employees governed by the master-servant principle where no violation of statutory provisions is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nadeem Khalid Khan vs Sindh Employees Society Security2019 PLC (C.S.) 864 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-17
  suspension from servicepower to suspendGeneral Clauses Act section 16interlocutory injunctionstatutory bodyservice regulationsdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking an interlocutory injunction to suspend an office order suspending the plaintiff from service as the Chief Medical Officer of the defendant institution. The core legal question was whether a competent appointing authority possesses the implicit power to suspend an employee pending an inquiry even when the governing service regulations do not explicitly confer a power of suspension. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the competent authority indeed possesses the power to suspend an employee pending departmental proceedings or inquiry by virtue of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act 1897, unless a different intention appears in the governing statutes or regulations. The key principle laid down is that the statutory power to make an appointment includes the inherent power to suspend or dismiss an employee under Section 16 of the General Clauses Act 1897 as an implied term of service, provided no contrary intention is expressed in the governing law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an authority having the power to make an appointment also possess the implicit power to suspend an employee when the service regulations are silent on suspension?
  • Can Section 16 of the General Clauses Act 1897 be invoked to uphold an order of suspension where the governing regulations do not explicitly provide for such power?
  • Whether temporary suspension pending a departmental inquiry constitutes a penalty or an implied term of service contract?
  • Does the absence of a specific provision regarding suspension in service regulations amount to a different intention excluding the application of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mujahid Kamran vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau2019 P Cr. L J 34 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-07
  post-arrest bailmisuse of authoritycontractual appointmentsprocedural irregularitymens reaNational Accountability OrdinanceUniversity of the Punjab Act
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the arrest of the Vice-Chancellor and other university officials by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for alleged illegal contractual appointments. The core legal question was whether the appointment of staff by a Syndicate-delegated sub-committee, without adhering to standard Selection Board procedures, constituted the criminal offence of 'misuse of authority' under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Lahore High Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners. The Court held that while the appointments may have involved procedural irregularities, the prosecution failed to establish mens rea, personal gain, or kickbacks. The Court affirmed that administrative actions taken under delegated authority, even if procedurally flawed, do not automatically equate to criminal misconduct. It was established that the fundamental principle of criminal law requires the prosecution to prove dishonest intention, and mere procedural deviations, without evidence of corruption or undue favouritism, do not justify continued detention. Consequently, the Court found that the petitioners' case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a procedural irregularity in the appointment of contractual employees, absent evidence of personal gain or dishonest intention, constitute the offence of misuse of authority under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can the Syndicate of the University of the Punjab delegate its powers of appointment to a sub-committee under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973?
  • Is the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish dishonest intention in cases of alleged misuse of authority under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the absence of evidence regarding kickbacks or illegal gains in administrative appointments warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Munib vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission2019 PLC (C.S.) 1497, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 1, 2019 PHC 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-11
  Public Service Commissionwrit jurisdictionservice recruitmenteducational qualificationsconflict of interestfactual controversyAssistant Professor
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the selection of a candidate for the post of Assistant Professor at Saidu Medical College, Swat, by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission. The petitioner alleged that the successful candidate, Respondent No. 6, was ineligible due to a conflict of interest involving an interview panel member, a violation of leave regulations during his M.Phil studies, and a breach of Higher Education Commission policy regarding simultaneous degrees. The Court held that the allegations of bias were unsubstantiated and constituted factual controversies unsuitable for determination under Constitutional jurisdiction. Regarding the statutory objections, the Court clarified that the leave and pay restrictions under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors And Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011, apply specifically to postgraduate medical training like FCPS, not M.Phil programs. Furthermore, the Court found the HEC policy on simultaneous degrees inapplicable due to the specific nature of the degrees and the policy's lack of retrospective effect. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the Public Service Commission lacks the mandate to annul validly obtained degrees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court determine factual controversies requiring elaborate inquiry and evidence in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Do the leave and pay restrictions for postgraduate medical training under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors And Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011 apply to M.Phil programs?
  • Does a Public Service Commission have the legal mandate to annul a degree obtained by a candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Imran Qureshi and Others vs Mohammad Asif2019 SHC 446, 2020 CLD 1060, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 281, 2020 P C T L R 922 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Babar Chohan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Federal Education and Techinical Training and 2 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1268 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-11-30
  writ petitionconstitutional jurisdictionforeign appointmentmerit listweightage formulapromotion zone
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the notification whereby respondent No.3 was appointed as Deputy Permanent Delegate at the Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO, Paris. The core legal questions involved whether the appointment procedure followed policy guidelines, how marks from the written test and interview were to be weighted, and whether respondent No.3 was ineligible due to being in the promotion zone. The Islamabad High Court held that the selection process was conducted transparently in accordance with the prescribed policy guidelines, the cumulative merit calculation correctly placed respondent No.3 first and the petitioner fourth, and factual controversies regarding interview performance could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, respondent No.3 was not in the promotion zone at the relevant time. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that clearance of a written test creates no vested right to appointment when an interview is also part of the criteria, and evaluation weightages applied correctly do not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the clearance of a written test by itself create any vested right in a candidate's favour for appointment when the test is not the sole criterion?
  • Can a factual controversy regarding the comparative performance of candidates in an interview be resolved within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether an appointment to a post in a foreign mission under policy guidelines is vitiated if the calculation of cumulative marks from a written test and interview is properly made?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Moinuddin Shaikh vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal2019 PLD Sindh 506 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mohammad Azam Chaudhry and another vs Commissioner (CLD), SECP, Islamabad and another2021 P C T L R 571, 2019 CLD 1345 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-06-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mirza Faisal Ahmed Rafiq vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLJ Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Mariam Raza Syed and another vs Pakistan Medical and Dental2019 PLD Lahore 558, 2020 [M] C L R 1109 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-22
  constitutional petitionright to educationlocus poenitentiaedegree recognitionmedical educationnatural justiceregulatory bodystudent registration
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, having completed an M.Phil. program in Science of Dental Materials at the University of Health Sciences, Lahore, filed a constitutional petition seeking recognition of their degrees by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC). The core legal question concerned whether the PM&DC could withhold registration of degrees for students who pursued their education in good faith, particularly when the University had attempted to secure recognition and the Council had previously issued a one-time dispensation for such students. The Court held that the PM&DC was obligated to register the petitioners. It reasoned that the right to education is a fundamental right, and the denial of recognition without fault on the part of the students violated principles of natural justice. Furthermore, invoking the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, the Court ruled that once a degree is awarded and a legal right has accrued, it cannot be rescinded or denied without due process. Consequently, the Court directed the PM&DC to register the petitioners in accordance with the Council's prior policy decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent a regulatory body from withholding the recognition of a degree once it has been awarded to a student?
  • Is the right to education a fundamental right protected under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a regulatory body refuse to register students who completed their education in good faith when the institution had previously been granted a one-time dispensation?
  • Does the power to issue orders under the General Clauses Act 1897 include the power to rescind a degree that has already taken legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Karim Shah vs Chairman, Search and Nomination Council/Health2020 PLC (C.S.) 413, 2019 PHC 328 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-30
  Medical Teaching InstitutionHospital DirectorKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act 2015exigency of servicestatutory interpretationconstitutional petitionappointment legality
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the appointment of a second Hospital Director for the Mufti Mehmood Memorial Teaching Hospital, D.I. Khan, arguing it violates the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015. The core legal question was whether the Medical Teaching Institution (MTI), D.I. Khan, could be bifurcated to allow for the appointment of an additional Hospital Director under the guise of an exigency of service. The Court held that the MTI, as established by the government notification, constitutes a single, indivisible entity comprising Gomal Medical College and its attached hospitals. Consequently, the appointment of a separate Hospital Director for one of the attached hospitals was declared illegal, void ab initio, and without lawful authority. The Court affirmed that Section 10 of the Act mandates a single Hospital Director for the MTI, and the power to appoint on an officiating basis under Section 7(4) cannot be used to circumvent this statutory scheme. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, any deviation from that procedure is legally invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Medical Teaching Institution established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act 2015 be split to appoint separate Hospital Directors for its attached hospitals?
  • Does the power to appoint on an officiating basis under Section 7(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act 2015 authorize the appointment of a second Hospital Director where one is already serving?
  • Is the Mufti Mehmood Memorial Teaching Hospital an independent Medical Teaching Institution or an attached hospital of the Gomal Medical College?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Karim Shah vs Chairman, Search and Nomination Council/Health2019 PHC 328, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 235, 2019 PHC 310 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-30
  Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Actmaster and servantregular inquiryremoval from servicedelegation of powersdisciplinary proceedingsconstitutional petitionhospital director
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed as Hospital Director of Medical Teaching Institution (MTI) D.I.Khan under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015, challenged various explanation letters, a show-cause notice, and his eventual removal from service via a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the petition under the master-servant principle, the authority of the Chairperson of the Board of Governors (BOG) to independently initiate disciplinary proceedings or delegate powers without statutory backing, and the necessity of a regular inquiry before imposing a major penalty involving allegations of misconduct. The Peshawar High Court held that since the post was created by statute and governed by statutory rules, the master-servant principle did not apply, and the court had writ jurisdiction. The Court further held that the Chairperson alone lacked authority to initiate proceedings or delegate powers, and that a regular inquiry was mandatory before imposing a major penalty like removal for serious misconduct. Consequently, the impugned letters, show-cause notice, and removal order were set aside, with liberty granted to initiate fresh proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the employment of a Hospital Director appointed under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015 is governed by the principle of Master and Servant?
  • Does the Chairperson of the Board of Governors have the lawful authority to independently initiate disciplinary proceedings against a statutory officer without the approval of the Board?
  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory prior to the imposition of a major penalty of removal from service when serious allegations of misconduct are leveled?
  • Whether powers conferred upon a statutory authority can be delegated in the absence of an express or implied provision in the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ikramullah Khan vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University, Peshawar and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 1239, 2019 PLJ SC 322, 2018 P.S.C. 789, 2018 SCP 1188, 2018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-12
  Associate ProfessorWeed Sciencedoctorate degree evaluationdissertation appraisalacademic qualificationsteaching experienceHigher Education Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition filed by Dr. Ikramullah Khan challenging the selection and appointment of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 to the post of Associate Professor (BS-20) in Weed Science at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University, Peshawar, on the ground that they lacked the requisite doctorate degree in "Weed Sciences" and the prescribed ten years of teaching experience. The core legal questions concern whether the doctorates and academic background of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 pertained to Weed Science despite their degree titles stating otherwise, and whether they fulfilled the required teaching experience. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in determining the specific field of a doctoral degree, the research, dissertation, and thesis conducted by the candidate are determinative rather than the mere text on the degree certificate. Based on expert reports from committees constituted through the Higher Education Commission (HEC), the Court found that the dissertations of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 clearly fell within the field of Weed Science and that they possessed the requisite teaching experience. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the field of a doctoral degree is determined by the text on the degree certificate or by the candidate's dissertation and research?
  • Can courts substitute their own evaluation for the expert opinion and recommendations of academic selection boards?
  • Whether teaching experience for university faculty is counted from the date of initial appointment or the date of regularisation?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Raza vs Director General (Sindh Region) National2019 MLD 433 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-16
  double jeopardysupplementary referenceNational Accountability Ordinanceacting chairmanpardonSection 265-K Cr.P.C.constitutional petitionaccountability court
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the legality of supplementary references filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), the authority of the Acting Chairman to file references and grant pardons, and the dismissal of applications under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners contended that the proceedings constituted double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution and that the NAB lacked the authority to reinvestigate matters already subject to acquittal. The Court held that the petitions were without merit. It determined that the principle of double jeopardy is not violated when separate references are filed for distinct offences, such as misdeclarations involving different containers. The Court affirmed that the Acting Chairman NAB possesses the authority to file references and grant pardons under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. Furthermore, it held that the NAB is empowered to file supplementary references to introduce newly discovered evidence. The Court emphasized that the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 is a special law overriding other statutes and declined to interfere with the ongoing trial process, directing the trial court to proceed on a day-to-day basis.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of separate references for distinct offences involving different containers constitute double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the Acting Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau have the legal authority to file references and grant pardons under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Is the National Accountability Bureau empowered to file supplementary references after the initial reference has been filed?
  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before evidence has been recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Fozia Akmal vs Province of Sindh & 04 others2019 SHC 314 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-27
  regularization of servicecontract employeeleave vacancystatutory bodypublic appointmentconstitutional jurisdictionvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking to declare certain office orders illegal, to declare the petitioner as an active employee of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (SESSI), and to direct her regularization as a Consultant Gynecologist under the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013. The core legal questions revolved around whether a temporary employee appointed against a leave vacancy without following prescribed recruitment rules could claim regularization based on length of service, and whether the constitutional petition was maintainable. The court held that the petition was maintainable against the public sector statutory entity, but dismissed it on merits, ruling that initial appointments to regular posts must be made through transparent competitive processes via the Public Service Commission and that irregular or contingency appointments against leave vacancies do not accrue any vested right to regularization. The key principles laid down include that contract or contingency employees appointed outside statutory recruitment rules cannot bypass the mandatory competitive process for permanent absorption, and that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court will not be exercised to perpetuate illegalities in public appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a statutory public sector institution like the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution?
  • Does an employee appointed on a contingency basis against a leave vacancy acquire a vested right to regularization based on length of service?
  • Can appointments to regular BPS-18 posts be made without adhering to prescribed recruitment rules and the public service commission process?
  • Whether the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 applies to employees working on contingency or leave vacancies in statutory bodies lacking sanctioned substantive posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ashfaq Karim and 2 others vs Federal Ministry of Health through Secretary National Health Service Regulation and Coordination and 2 others2019 YLR 187 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-03-13Read full judgment →
• Dr. Anis Zohra vs IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, District South, Karachi and 2 others2019 YLR 836 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-22
  acquittal appeallimitation periodwrong forumdue diligenceleave to appealcriminal procedurecomplaint case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Karachi South, acquitting the respondent under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when an appeal is filed before a wrong forum due to counsel's mistake, and the requirement of seeking special leave to appeal against an acquittal in a complaint case versus filing a direct appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that a counsel's lack of familiarity with the relevant jurisdictional provisions does not constitute a bona fide mistake or due diligence required for excluding time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal as incompetent and time-barred, laying down principles regarding the strict application of limitation periods, the limits of counsel negligence in pursuing remedies before wrong forums, and the statutory requirements for filing appeals against acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a litigant claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when an appeal is filed before the wrong forum due to a counsel's technical mistake?
  • Does a counsel's failure to acquaint himself with the relevant provisions of law relating to court jurisdiction amount to negligence preventing the condonation of delay?
  • Is special leave of the High Court required for a private complainant to file an appeal against an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ali Bat Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through secretary, Establishment Division and others2019 PLJ Islamabad 186 · Islamabad High Court
  contractual appointmentproject postre-employment after superannuationRules of Businessevaluation committeeextension of contractpublic sector employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the contractual appointment and successive extensions of Respondent No. 2 as Advisor/Consultant on Development Budget (Operation) in a public sector project after his retirement from government service. The core legal questions involve whether a retired civil servant's contractual appointment through a competitive process constitutes unlawful re-employment, whether an initial two-year contract deviating from a one-year advertisement is valid, and whether subsequent contract extensions granted by the Ministry Secretary rather than the mandated Evaluation Committee are lawful under applicable Office Memoranda and the Rules of Business, 1973. The Islamabad High Court held that while the initial appointment through open competition was valid and not barred by superannuation laws, the deviation from the advertised one-year tenure was improper. Furthermore, the court held that extensions granted without the approval of the Evaluation Committee and the Prime Minister violated established policy and the Rules of Business, 1973. The court declared the unauthorized extensions unlawful, directed the post to be re-advertised, but protected past salaries received by Respondent No. 2.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appointment of a retired civil servant on a project contract through an open competitive process amount to re-employment under Section 14(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can a contractual appointment to a project post be made for a duration longer than what was specified in the initial public advertisement?
  • Whether an Office Memorandum altering the prescribed authority for granting contract extensions requires the approval of the Prime Minister pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Rules of Business, 1973?
  • Are successive yearly extensions of a project contract granted by a Ministry Secretary without the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ali Bat Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary, Establishment Division and others2021 [M] C L R 834, 2019 PLC (C.S) 1391, 2019 IHC 54 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-28
  contractual appointmentproject postsRules of Business 1973re-employmentadministrative policysuperannuationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the appointment and repeated contract extensions of a retired civil servant as an Advisor/Consultant for a government development project. The core legal questions were whether the extensions granted without the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee were lawful, and whether the Establishment Division’s Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 17.08.2010, which bypassed this committee, was valid. The Court held that the extensions granted without the Evaluation Committee's recommendation, as mandated by the Finance Division’s O.M. dated 11.04.2007, were unlawful. It further held that the Establishment Division’s O.M. dated 17.08.2010, which departed from established policy without the Prime Minister's approval, violated Rule 15(a) of the Rules of Business, 1973, and was thus of no legal effect. The key principle laid down is that policy decisions made with the Prime Minister's approval cannot be amended or nullified by subordinate authorities without similar approval, and that strict adherence to the Rules of Business is mandatory for valid governmental action. The appointment itself was upheld as a competitive contract engagement, not prohibited re-employment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative department amend a policy approved by the Prime Minister without obtaining fresh approval from the Prime Minister?
  • Does the age limit for re-employment of retired civil servants apply to contractual appointments made through a competitive process for project posts?
  • Are extensions of contract appointments granted in violation of the prescribed Evaluation Committee procedure legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr Omar Masood & another vs Syed Amir Hussain Naqvi & another2019 CLD 931, 2019 PCTLR 731, 2019 IHC 114 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-05
  ouster of jurisdictiontransfer of sharescompany benchcivil court jurisdictionrejection of plaintinjunctioncompromise deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order passed by the Civil Judge Islamabad (West) in cross-suits concerning the enforcement and cancellation of a compromise deed involving the transfer of company shares. The core legal questions relate to whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under the Companies Act 2017 regarding matters of share transfers and internal corporate disputes, and whether the trial court correctly granted an injunction. The Islamabad High Court held that Section 5(2) of the Companies Act 2017 explicitly ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of any matter the designated Company Bench is empowered to determine, including the transfer of shares and rectification of registers. The ratio decidendi is that where a statute contains a clear and unequivocal ouster clause, civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain proceedings regarding matters entrusted to a specialized statutory tribunal. The court laid down principles on the strict interpretation of ouster clauses, holding that provisions denying access to ordinary courts must be construed narrowly unless the legislative intent is unmistakable, and exercised its revisional powers under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to reject the barred plaint under Order VII Rule 11.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under the Companies Act 2017 to entertain suits regarding the transfer of shares and matters covered under the Act?
  • What are the established principles of interpretation when construing a statutory ouster clause that excludes the jurisdiction of ordinary courts?
  • Can a High Court exercise revisional powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 11?
  • Whether a dispute concerning the performance of a compromise agreement relating to the transfer of company shares falls within the exclusive domain of the Company Bench?
  Read full judgment →
• Dow University of Health Sciences vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2019 SHC 66 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad, etc vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar Hassan, etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1672, 2019 LHC 1800 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-29Read full judgment →
• Dittal alias Ali Ahmed and 2 others vs The State2019 MLD 4 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-10
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilityfurther inquiryprohibitory clausecommon objectabsconsion of co-accusedFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by three accused persons seeking release in a murder case registered under sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-H(2), 114, 147, 148, 149, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants, who were not attributed with the fatal shot but were alleged to have instigated the crime or held lathis, were entitled to bail despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court granted bail, holding that the applicants' vicarious liability and their specific roles were matters for the trial court to determine. The Court further noted the absence of independent witnesses at a public place, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the fact that the absconsion of co-accused does not preclude the grant of bail to present applicants. The key principle laid down is that where no active role is attributed to an accused in a case involving vicarious liability, and the case requires further inquiry, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absconsion of co-accused automatically disentitle the present applicants from the concession of bail?
  • Is the determination of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a matter to be decided at the bail stage or during the trial?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses at a public place of occurrence constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Directorate General Emergency Rescue Service 1122 Khyber2019 PLC (C.S) 811, 2019 SCMR 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-22
  reinstatementdismissal from servicedue processmisconductcross-examination of witnessesshow cause noticeleave to appealconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court setting aside the dismissal of an Emergency Medical Technician (Respondent) from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Emergency Rescue Services 1122 and directing his reinstatement with back benefits. The core legal questions centered on whether the departmental proceedings complied with due process and the applicable service regulations. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the Respondent's dismissal was unsustainable. The Court laid down the ratio that when an employee faces removal or dismissal from service—an action carrying a stigma—he is entitled to due process under the law. This mandates a fair opportunity to defend himself, confront the show cause material, cross-examine prosecution witnesses, and present defense evidence. Because the petitioner failed to place evidence of misconduct on record or afford the Respondent a transparent, fair hearing, the dismissal process was declared defective and invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee facing dismissal from service entitled to confront the material used to issue a show cause notice against him?
  • Does due process in departmental disciplinary proceedings require providing the employee an opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses?
  • Can an order of dismissal for misconduct be sustained without placing evidentiary material of the alleged misconduct on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Director, Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation vs Muhammad Ayaz2020 PTD 850, 2019 PCTLR 1004 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Director General Health, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 2 others vs Saeed Ahmed2019 P.S.C. 1468, 2020 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 90 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Director General Excise and Taxation Lahore etc vs Market Committee, Multan etc2019 SCMR 1099, 2019 SCP 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-15
  tax exemptionlocal authoritystatutory interpretationproperty taxmarket committeefiscal legislationamendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the tax liability of Market Committees under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, specifically regarding whether such entities are exempt from property tax before and after the 2002 legislative amendments. The core legal question is whether a Market Committee qualifies as a 'local authority' entitled to tax exemption under section 4(b)(ii) of the Act prior to the 2002 amendment, and whether that exemption persists post-amendment. The Supreme Court held that, consistent with prior jurisprudence, Market Committees were exempt from tax as 'local authorities' under the unamended section 4(b)(ii) of the Act. However, the Court determined that the Punjab Finance Ordinance, 2002, fundamentally altered the exemption criteria by removing the term 'local authority' and restricting exemptions to the Government of the Punjab or a local government as defined under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. Consequently, the Court ruled that Market Committees are liable for property tax effective from June 25, 2002. The principle laid down is that statutory amendments narrowing the scope of tax exemptions must be strictly applied according to their revised definitions, superseding previous interpretations of broader terms like 'local authority'.

  Questions settled

  • Are Market Committees considered 'local authorities' for the purpose of tax exemption under the unamended Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958?
  • Does the amendment to section 4(b) of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958 by the Punjab Finance Ordinance 2002 remove the tax exemption previously enjoyed by Market Committees?
  • Are Market Committees liable to pay property tax under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958 after the amendment effective from June 25, 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• Director General EPA and others vs Messrs Sikandar Plastic Recycling2021 P C T L R 577, 2019 CLD 907 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
• Director General EPA and others vs Messrs Hassan Ice Factory through Proprietor2021 P C T L R 480, 2019 CLD 137 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2018-05-24Read full judgment →
• Director General Environmental Protection Agency vs Sheikh Yousaf2021 P C T L R 633, 2019 CLD 155 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2018-04-05Read full judgment →
• Din Ullah and another vs The State2019 MLD 786 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-05-25
  post-arrest bailabductionfurther inquiryconsenting partytentative assessmentfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 376, 365-B, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged abduction and sexual assault of a female victim. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioners' involvement in transporting the victim and co-accused warranted withholding bail, particularly regarding the applicability of Section 365-B and the concept of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the tentative assessment of the police record and the victim's statement suggested she was a consenting party and did not raise alarms, thereby distinguishing the petitioners' case from the principal accused and bringing their culpability within the scope of further inquiry. The court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that pre-trial detention cannot be used as an advance punishment and that where tentative assessment indicates consent or a lack of direct incriminatory evidence for heinous offences, the accused is entitled to bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the alleged victim's consent and failure to raise alarm during transportation and stay at a hotel warrant the grant of post-arrest bail to co-accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-trial detention be utilized as a form of advance punishment in criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad vs Government of Punjab & others2019 LHC 1919 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
• Din Mamamin and another vs The Collector of Customs, Peshawar2020 P C T L R 963, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 2202 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-07-10Read full judgment →
• Dilshad Bibi vs The State & 2 others2020 [M] C L R 183, 2019 PLD Islamabad 476, 2019 IHC 104 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
• Diloo son of Mohammad vs State2019 SHC 260 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-07
  criminal appealanti-terrorismidentification paradebenefit of doubtacquittalunlicensed pistolhostile witness
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal appeals challenge the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellants for offences relating to terrorism, robbery, and possession of unlicensed arms. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of identification parades, hostile testimonies, and the use of evidence already disbelieved for an acquitted co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and involvement of the appellants satisfactorily, noting major evidentiary flaws, lack of independent corroboration, and the untenable reliance on evidence previously rejected for a co-accused. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted on the basis of evidence that has already been disbelieved by the trial court while acquitting a co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Is the failure to hold an identification parade for unidentified accused persons arrested during investigation fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does an unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR affect the credibility of the prosecution's case when names and descriptions of culprits are missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Syed vs The State & others2020 YLR 878, 2019 PHC 426 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-25Read full judgment →
• Dilawar son Baghi Gul vs The State etc2019 PHC 242 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-08
  capital punishmentsolitary eyewitnessmitigating circumstanceunproven motivemurder convictioncriminal appealforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a solitary eyewitness and the impact of an unproven motive on the quantum of sentence. The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular account of the complainant, a nephew of the deceased, to be natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, including the recovery of the crime weapon. However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive, suggesting underlying circumstances were concealed. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that the failure to prove a motive acts as a mitigating circumstance in capital cases. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the compensation order and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The principle established is that while a solitary witness can sustain a conviction if credible, an unproven motive warrants the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of a solitary eyewitness statement?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Is the testimony of a related witness liable to be discarded solely on the ground of relationship to the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan and 3 others vs Muhammad Zahir Ali and another2019 CLC 79 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-18Read full judgment →
• Dilawar alias Usman vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1531 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-10
  capital punishmentmitigating circumstancesmurdereyewitness testimonyinterested witnessprompt FIRunproved motivesentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arise from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on five counts of murder alongside an award of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular evidence from related and independent witnesses, the implications of a prompt FIR, and whether the failure to prove motive or the presence of extenuating circumstances warrants commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent and natural eyewitness testimony, ruling that close relationship does not disqualify a witness. However, considering mitigating factors including prolonged incarceration of twenty-five years, inconsequential weapon recovery, and unproved sectarian motive, the Court maintained the conviction but converted the death sentence into life imprisonment on five counts while answering the capital sentence reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the close relationship of an eyewitness with the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a prompt First Information Report in a criminal trial?
  • Can failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the asserted motive serve as a mitigating circumstance against the imposition of the death penalty?
  • Does the non-production of an injured eye-witness invariably harm the case of the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Dil Jan vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 443, 2019 PLD Balochistan 92 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-01
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular testimonyadverse presumptionacquittalcontradictory evidencewithholding evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, which found the appellant guilty under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly injuring his wife. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the significant contradictions in the ocular testimony and the absence of key witnesses. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including material contradictions between the complainant's initial statement and his court testimony, and the failure to produce the injured victim or the son who allegedly witnessed the incident. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the fundamental principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession. It establishes that where the prosecution fails to produce central witnesses without explanation, an adverse presumption arises under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that multiple material doubts in the prosecution's narrative necessitate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce central witnesses entitle the court to draw an adverse presumption against the prosecution?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution's case contains material contradictions?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to provide evidence regarding the death of the injured victim mentioned in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• DIG, NH & MP, Karachi vs Ghulam Mustafa Mahar and another2019 PLC (C.S.) 500, 2019 PLJ SC 200, 2019 P.S.C. 1048, 2019 SCMR 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-25
  dismissal from serviceunauthorized absencemisconductdisciplined forceservice tribunalextraordinary leavecondonation of misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which had reinstated a Junior Clerk (BS-7) of the National Highways and Motorway Police after his dismissal for habitual unauthorized absence. The core legal question was whether the competent authority, by treating the employee's period of absence as 'extraordinary leave without pay' in the dismissal order, had effectively condoned the misconduct and nullified the major penalty of dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred in its interpretation. The Court clarified that a compassionate gesture in a dismissal order, such as treating absence as leave without pay, does not negate or wash away the primary disciplinary action of dismissal imposed for misconduct. The Court emphasized that such concessions are distinct from the penalty itself and do not imply condonation of the underlying offense. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, restoring the original dismissal order, noting that the employee's habitual absence and non-serious attitude were incompatible with the requirements of a disciplined force.

  Questions settled

  • Does the treatment of an employee's unauthorized absence as extraordinary leave without pay in a dismissal order amount to condonation of the misconduct?
  • Can a compassionate gesture included in a disciplinary order nullify the major penalty of dismissal imposed for habitual absence?
  • Is the habitual absence of a member of a disciplined force sufficient grounds for the imposition of a major penalty of dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Dhanya Agro-Industrial (Pvt.) Limited through Attorney vs Quetta2019 CLD 160 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-16
  foreign arbitral awardenforcement of awardarbitration agreementNew York Conventionex parte decreeinternational arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed an application under Section 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, seeking the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award rendered by the International Cotton Association Limited. The dispute arose from a contract for the sale of raw cotton, which included an arbitration clause. The arbitral tribunal, seated in Liverpool, England, issued an award in favor of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to pay specific sums, including interest and costs. The defendant, despite being served through multiple methods, failed to appear, leading the court to proceed ex parte. The core legal question was whether the foreign arbitral award met the requirements for enforcement under the 2011 Act and the New York Convention 1958. The court held that the award was valid and enforceable, noting that no impediments under Section 7 of the Act or Article V of the Convention were present. Consequently, the court made the award a rule of the court and decreed the suit, emphasizing the legislative intent of the 2011 Act to provide an expeditious mechanism for enforcing foreign arbitral awards.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have the jurisdiction to enforce a foreign arbitral award under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011?
  • What is the legal status of a foreign arbitral award once it is recognized under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011?
  • Can a court proceed ex parte in a suit for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award if the defendant fails to appear after proper service?
  Read full judgment →
• Dewan Zubair Ahmed Farooqui and 6 others vs Commissioner2021 P C T L R 322, 2019 CLD 892 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Dewan Petroleum (Pvt.) Ltd vs Oil and Gas Investment Ltd2019 [M] C.L.R. 1251, 2019 IHC 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-22Read full judgment →
• Dewan Petroleum (Pvt) Ltd. vs Oil and Gas Investment Ltd.2019 KLR Civil Cases 392, 2020 PLJ Islamabad 41, 2019 CLC 1486 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →