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.

• Iqbal vs Brigadier Zafar Mahmood and 3 others2016 MLD 2031 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-22
  rejection of plaintouster of jurisdictioncustoms actmala fide actiongood faithcivil suitdamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed by the defendants under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking rejection of the plaint in a suit for declaration, injunction, recovery of articles, and damages valued at Rs. 2 Crores. The core legal question centered on whether the civil court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 217 of the Customs Act 1969 due to pending customs proceedings and whether a successive application for rejection of the plaint is maintainable. The Sindh High Court held that a second application for rejection of the plaint on the same cause is not maintainable where an earlier application was disposed of by a consent order leaving legal objections to be decided at final arguments. Furthermore, the court held that the statutory protection and ouster of jurisdiction under Section 217 of the Customs Act 1969 applies exclusively to bona fide acts done in good faith, and does not extend to mala fide actions or acts falling outside the four corners of the statute. The key principle laid down is that barring provisions excluding the jurisdiction of courts of general jurisdiction must be construed strictly, and immunity from civil suits cannot be claimed for actions tainted with mala fides or violation of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second application for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable when a prior application on the same cause was disposed of by consent?
  • Does Section 217 of the Customs Act 1969 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts over mala fide acts of customs functionaries?
  • Whether the mere pendency of a customs reference before the High Court operates as a legal bar to the continuation of a civil suit?
  • How are statutory provisions debarring the jurisdiction of courts of general jurisdiction to be construed under Pakistani law?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs Moazam Zaheer Khan and another2016 CLC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-15
  constitutional petitionwillful defaultbona fide personal requirementrented premisesdirectory vs mandatory provisionsevictionappellate authoritystatutory tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate judgment confirming an eviction order against a tenant. The core legal questions were whether the appellate authority erred in failing to apply Sections 21(1)(C) and (D) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, regarding compromise and enhanced rent; whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for the property; and whether the tenant committed willful default in rent payment. The Court held that the petition was maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution despite concurrent findings, but found no grounds to interfere. It ruled that Sections 21(1)(C) and (D) are directory, not mandatory, and that the landlord's personal requirement was proven as his testimony remained unshattered. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the finding of willful default, noting the tenant failed to tender rent directly to the landlord before resorting to court deposits, violating Section 10(3). The key principles laid down are that appellate powers under Sections 21(1)(C) and (D) are directory; a landlord's sworn statement of personal need is sufficient if unshattered; and direct deposit of rent without prior tender to the landlord constitutes willful default.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Section 21(1)(C) and (D) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Does a landlord's failure to disclose the specific nature of the business intended for the premises invalidate a claim of bona fide personal requirement?
  • Does depositing rent in court without first tendering it to the landlord constitute willful default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent cases under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain & otherss vs P.D. K.P. Sadp & otherss2016 PLJ Peshawar 282 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-24Read full judgment →
• Iqbal and Ali Redha Trading Co. through authorised local agent and attorney vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd2016 CLC 1497 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-29
  breach of contractspecific performancedamagessale of goodsmarket priceforeign firm
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit for specific performance and alternatively damages for breach of a contract for the supply and subsequent substitution of rice quantities between an international trading company and a state-owned corporation. The core legal questions relate to the maintainability of the suit, the applicability of partnership registration bars to a foreign entity, the determination of breach regarding substituted contractual obligations, and the assessment of damages based on the difference between the agreed contract price and the market price at the time of breach. The court held that the defendant committed a breach of the modified supply contract, and while the claim for specific performance was abandoned, the plaintiff was entitled to damages calculated on the basis of the price differential for the undelivered goods. The key principle laid down is that an aggrieved party in a contract for the sale of goods is entitled to actual damages measured by the difference between the agreed contract price and the prevailing market price on the date of breach, and foreign entities originating outside Pakistan are not subject to local partnership registration bars.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unregistered foreign partnership is barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932 from instituting a suit in Pakistan?
  • Is an aggrieved party entitled to claim damages based on the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date of breach?
  • Whether the abandonment of a claim for specific performance precludes the plaintiff from seeking alternative relief in the form of damages?
  • How is the quantum of damages assessed in a breach of contract for the sale of goods when the parties have agreed to substitute the original goods with a new variety?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmed vs Muhammad Nasir and another2016 MLD 624 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-10
  Constitutional petitionRent ControllerInterlocutory orderLandlord and tenant relationshipMaintainabilityTentative rent orderSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an order passed by the Rent Controller, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller that declines to pass a tentative rent order due to a disputed relationship of landlord and tenant. The High Court held that the petition was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the impugned order was purely interlocutory in nature, and Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, expressly bars appeals against such interim orders to prevent unnecessary delays. The Court established the principle that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent the legislative scheme, which mandates that interim orders merge into the final judgment. Consequently, the petitioner must await the final outcome, at which point an appeal remains an adequate remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interim order passed by a Rent Controller under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, bar appeals against interlocutory orders?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to challenge an order of a Rent Controller that declines to pass a tentative rent order due to a disputed relationship of landlord and tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Investment Company Ltd. vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Ltu, Islamabad, 419_Ib, 420_Ib2016 PTD (Trib.) 1519 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2015-12-07Read full judgment →
• International Islamic University, Islamabad and others vs Dr. Shameem2016 PLJ Islamabad 31 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-07-09Read full judgment →
• InterAsia Leasing Company Limited Suite No. B-601-602 6th Floor, LaksonAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Institute of Space Technology (Ist) vs Husnain Riaz and others2016 MLD 1432 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-12
  inherent powerspleadingsscope of suitrecovery suitpassport releasecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from an order passed by the Civil Judge, Islamabad, accepting an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the respondent for the release of his passport and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in a recovery suit filed by the Institute of Space Technology. The core legal question was whether a trial court can grant relief regarding matters not pleaded in the written statement or forming part of the subject matter of the suit, by invoking its inherent powers under Section 151, C.P.C. The Islamabad High Court held that inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be invoked to grant relief beyond the scope of the pleadings or outside the subject matter of the suit, nor can a court allow a party to travel beyond its pleadings. The Court laid down the principle that Section 151, C.P.C. cannot be used to bypass express provisions of law or to adjudicate upon claims not raised in the pleadings through proper legal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court grant relief under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on a matter not raised in the pleadings of the parties?
  • Whether inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be exercised beyond the subject matter of the pending suit?
  • Is a party permitted to travel beyond its pleadings at the stage of evidence in a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Institute of Architects, Pakistan (Lahore Chapter) vs Province of Punjab and others2016 LHC 836, 2016 PTD 1103, 2016 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-25
  Punjab Revenue Authoritytax management organizationautonomous bodypublic appointmentsinstitutional integrityvalidation ordinanceultra vires rulesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional matter concerns the legal establishment and constitution of the Punjab Revenue Authority under the Punjab Revenue Authority Act, 2012. The core legal questions involve whether the Authority was lawfully established and constituted through a proper notification and appointment process, whether the Chairperson alone could exercise the powers of the Authority and frame rules, and whether the subsequent Validation Ordinance protected past actions after its lapse. The Lahore High Court held that the Punjab Revenue Authority was never legally established or constituted under Section 3 of the Punjab Revenue Authority Act, 2012, as no proper notification was issued and appointments failed to follow an open, fair, and transparent selection process. Consequently, all rules, orders, and appointments made by the Chairperson acting individually were declared illegal and void ab initio. Furthermore, the court held that Section 8 of the Act cannot cure the complete absence of a lawfully established Authority, and that the lapse of the validation ordinance simply revived the prior legal position without saving past invalid acts. The key principles laid down emphasize that public appointments in statutory bodies must adhere strictly to merit, transparency, and institutional integrity, and that an autonomous revenue authority cannot function through a single unconstituted officer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Revenue Authority was lawfully established and constituted under Section 3 of the Punjab Revenue Authority Act, 2012?
  • Can a Chairperson of an unconstituted statutory authority single-handedly exercise powers and frame binding statutory rules?
  • Does Section 8 of the Punjab Revenue Authority Act, 2012 protect actions taken when the Authority was never established or constituted in the first place?
  • What is the legal effect of the lapse of a validation ordinance on past actions and unclosed transactions?
  Read full judgment →
• Infospan(Private) Limited vs Mis. Telecom Foundation and another2016 PLJ Islamabad 342 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-22
  arbitration agreementstay of legal proceedingsstep in the proceedingsarbitration actlease agreementwritten statementcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenges an order passed by a Civil Judge dismissing the appellant's application under Section 34 of the same Act for staying a civil suit for recovery of rent in view of an arbitration clause in the underlying lease agreements. The core legal question is whether multiple adjournments granted for filing a written statement, coupled with the defendant's silence and failure to promptly invoke the arbitration clause before the trial court until its right to file a written statement was struck off, constitute a 'step in the proceedings' or an unequivocal submission to the court's jurisdiction, thereby disentitling the party to a stay under Section 34. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a defendant seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement must act with utmost promptitude at the earliest opportunity. Failing to do so and allowing the matter to be adjourned on multiple occasions for a written statement indicates acquiescence to the court's jurisdiction and amounts to a step in the proceedings, barring relief under Section 34.

  Questions settled

  • Whether obtaining multiple adjournments for filing a written statement without invoking an arbitration clause constitutes a step in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can a defendant seek a stay of legal proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 after the right to file a written statement has been struck off by the trial court?
  • Does a distinction exist between an adjournment specifically requested by a defendant to file a written statement and an adjournment granted by the court in routine for the same purpose regarding the waiver of an arbitration right?
  Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Hyderabad Beverage2016 CLD 560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-09-26
  continuing guaranteedischarge of suretyvariance in terms of contractrescheduling of loanwaiver of surety rightsabortive variation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which had absolved the respondent-guarantor from his liability under section 133 of the Contract Act, 1872. The appellant-Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan had advanced a loan to the principal borrowers, secured by mortgage and a continuing guarantee executed by the respondent. Upon default, recovery proceedings ensued, during which settlement negotiations and rescheduling were attempted but ultimately failed and were withdrawn. The respondent-guarantor sought discharge under section 133 of the Contract Act, 1872, arguing that the variation in terms and reduction of liability discharged his suretyship. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether advance consent in a guarantee waives the surety's right to discharge upon variation and whether abortive settlement attempts alter the surety's liability. The Court held that prior consent and wide terms in a continuing guarantee allowing for rescheduling, time extensions, or compromises bind the surety, and that an abortive or unaccepted variation does not discharge the guarantor, relegating parties to their original positions. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' orders and dismissing the respondent's application.

  Questions settled

  • Does prior consent in a continuing guarantee permitting time extensions and compositions prevent the discharge of a surety under Section 133 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Whether an abortive or unaccepted incentive package offered to the principal debtor absolves the guarantor of original contracted liability?
  • Does the rescheduling of a loan or granting of concessions by a creditor amount to a material variation of the contract discharging the surety?
  Read full judgment →
• Indus Trading and Contracting Company. vs Collector of CustomsPTCL 2016 CL. 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-04
  regulatory dutycustoms duty exemptionstatutory interpretationconstitutional jurisdictionalternative remedyimport duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the imposition of regulatory duty on imported life-saving drugs that were otherwise exempt from customs duty under the Finance Act, 1995. The appellant challenged the levy of regulatory duty imposed via SRO No. 1050(1)/95, arguing that the exemption from customs duty precluded the imposition of any additional duty. The Supreme Court first addressed the procedural impropriety of bypassing special statutory forums in favor of constitutional petitions under Article 199, emphasizing that courts should relegate parties to available special remedies. On the merits, the Court held that regulatory duty under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, is a distinct category from statutory customs duty under Section 18(1). The Court affirmed that an exemption from statutory customs duty does not automatically extend to regulatory duty unless explicitly stated in the exemption notification. Consequently, the Federal Government retains the authority to impose regulatory duty on goods otherwise exempt from customs duty. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the chargeability of regulatory duty is independent of exemptions granted for statutory customs duty.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government impose regulatory duty on goods that are otherwise exempt from statutory customs duty?
  • Does an exemption from statutory customs duty automatically extend to regulatory duty?
  • Should the High Court entertain a constitutional petition under Article 199 when an adequate alternative remedy is available under a special law?
  • How is regulatory duty computed for goods that are otherwise free from customs duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Indus Trading and Contracting Company vs Collector of Customs2016 P.S.C. 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  regulatory dutycustoms dutyexemption notificationwrit jurisdictionalternative remedystatutory interpretationimport duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a petition against the imposition of regulatory duty on imported life-saving drugs. The core legal question was whether regulatory duty could be lawfully levied on goods that were otherwise exempt from statutory customs duty under the Finance Act, 1995. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that regulatory duty is a distinct category of duty separate from statutory customs duty. The Court established that an exemption from statutory customs duty under Section 18(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, does not automatically extend to regulatory duty imposed under Section 18(2) or 18(3), unless the exemption notification explicitly provides for such future coverage. Additionally, the Court emphasized that litigants must exhaust alternative remedies under special laws before invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as bypassing special forums undermines the legislative intent for expert-led dispute resolution. Finally, the Court clarified that regulatory duty on duty-free goods is computed based on the value determined under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969.

  Questions settled

  • Can regulatory duty be imposed on goods that are exempt from statutory customs duty?
  • Does an exemption from statutory customs duty automatically extend to regulatory duty?
  • Is the invocation of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 appropriate when an alternative remedy exists under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • How is regulatory duty computed for goods that are otherwise exempt from customs duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Indus Trading and Contracting Company vs Collector of Customs2016 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-04
  Regulatory dutyCustoms dutyExemptionConstitutional petitionAlternative remedyCustoms ActJurisdictionSubordinate legislationDuty-free imports
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerned the lawful imposition of regulatory duty on imported life-saving drugs, which were otherwise exempt from statutory customs duty under the Finance Act of 1995. The appellant challenged the levy, arguing that duty-free imports precluded any further duty imposition. The Supreme Court addressed two main issues: the permissibility of regulatory duty on customs duty-exempt goods and the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction when alternative remedies exist. The Court held that statutory customs duty under Section 18(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, and regulatory duty under Section 18(2) are distinct categories. Exemption from statutory customs duty does not automatically extend to regulatory duty unless explicitly stated. The Federal Government is empowered to impose regulatory duty even on goods free from statutory customs duty, with computation based on the goods' value under Section 25 of the Customs Act. The Court also reiterated that High Court jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution should not be invoked where an adequate alternative remedy under special law is available.

  Read full judgment →
• Independent Newspapers Corporation Private Limited and 5 others vs Century Publication (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others2016 CLC 1880 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-22
  Defamation Ordinance 2002rejection of plaintpecuniary jurisdictionexclusive jurisdictionspecial enactmentcivil procedureoriginal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications filed under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the rejection of plaints in defamation suits. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses original jurisdiction to entertain suits instituted under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, or if such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the District Court. The Court held that the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, is a special enactment. Section 13 of the Ordinance explicitly confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the District Court to try such cases. The Court determined that its own original civil jurisdiction cannot override this specific legislative mandate, regardless of the pecuniary value of the claim. Consequently, the Court ruled that the suits were filed in the wrong forum and ordered the return of the plaints for presentation before the appropriate District Court. The principle established is that special laws containing specific jurisdictional provisions override general provisions regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, and courts cannot create jurisdiction where the law has not conferred it.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have original jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002?
  • Does the pecuniary value of a defamation claim override the statutory requirement to file the suit in the District Court?
  • Is the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, considered a special law that excludes the jurisdiction of other courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd etc. vs Federation of Pakistan etc2016 LHC 3689 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-28Read full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Limited vs Ali Azmat and Mubashir2016 SHC · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-30
  rejection of plaintcause of actiondefamationlocus standispecific reliefinjunctiondeclaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the rejection of a plaint in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of damages filed by a media company concerning alleged defamatory statements made against one of its prominent television program hosts. The core legal question addressed by the court is whether a company has a cause of action or locus standi to maintain a defamation suit for remarks directed solely at an employee, and whether the suit is barred under the Defamation Ordinance 2002 and the Specific Relief Act 1877. The Sindh High Court held that the plaint failed to disclose any cause of action for the plaintiff company, as the alleged defamatory statements and consequent reputational injuries were directed entirely against the individual host who was not a party to the suit, rendering the action barred under Section 3 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 and Sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The court laid down the principle that a plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for defamation or seek declarations and injunctions regarding reputational injury suffered exclusively by a third party or employee, and that a plaint disclosing no personal cause of action or legal character must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

  Questions settled

  • Can a company maintain a defamation suit based on statements made exclusively against its employee or program host?
  • Whether a plaintiff can seek reliefs of declaration and injunction in favor of a third party who is not a party to the suit?
  • Does a plaint that fails to plead material facts regarding personal injury disclose a valid cause of action?
  • Is a suit for defamation barred when the plaintiff lacks the legal character or right in relation to the declaration sought under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan2016 PLD Sindh 11 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-04
  broadcasting licensePEMRAcable operatorsfreedom of speechconstitutional jurisdictionmedia regulationchannel positioningrestoration order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a private media company, filed several constitutional petitions seeking the implementation of a restoration order issued by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) on 20-06-2014. The petitioner alleged that despite the restoration of its broadcasting licenses, cable operators were obstructing transmissions or failing to restore its channels to their original positions (channel numbers) held prior to suspension. The respondents contended that 98% of operators had restored the channels and that no legal provision exists under the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, or PEMRA Rules, 2009, authorizing the regulator to mandate specific channel numbering. The High Court held that the dispute involved factual controversies requiring evidence, which is beyond the scope of Article 199 jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court found no statutory basis for the petitioner's claim to specific channel positions. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petitions by directing the petitioner to pursue its complaints before PEMRA, which was ordered to decide the matters through reasoned orders within a specified timeframe.

  Read full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation (Pvt) Ltd vs Pakistan Electronic Media2016 SHC 42 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Inayatullah Mugheri vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 386 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-09
  criminal appealocular evidencemedical corroborationrecovery of weaponsentence reductionmaterial contradictionsmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot, which convicted the appellant for murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the ocular evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction, whether alleged contradictions in witness statements warranted acquittal, and whether the appellant was entitled to a sentence reduction due to the duration of his incarceration. The Court held that the conviction was sound, as the ocular account was consistent, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by medical evidence regarding the fatal injury. The Court affirmed that minor contradictions do not qualify as material contradictions sufficient to discredit witnesses. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon, established under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, provided valid circumstantial evidence. The Court rejected the request for sentence reduction, noting that the trial court had already exercised leniency by not imposing the death penalty based on the appellant's age. The key principle laid down is that where ocular evidence is natural and consistent, it suffices for conviction, and sentence reduction requires specific legal grounds rather than merely the passage of time.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of minor contradictions in witness statements necessitate the acquittal of an accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence alone without corroborative evidence?
  • Is the passage of time in custody a sufficient ground for the reduction of a sentence for a murder conviction?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon during police custody constitute admissible circumstantial evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah and another vs The State and 2 others-2016 YLR 2020 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-19
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceabscondencemurder convictionappreciation of evidencereasonable doubtmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court for offences under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite significant evidentiary gaps. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The Court observed that the complainant, a key eyewitness, was abandoned, and the remaining ocular testimony was inconsistent with medical evidence and the site plan. Furthermore, the motive was disputed, and the delay in reporting was unexplained. The Court emphasized that medical evidence establishes the cause of death but not the identity of the assailant. It reaffirmed the cardinal principle that if any reasonable doubt arises, the benefit must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The Court also clarified that abscondence is only corroborative and cannot cure inherent defects in ocular testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to identify an assailant in a criminal trial?
  • Can the prosecution's abandonment of a star witness create reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused?
  • Is abscondence of an accused a substantive piece of evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • What is the legal effect of unexplained delay in lodging an FIR on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah and 2 others vs Government of Balochistan through Senior2016 YLR 1385 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-01-25Read full judgment →
• Inayat alias Inayatullah---Applicant vs The State2016 YLR 2629 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-16
  post-arrest bailmurdercommon intentionpolice investigation reportnon-bailable offencevicarious liabilityColumn II
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Inayat alias Inayatullah, who is charged with murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being nominated in a promptly lodged FIR with a specific role of firing, and whether the police's initial opinion finding the applicant innocent, by placing him in Column II of the challan, bound the court. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application. The court held that the police's opinion is not binding at the bail stage and that the FIR, supported by medical evidence and the recovery of empties, established a prima facie case of vicarious liability and common intention. The court affirmed the principle that there is no absolute right to bail in non-bailable offences, even if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, provided reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is guilty.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of the police regarding the innocence of an accused, as reflected in the challan, binding on the court at the bail stage?
  • Can an accused claim bail as a matter of right in a non-bailable offence that does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the presence of an accused in a promptly lodged FIR with a specific role of firing constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Inam Ullah Khan, Etc. vs Distt. Land Acquisition Collector/Distt2016 NLR Revenue 89 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Inam Ullah Khan vs The State2016 YLR 828 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-14Read full judgment →
• Inam Ullah Khan and 8 others vs District Land Acquisition2016 NLR Revenue 89, 2016 YLR 2432 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-22Read full judgment →
• Inam Akbar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others2016 PLD Lahore 553 · Lahore High Court
  Exit Control Listfreedom of movementfundamental rightsnon-speaking ordernatural justicewrit jurisdictionaudi alteram partemadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the placement of the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Ministry of Interior, which prevented him from traveling abroad. The core legal question was whether the state could restrict a citizen's freedom of movement through a non-speaking order lacking reasons, notice, or an opportunity for a hearing. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable as it was passed mechanically without applying a judicious mind. The Court ruled that administrative authorities must exercise their powers reasonably, fairly, and justly, as mandated by Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It further held that the fundamental right to travel cannot be curtailed based on mere suspicion or pending inquiries absent concrete evidence. Additionally, the Court established that where an administrative order fails to provide reasons, the existence of an alternate statutory remedy does not preclude the maintainability of a writ petition, as the lack of reasons renders such remedies ineffective. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the removal of the petitioner's name from the ECL.

  Questions settled

  • Does the placement of a person's name on the Exit Control List without providing reasons constitute a valid administrative order?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against an administrative order when the order fails to provide reasons, despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy?
  • Does the mere pendency of an inquiry against an individual justify the restriction of their fundamental right to travel abroad?
  • Is an administrative authority required to provide a prior notice and an opportunity of hearing before placing a citizen's name on the Exit Control List?
  Read full judgment →
• In-the-matter of Yousaf Weaving Mills Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In-the-matter Ishtiaq Textile Mills Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In-the matter of Punjab Oil Mills Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In THlE Matter of M/s. Sind Alkalis Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• In the-matter-of Suhail Jute Mills Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the ?matter of M/s Silver Star Insurance Company Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the mutter of Buraq Welfare Foundation vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the moiler of NI/s. Progressive Insurance Cnimpany Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter-of Fazal Textile Mills Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter Zahur Textile Mills Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the Matter qf Standard Insurance Company Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of: Service Industries Textiles Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of: M/s Quality Steel Works Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of: M/s Pakistan PVC Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of: Abdul Majeed, Seeking Insolvency Certificate vs Not2016 PLD Sindh 332 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-21Read full judgment →
• in the matter of Zillion Capital Securities (Pvt.) Limited, Broker Karachi StockSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Zillion Capital Securities (Pvt.) Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Zeal Pak Cement Factory Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Zahidjee Textile Mills Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Zafar Moti Capital Securities (Pvt.) Ltd. ("ZMCS") And ZafarSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2007-10-05Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Zafar Moti Capital Securities (Pvt.) Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Yusuf Textile Mills Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• in the matter of Y.H Securities (Private) Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Y. H. Securities (Private) Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Ws. Atlas Insurance Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of WS 11 asceb Wa gas Sugar mills Limited vs N/AReview Later · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Worldwide Securities (Pvt.) Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Worldwide Securities (Private) Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of World Wide Securities (Pvt.) Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of We Financial Services Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of We Financial Service Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Warid Telecom (Pvt) Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of vs NotAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Vision Commodities (Private) Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Usman Textile Mills Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of United Brands Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of United Bank Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Union Insurance Company. of Pakistan Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Union Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Union Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Unaico Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of UBL Fund Managers Limited (Ublfm) vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Trust Capital (Pvt.) Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Trainin & Lo istics Services PVC1 Ltd. vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Topline Securities (Private) Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Time Securities (Pvt.) Ltd. vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The Universal Insurance Company Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The United Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2001-01-26Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The Sheets (Private) Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company (Guarantee)Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The Pakistan General Insurance Company Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The Haseeh Waqas u arMillsLimited vs N/AReview Later · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The Haseeh Waqas Sugar Mills Limited vs N/AReview Later · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The General Tyre & Rubber Company of Pakistan LimitedSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The Crescent Textile Mills Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The Crescent Star Insurance Company Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The Credit Insurance Company Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The Credit Insurance Company Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of The Asian Mutual Insurance Company (Guarantee)Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of the Abolishment of Service Charges by the Lahore Stock Exchange (Guarantee) Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Taxila Engineering Company Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Taurus Securities Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Taurus Securities Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Takaful Pakistan Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2013-05-08Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Taj Textile Mills Limited vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Syeda Sitwat Mohsin, a more than ten percent shareholderSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Syeda Sitwat Mohsin, a Director of Mitchell's Fruit FarmsSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Syed Yawar Ali, Director of Safe Mix Concrete ProductsSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Syed Match Company Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Syed Khalid Siraj Subhani, Director of Engro FertilizersSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Surmawala Securities (Private) Limited vs N/ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →