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. 232,828 judgments in total.

• Mehtab Ahmed vs The State and others2015 YLR 1132 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-09-16
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayfair trialState-appointed counselfiduciary dutyhardened criminalright to defence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the ground of statutory delay under the 3rd Proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, having remained incarcerated for over four years without the trial being concluded. The core legal questions concerned whether the delay caused by counsel appointed by the court at State expense is attributable to the accused to forfeit statutory bail, and whether a mere charge for an offence punishable with death brings the accused within the exception of being a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal under the 4th Proviso. The Islamabad High Court held that an accused cannot be held responsible for delays occasioned by the non-appearance of a State-appointed counsel, as no free choice or control was exercised, creating a fiduciary duty on the State and the court to ensure effective representation. Furthermore, a mere charge for a capital offense does not suffice to classify an accused as a habitual or dangerous criminal. The court laid down the principle that acts or omissions of a State-appointed counsel do not prejudice the accused's statutory right to bail, and granted the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the delay caused by the non-appearance of a counsel appointed by the court at State expense is attributable to the accused for the purposes of denying statutory bail under the 3rd Proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a mere charge for an offence punishable with death bring an accused within the exception of being a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal under the 4th Proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as of right under the 3rd Proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when detained for a continuous period exceeding two years without conclusion of the trial, provided the delay is not occasioned by the accused?
  • Does the registration of multiple cases without a final conviction suffice to declare an accused a habitual offender under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehrban vs Ghulam Hassan2015 CLD 951 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-18Read full judgment →
• Mehrab Ali Lolai vs E.D.O Education Larkana and others2012 SHC 3 · Sindh High Court · 2012-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mehr Muhammad Hayat and others vs Tahir Hanif and others2015 YLR 789 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Khan and otherss vs Government of Balochistan and others2015 SCMR 1428, 2015 KLR S.C. 193, 2015 NLR Revenue 114, 2015 P.S.C. 1414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-05-27
  illegal allotmentcompulsory acquisitionpublic purposeQuetta Development Authoritystate landbail cancellationmisuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners assailed a High Court judgment that disposed of a constitution petition concerning the illegal allotment and subsequent transfer of unutilized state land acquired for a public purpose. The core legal questions involved whether state land acquired for a public project could be sold or leased to private individuals in violation of statutory frameworks, and whether the authorities possessed the legal competence to execute such transfers. The Supreme Court held that the land, having been acquired for a public purpose under the Balochistan Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1979 and reserved for future expansion, could not be alienated to private parties under the Quetta Development Authority Ordinance, 1978 or the Balochistan Land Lease Policy, 2000. The Court affirmed the cancellation of the illegal sale deeds and held that acquired land must be utilized for its designated public purpose and cannot be doled out through fraudulent machinations or misuse of public authority in violation of Article 24 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land acquired for a public purpose under the Balochistan Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1979 can be sold or leased to private individuals for commercial ventures?
  • Does the Quetta Development Authority have the legal competence to dispose of land without complying with mandatory statutory requirements such as public advertisement and offering a prior right to the original owners?
  • Whether state land falling within municipal limits reserved for public sector projects can be leased or alienated in contravention of the Balochistan Land Lease Policy, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Khan and Othersmir Maqbool Ahmed Lehrimir Muhammad2015 NLR Revenue 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-05-27
  compulsory acquisitionpublic purposeillegal allotmentQuetta Development AuthorityBaluchistan Land Lease Policyconstitutional petitionmisuse of authorityproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners assailed a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan that disposed of a constitutional petition concerning the disputed allotment and subsequent sale of a plot of land originally acquired by the Government of Baluchistan for a public purpose under the Baluchistan Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether state land acquired for a public purpose could be illegally transferred, leased, or sold to private individuals in violation of statutory provisions, the Quetta Development Authority Ordinance, 1978, the Baluchistan Land Lease Policy, 2000, and Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the transaction was tainted with fraud, misuse of authority, and blatant violations of mandatory statutory and constitutional requirements, as the land was reserved for public infrastructure and could not be alienated to private parties or front men. The court upheld the High Court's decision declaring the sale void, cancelling the title deeds, and dismissing the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether state land acquired for a public purpose under the Baluchistan Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1979 can be legally sold or leased to private individuals?
  • Does the Quetta Development Authority Ordinance, 1978 mandate public advertisement and a right of first refusal to the original owners before disposing of acquired land?
  • Whether an allotment of state land made in contravention of the Baluchistan Land Lease Policy, 2000 is void and illegal?
  • Does the unauthorized commercial sale of land acquired for public infrastructure violate Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Khan and others vs Government of Baluchistan and others2015 KLR S.C. 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-05-27
  land acquisitionillegal allotmentmisuse of authoritypublic landQuetta Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan regarding the disputed allotment and transfer of unutilized acquired land originally owned by the predecessor-in-interest of one of the petitioners and acquired under the Baluchistan Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1979, for constructing a bridge by the Quetta Development Authority. The core legal question concerned the legality of the subsequent sale and lease of the unutilized public land to a private respondent by public authorities without following statutory advertisement requirements or offering it back to the original owners. The Supreme Court examined the history of fraudulent allotments, misuse of authority by local government officials, and the lack of statutory compliance. The court held that the sale and allotment of the land were illegal, void, and executed in blatant violation of the law. The key principle laid down is that public land acquired for a specific public purpose cannot be arbitrarily disposed of or sold to private individuals without fulfilling mandatory statutory requirements such as public advertisement and offering the land to its original owners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unutilized land acquired for a public purpose can be sold to a private individual without public advertisement?
  • Does an authority have the power to lease out land belonging to another statutory body without proper legal title?
  • Whether an allotment of public land made through concealment of material facts and misuse of executive authority is sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Anwer, etc. vs Addl. District Judge, etc.2015 LHC 6565 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ali vs Mst. Saima Kanwal and another2015 CLC 1306 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ali and 3 others vs The State2015 MLD 1560 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-30
  blasphemycheatingbenefit of the doubtstandard of proofappellate jurisdictionacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals arising from a trial court judgment convicting the appellants under sections 419 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code while acquitting them of charges related to blasphemy. The prosecution case alleged that the appellants defrauded the complainant and prosecution witnesses of a large sum of money under the guise of spiritual healing and made derogatory religious claims amounting to blasphemy. The Lahore High Court examined the evidence and found the prosecution's narrative inherently contradictory, unnatural, and motivated by personal scores rather than genuine grievances. The Court emphasized that charges involving religious sensitivities require the highest standard of proof and stringent scrutiny from unimpeachable sources, as verbal accusations are easily fabricated. The Court held that when the primary charges of blasphemy fail due to untrustworthy evidence and malicious imputation, secondary convictions for cheating and impersonation cannot be sustained. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appellants' appeal, set aside their convictions, extended the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the complainant's appeal against their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether charges involving alleged contempt of religious beliefs must be scrutinized with utmost care and caution before a guilty verdict is returned?
  • Can a conviction under sections 419 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained once the primary charges of blasphemy and the credibility of prosecution witnesses collapse?
  • What standard of evidence is required in criminal cases involving sensitive religious accusations?
  • Under what circumstances is it improper for the prosecution or the court to examine an investigating officer as a court witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ali & 3 others Abdul Ghaffar vs The State. The State & 4 others2015 LHC 2772 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-30
  blasphemycriminal appealbenefit of doubtfraudadversarial systemcourt witnessacquittalevidence evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals arising from a trial court judgment that convicted the appellants for fraud under sections 419 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting them of blasphemy charges under sections 295-B, 295-C, and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and whether the acquittal on religious charges was justified. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was inherently contradictory and motivated by personal vendettas, noting that the complainant’s narrative regarding the alleged financial transactions and religious insults lacked credibility. The Court emphasized that in cases involving religious sensitivities, courts must exercise extreme caution, requiring evidence of the highest integrity, as verbal accusations are easily fabricated. Furthermore, the Court criticized the trial court’s procedural handling of witnesses, affirming that the adversarial system does not permit the prosecution to use court witnesses to gain unfair advantages. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants of all charges, extending them the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the complainant's appeal against the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the adversarial system of criminal justice permit the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness by having them declared a court witness?
  • What standard of proof is required for criminal charges involving religious contempt?
  • Can a conviction for fraud be sustained when the prosecution witnesses are found to have fabricated religious charges to settle personal scores?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Akhtar Maqbool vs Additional District Judge and 7 others2015 MLD 1127 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mehdi Khan vs The State and others2015 P Cr. L J 26 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-19
  criminal revisionconfrontation of witnessprevious statementcross-examinationimpeachment of credibilityQanun-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which declined the petitioner's request to confront a prosecution witness (the complainant) with his previous statement recorded during an earlier trial of the same case. The core legal question was whether the defence is entitled to confront a witness with a statement made in a previous judicial proceeding, particularly when the witness claims not to remember the prior statement. The Court held that the trial court erred in refusing the request. Relying on the principle that cross-examination is a vital tool for testing credibility and bringing true facts on record, the Court affirmed that under Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a witness may be confronted with any relevant previous statement, whether made in judicial, quasi-judicial, or other proceedings. The Court clarified that the defence is not restricted to the facts stated in the examination-in-chief and may use previous statements to impeach witness credibility, with the evidentiary value to be determined at the final judgment stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness be confronted with a previous statement made in an earlier trial during cross-examination?
  • Is the defence restricted to confronting a witness only regarding facts stated in the examination-in-chief?
  • Does the right to confront a witness under Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 extend to statements made in previous judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehdi Hassan and another Umar Hassan vs The State Mehdi Hassan, etc.2015 LHC 4114 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-02
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdying declarationocular accountconviction set asideappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302(b), 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular testimony, a dying declaration, and corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious infirmities, including the failure to recover the electric bulb used to establish identity, lack of weapon descriptions, conflicting police investigations declaring the accused innocent, and an uncertified dying declaration recorded without medical fitness verification. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of doubt, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that material omissions in investigating identification sources, lack of a medical fitness certificate for a dying declaration, and reasonable doubts regarding the prosecution narrative entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to take the light source into possession render the ocular account doubtful?
  • Is a dying declaration admissible without obtaining a formal certificate regarding the mental fitness of the deceased at the time of recording?
  • Can an accused be convicted when the police investigation finds him innocent and recovers no incriminating evidence?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right when the prosecution evidence is untrustworthy?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Elahi Sheikh vs Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 132 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2015-02-27
  judicial misconductbona fide mistakedisciplinary proceedingsservice tribunaljudicial immunityminor penaltynegligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a minor penalty of withholding two annual increments imposed on a former District & Sessions Judge for alleged negligence in judicial proceedings. The core legal question was whether a judicial officer could be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for an erroneous decision or negligence when the act was found to be bona fide and devoid of corruption or ulterior motive. The Tribunal held that an erroneous decision honestly arrived at in the exercise of judicial power does not constitute misconduct under the relevant service rules. The Tribunal reasoned that disciplinary action requires proof of willful abuse of office, corruption, or mala fide intent. Since the Inquiry Officer explicitly found the officer's actions were bona fide and lacked illegal gain, the charge of misconduct was not established. The Tribunal affirmed the principle that judicial functionaries are not liable for disciplinary action for mistakes committed in the course of adjudication when acting in good faith, and consequently set aside the impugned penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does an erroneous decision honestly arrived at by a judicial officer in the exercise of judicial power constitute misconduct?
  • Can a judicial officer be penalized for negligence if the action was performed in good faith without ulterior motive?
  • Does a single instance of incorrect behavior in judicial duties constitute sufficient grounds for a finding of inefficiency?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Alim The State vs The State and another Mehboob Alim2015 LHC 7973 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-27
  criminal appealreferee judgebenefit of doubtocular evidenceinjured witnessante-timed FIRfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was referred to a referee judge under Section 378 read with Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following a split decision by a Division Bench regarding the conviction of the appellant for double murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the ocular account, the authenticity of the First Information Report (FIR), and the validity of the motive. Upon independent assessment, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the FIR to be ante-timed, the ocular testimony inconsistent regarding the place of occurrence and lighting, and the motive unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the court emphasized that injured witnesses are not inherently truthful and that unexplained delays in recording statements are fatal to the prosecution's case. Applying the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a referee judge in a split decision have the authority to form an independent opinion on the evidence rather than merely agreeing with one of the previous judges?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness automatically credible, or does it require scrutiny with care and caution?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses by the police?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of abscondence when the substantive ocular evidence is disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali Joyo and 2 others vs Muzaffar Ali and 4 others2015 PLD Sindh 244 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali and another vs The State2015 MLD 183 · Sindh High Court · 2014-01-06
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailencroachmentstate landtentative assessmentprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from applications filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking suspension of sentence in appeals against conviction under the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010. The core legal question concerns the scope of Section 426 Cr.P.C. for sentence suspension and whether procedural irregularities in the trial warrant such relief. The Sindh High Court dismissed the applications, holding that the scope of sentence suspension under Section 426 Cr.P.C. is narrow, analogous to the parameters of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and is restricted to tentative assessment without engaging in deeper appreciation of evidence or examining the manner of trial at the suspension stage. The key principles laid down are that sentence suspension applications require evaluating available record evidence rather than trial procedure, and that the procedures under the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010, must be followed for unauthorized occupations on public lands.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal scope and parameter of an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible while deciding an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the manner of trial be considered while adjudicating an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Meharban and others vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  conscious possessionnarcotic substancescriminal appealburden of proofchemical examinersecret compartmentstransportation of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for transporting 230 kilograms of charas concealed in a truck. The core legal question was whether the appellants, who were not the owners of the vehicle, could be held criminally liable for 'conscious possession' of contraband hidden in secret compartments, and whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt despite significant evidentiary contradictions. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' guilt, noting multiple fatal flaws: unexplained delays in sending samples to the chemical examiner in violation of Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001, and material contradictions regarding the recovery and weighing process. The Court laid down the principle that mere presence in a vehicle does not establish 'conscious possession' of contraband hidden in secret compartments; the prosecution must affirmatively prove the accused had knowledge of the illicit cargo, which was not established in this case. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an individual in a vehicle containing hidden contraband constitute 'conscious possession' under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending samples of recovered narcotics to the chemical examiner?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove that the accused had knowledge of contraband concealed in secret compartments of a vehicle they did not own?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehar Ali Dayo vs The Province of Sindh and 4 othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Meezan Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Facus Apparels (Pvt.) Ltd. and 6 others2015 YLR 241 · Sindh High Court · 2013-08-28Read full judgment →
• Meer Hassan (deceased) through his Legal Representative vs Hakeem2015 PLJ Lahore 171 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-27Read full judgment →
• Media Max (Pvt.) Ltd vs Ary Communication Pvt. Ltd. & anotherSindh High Court · -
  agency coupled with interestcontractual terminationinterim injunctioncommercial litigationappointment of receiverjudgment on admissioncontempt of courtaudit of accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  This commercial litigation involves three suits between Media Max (Pvt.) Ltd. and ARY Communication Ltd. regarding the termination of an agency agreement for airtime marketing. The core legal questions concerned whether the agency was "coupled with interest" under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, rendering it irrevocable, and whether the court should grant interim injunctions, appoint a receiver, or pass a preliminary decree based on alleged admissions. The Court held that the agency was not coupled with interest, as the mere prospect of earning a commission does not constitute a proprietary interest. Consequently, the Court dismissed the claim for a preliminary decree, finding no unequivocal admission, and rejected requests for a receiver. However, the Court confirmed existing interim orders requiring ARY to honor third-party contracts and deposit 15% agency commission with the Nazir, pending final adjudication. A Chartered Accountant was appointed to audit accounts to resolve the financial disputes. The Court established that while courts may vary injunctions based on new developments, they must do so based on evidence rather than sweeping allegations, and that contempt proceedings require specific, substantiated instances of willful disobedience.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prospect of earning an agency commission constitute an interest that renders an agency agreement irrevocable under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can a court pass a preliminary decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on an alleged admission that is not clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal?
  • Under what circumstances may a court appoint a receiver to manage accounts in a commercial dispute?
  • Is a court empowered to vary or discharge an interim injunction order if subsequent developments occur that have a material bearing on the substantive rights of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mecca Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs District Labour Officer, Ka Sur, Etc.s2015 NLR Labour 111 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-24
  constitutional petitiontermination from servicelabor inquiryjurisdictionindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the Petitioner, a private limited company, impugning the proceedings initiated by Respondents No. 1 and 2 on an application moved by Respondent No. 5 regarding his termination from service. The core legal question was whether Respondents No. 1 and 2 had the jurisdiction to initiate inquiry proceedings and entertain the grievance of a terminated employee against the management. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the matter was merely under inquiry by the official respondents and that the petition under constitutional jurisdiction was premature or unwarranted at this stage, leaving the parties to pursue remedies before the appropriate legal forums as per law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against pending inquiry proceedings initiated by labor authorities?
  • Do labor officers have jurisdiction to inquire into the termination of a company employee?
  • How must a worker bring a grievance regarding termination to the notice of the employer under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Ltd. through Attorney vs Muhammad Imran Bhatti and 2 Others2015 NLR Labour 151 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-18
  workman statusgrievance petitionIndustrial Relations Ordinance 2002constitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factmanagerial capacitygrievance notice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a bank, challenged the reinstatement of the respondent, a former employee, by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal questions were whether an employee holding the rank of Officer Grade-III qualifies as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, and whether the failure to issue a formal grievance notice renders a grievance petition non-maintainable. The Court held that the status of an employee is determined by the nature of duties performed rather than the designation or grade. Since the respondent performed manual and clerical tasks without managerial or administrative authority, he remained a 'workman.' Furthermore, the Court held that the issuance of a grievance notice is not a mandatory prerequisite that invalidates proceedings, especially when a departmental appeal has been filed. Finally, the Court affirmed that it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums in its constitutional jurisdiction absent established illegality. The key principle established is that the definition of 'workman' hinges on actual job functions, not hierarchical status, and procedural technicalities like grievance notices do not override substantive rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the designation or grade of an employee determine their status as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002?
  • Is the issuance of a formal grievance notice a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining a grievance petition before a Labour Court?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • What criteria define whether an employee is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity for the purpose of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 441 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-03Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Ltd. through Attorney vs Tariq Zameer Siddiqui and 2 others2015 PLC 207 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-13
  labour lawNIRC jurisdictionindividual grievancebanking establishmentworkmanprocedural forumconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a banking company, challenged an order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which directed that a dismissed employee's grievance petition be heard by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) rather than the Labour Court. The core legal question was whether the grievance of a workman employed by a banking establishment, which falls under the Federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012, should be adjudicated by the NIRC or by a provincial Labour Court under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court held that while the substantive rights of a workman under Standing Order 12(3) of the 1968 Ordinance remain intact, the procedural aspect regarding the forum for redress has shifted. Since the banking establishment is governed by the Federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012, the NIRC possesses the requisite jurisdiction to hear individual grievances. The Court affirmed that the existence of a substantive right and the forum for its enforcement are distinct, and matters falling under the Federal Act must be adjudicated by the NIRC, thereby dismissing the constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to hear individual grievances of workmen employed by banking establishments under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Is the forum for redress under Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, subject to change based on the applicable industrial relations legislation?
  • Are the substantive rights of a workman under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, affected by the change in the procedural forum for grievance adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Ltd. through Attorney vs Muhammad Imran Bhatti and 2 others2015 NLR Labour 151, 2015 PLC 82 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-18
  workerworkmangrievance petitionlabour court jurisdictionindustrial relations ordinancemanagerial capacityconstitutional petitionback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from the dismissal of respondent No. 1, an Officer Grade-III/Accountant at MCB Bank Limited, on allegations of embezzlement. Following an inquiry, he was dismissed, after which he filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court, which reinstated him with back benefits. This decision was upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, prompting the bank to file the instant petition. The core legal questions involved whether an Officer Grade-III qualifies as a 'worker' or 'workman' under labour laws, whether a pre-litigation grievance notice is mandatory, and whether concurrent factual findings can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that the status of an employee depends on the actual duties performed rather than their designation or grade; since respondent No. 1 performed clerical and manual duties without managerial or administrative powers, he remained a workman. Furthermore, the court held that the use of the word 'may' in section 46 makes a grievance notice directory or satisfiable through alternative representations like a departmental appeal, and that concurrent factual findings regarding the lack of proof of embezzlement cannot be disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee holding the designation of an Officer Grade-III in a bank falls within the definition of a worker or workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002?
  • Does the status of a worker or workman depend upon the designation and grade of the employee or upon the actual nature of the duties performed by him?
  • Is the issuance of a pre-litigation grievance notice mandatory under section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 before approaching a Labour Court?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Iqbal vs The State2015 MLD 728 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-12
  capital punishmentidentification paradedelayed FIRocular evidencechance witnessforensic evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of the complainant, the failure of the sole injured witness to support the prosecution, and material deficiencies in the identification parade. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court emphasized that the identification parade lacked credibility due to prior media exposure of the accused and procedural irregularities. Furthermore, the court noted that the ocular account was provided by chance witnesses whose testimonies were inconsistent, and the forensic evidence was compromised by the delayed submission of crime empties to the laboratory. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that in capital cases, conviction cannot rest on weak, uncorroborated evidence where the investigation is riddled with significant lacunae and procedural failures.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prior display of an accused in the media before a test identification parade render the identification evidence inadmissible?
  • Can a conviction for a capital offence be sustained solely on the testimony of chance witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR when the distance between the crime scene and police station is minimal?
  • Does the retention of crime empties in the police station for an extended period before forensic analysis destroy their evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ilahi vs Lahore High Court through Registrar2015 PLC (C.S.) 342 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2014-05-16
  probationary periodtermination of servicejudicial officerreporting officerannual confidential reportright to hearingreinstatementback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, challenged his termination order passed during his probationary period. The core legal question was whether the competent authority could terminate a probationer without recording reasons or providing an opportunity of hearing, despite a clause in the appointment letter allowing termination without reason, and while ignoring positive performance reports from his reporting officer. The Tribunal held that such an appointment clause does not grant unfettered discretion to terminate without material on record. The Court emphasized that when a termination is challenged, the authority must produce relevant material justifying the decision. Furthermore, the Court held that the evaluation of a subordinate by a reporting officer should be accepted unless mala fide is alleged and proved. By ignoring positive reports from the District and Sessions Judge, the authority acted without legal justification. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the termination order and directed the appellant's reinstatement, leaving the issue of back benefits to be determined based on whether the appellant was gainfully employed during the intervening period.

  Questions settled

  • Does a clause in an appointment letter allowing termination without assigning reasons grant the authority unfettered power to terminate a probationer without supporting material?
  • Is the competent authority required to provide an opportunity of hearing before terminating a judicial officer during the probationary period?
  • Should the evaluation of a subordinate by a reporting officer be accepted in the absence of proven mala fide?
  • Can a termination order be sustained if the authority fails to produce material on record justifying the decision upon challenge?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Iftikhar and others vs Shahbaz Latif and others2015 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-09-22
  sentence remissionNational Accountability Ordinanceconstitutional validityper incuriamfundamental rightsdiscriminatory legislationprecedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the entitlement of prisoners convicted under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to sentence remissions, specifically addressing the validity of Section 10(d) of the Ordinance, which prohibits such remissions. The core legal question is whether the statutory prohibition on remissions for these convicts remains enforceable or if it was rendered void by judicial precedent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court of Sindh, in the case of Saleem Raza v. The State, had correctly declared Section 10(d) of the Ordinance as ultra vires the Constitution for being discriminatory, a decision that attained finality. The Court clarified that its subsequent decision in Nazar Hussain v. The State endorsed this position, effectively overruling contrary observations made in Shah Hussain v. The State, which were deemed per incuriam. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, ruling that the statutory bar on remissions for convicts under the Ordinance is void under Article 8(1) of the Constitution, thereby entitling such convicts to remissions.

  Questions settled

  • Is Section 10(d) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which prohibits remissions for convicts, constitutionally valid?
  • Does the judgment in Nazar Hussain v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 1021) override the observations made in Shah Hussain v. The State (PLD 2009 SC 460) regarding remissions for NAB convicts?
  • Are convicts under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 entitled to remissions in their sentences?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Gilani vs Registrar Lahore High Court, Lahore and another2015 PLC (C.S.) 678 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2014-07-04
  termination of serviceprobationeradverse remarkscivil judgesubordinate judiciarynatural justicereinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act 1991 was filed against the termination of the appellant's services as a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate during his extended period of probation under Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974. The termination was based on a single adverse report by one Reporting Officer who alleged that the appellant was corrupt by instinct, despite five other Reporting Officers declaring him honest, hardworking, and fit for retention. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had otherwise been conferred powers of Civil Judge 2nd Class during the pendency of his representation against the adverse remarks, and no concrete evidence or instances were produced to substantiate the serious allegation of corruption. The Tribunal held that the opinion of a single Reporting Officer could not be given preference over five unblemished reports without a detailed inquiry, especially where allegations of mala fide were raised. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the termination order, and ordered the appellant's reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a probationer's services be terminated based on a single adverse report when multiple other reporting officers have declared his service unblemished?
  • Whether an allegation of being corrupt by instinct against a judicial officer can be sustained without concrete evidence or a detailed inquiry?
  • Does the conferment of higher judicial powers during the pendency of representation against adverse remarks indicate an otherwise satisfactory service record?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali Qureshi vs Additional District Judge, Multan and others2015 PLJ Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Abbas Shah vs Secretary Agricultureal, etc2015 C.L.R. 132 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-13
  writ jurisdictionstatutory bodyservice rulesPunjab Seed Corporationshow-cause noticemaster and servanttransfer order
  Summary & questions settled

  These intra-court appeals arose from the dismissal of writ petitions challenging a transfer order and a show-cause notice issued by the Punjab Seed Corporation. The core legal question was whether the Corporation constitutes a statutory body with statutory rules, thereby making its service matters amenable to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the Corporation, established under the Punjab Seed Corporation Act, 1976, performs state functions and operates under rules framed pursuant to Section 24 of said Act, which were duly gazetted, thus rendering them statutory in nature. Consequently, the writ petitions were deemed maintainable. However, on merits, the Court dismissed the appeals, holding that a show-cause notice is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and that an employee possesses no vested right to a specific place of posting. The key principle laid down is that while service matters of statutory bodies governed by statutory rules are subject to judicial review, routine administrative actions like show-cause notices and transfers generally do not justify interference under writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Punjab Seed Corporation a statutory body whose service rules are statutory in nature?
  • Can a show-cause notice be challenged in writ jurisdiction?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to remain posted at a particular place?
  • Are service matters of the Punjab Seed Corporation amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Abbas Shah vs Managing Director, Punjab Seed Corporation2015 KLR Labour & Service Cases 99, 2015 C.L.R. 612 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-30
  constitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunalstatutory corporation employeePEEDA Actremoval from servicebar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant writ petition was filed against an order imposing the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in respect of an employee of a statutory corporation aggrieved by a departmental penalty relating to service matters, despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution and the availability of an alternative remedy before the Service Tribunal under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The court held that the petition was not maintainable as Article 212 places a specific bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court regarding terms and conditions of service, and corporation employees governed by the PEEDA Act must seek their remedy before the appropriate Service Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in matters pertaining to service disputes and disciplinary actions against employees of statutory corporations where statutory service tribunals have jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution bar the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters of statutory corporation employees proceeded against under the PEEDA Act, 2006?
  • Whether an employee aggrieved by a departmental penalty of removal from service under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 can invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals filed by employees of statutory corporations aggrieved by final departmental orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Abbas Shah vs Managing Director Punjab Seed Corporation2015 PLC (C.S.) 1440 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-30
  withheld salaryservice benefitsdepartmental proceedingscivil servanttermination of servicemedical expensesarrears
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by an employee of the Punjab Seed Corporation seeking the release of withheld salary, service benefits, annual bonus, and medical expenses. The petitioner alleged that his salary and benefits were withheld by the respondents starting from December 2013, despite his continued employment until his termination on May 19, 2014. The core legal question was whether an employer could withhold the salary and benefits of an employee during the pendency of departmental proceedings or prior to the formal termination of service. The Court held that there is no legal justification for withholding the salary of a civil servant during the pendency of departmental proceedings. The Court affirmed that an employee remains entitled to all salaries, service benefits, annual bonuses, and medical expenses up to the date of their formal termination from service. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to calculate and pay all arrears, including salary, benefits, bonus, and medical allowances, to the petitioner within thirty days.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer withhold the salary and benefits of an employee during the pendency of departmental proceedings?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to salary and service benefits up to the date of formal termination of service?
  • Does the pendency of departmental proceedings justify the non-payment of medical expenses and bonuses to an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Abbas Shah vs M.D. Punjab Seed Corporation2015 PLC (C.S.) 1290 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-01
  constitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicebar of jurisdictionremoval from servicestatutory corporationService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the order of removal from service passed against him under Section 4 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 by the Punjab Seed Corporation. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition in view of the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution and the availability of an alternative remedy before the Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The Court held that since the petitioner was an employee of a statutory corporation proceeded against under the PEEDA Act, 2006, and the matter pertained to the terms and conditions of his service, Article 212 of the Constitution barred the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, leaving the petitioner to approach the Punjab Service Tribunal with an observation regarding condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of employees proceeded against under the Punjab Employees Efficiency Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  • Does a corporation employee aggrieved by a departmental penalty of removal from service have an adequate remedy before the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be maintained against an order of removal from service passed by a statutory corporation?
  Read full judgment →
• MaulaBux Khatian vs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd & othersSindh High Court · -
  res judicatarejection of plaintservice benefitsdeputationpermanent inductionlacheslimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by the defendant, Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd (SSGC), seeking rejection of the plaintiff's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The plaintiff, a former employee of SSGC, sought recovery of retirement benefits for a period during which he served on deputation with the Federal Government and was subsequently permanently inducted into the Sindh Government service. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, given the plaintiff's previous litigation regarding his service status, and whether the claim was time-barred. The Court held that the plaintiff's prior successful litigation, which resulted in his permanent induction into the Sindh Government service with all consequential benefits, precluded him from claiming retirement dues from his former parent department, SSGC. The Court found that the plaintiff could not approbate and reprobate by accepting the benefits of permanent induction while simultaneously claiming retirement dues from his previous employer. Consequently, the Court rejected the plaint, ruling that the claim was barred by res judicata and laches.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to a suit where the plaintiff seeks service benefits from a parent department after having successfully litigated for permanent induction into a different government department?
  • Can a plaintiff claim retirement benefits from a previous employer after having been permanently absorbed into the service of a subsequent employer with all consequential benefits?
  • Does the doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevent a litigant from claiming benefits from a former employer after having secured permanent status elsewhere based on the same service history?
  Read full judgment →
• Matter regarding publishing/printing incorrect version of Section 23 ofK.L.R. 2015 Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  statutory publicationrule of lawPakistan Codeaccess to justiceconstitutional obligationlegislative disseminationadministrative negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the failure of Federal and Provincial governments to maintain and publish accurate, consolidated, and accessible versions of the laws of Pakistan, resulting in widespread legal uncertainty and erroneous private publications. The core legal question addressed is whether the state holds a mandatory obligation to provide the public with accurate, consolidated, and easily accessible statutes. The Court held that the state bears a primary, non-delegable responsibility to ensure that all applicable laws are readily available in both hard copy and digital formats. Finding the current state of statutory publication inadequate and detrimental to the administration of justice, the Court issued comprehensive directives. These mandate the Federation and Provinces to compile and publish official 'Codes' featuring alphabetical indices, cross-referencing, and amendment footnotes. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the absence of accurate, accessible statutes undermines the rule of law and contributes to lawlessness. Consequently, governments must implement regulatory regimes to ensure the accuracy of law publications and fulfill their constitutional obligations regarding the dissemination of laws in national and provincial languages.

  Questions settled

  • Does the state have a legal obligation to provide the public with an accurate and consolidated version of the laws?
  • Can the government be held responsible for the lack of accessible and error-free statutory publications?
  • Is there a constitutional requirement for the translation of laws into national and provincial languages?
  • Does the failure to provide accessible laws contribute to lawlessness?
  Read full judgment →
• Matloob Hussain etc. vs Alamgir etc.2015 LHC 8573 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-10
  specific performanceagreement to sellpardanashin ladyburden of proofinheritance propertydiscretionary reliefcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court judgment reversing the trial court's dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question concerns whether the plaintiffs successfully proved the execution of the agreement to sell, the payment of consideration, and the genuineness of the transaction involving a pardanashin female property owner who received the land through inheritance. The Lahore High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the genuineness of the agreement through concrete and unimpeachable evidence, noting material contradictions in the evidence, the absence of independent advice for the illiterate pardanashin lady, and suspicious circumstances surrounding the delayed filing of the suit after her death. The court laid down the principle that a decree for specific performance is a discretionary relief requiring strict and conscious judicial scrutiny of evidence, particularly where transactions involve vulnerable or pardanashin female relatives and male heirs attempting to retain inherited female property, placing a heavy burden on the beneficiary to prove free will, independent advice, and valid execution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether specific performance can be refused even if an agreement to sell is formally proved?
  • What standard of proof is required to establish an agreement to sell executed by an illiterate pardanashin lady?
  • Does a beneficiary of a transaction involving a pardanashin lady have to prove independent advice and free will?
  Read full judgment →
• Matloob Hussain and 6 others vs Alamgir and 2 others2015 LHC 8573, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1098 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mati ur Rehman - etc vs Muhammad Haroon - etc2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Mateen Kamal (Cr. Appeal 21/09) (2) Shamsur Rehman and AbdulSindh High Court · -
  recovery of charasconscious possessionnarcotic drugsstatutory presumptionsecret roomsearch warrantdirectory provisionscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two criminal appeals arising from a judgment of the Special Court-II (CNS), Karachi, which convicted the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, sentencing them to life imprisonment with a fine for the recovery of 1948 kilograms of charas. The prosecution case was built upon a raid conducted on a bungalow owned by the first appellant, where a massive quantity of narcotics was discovered concealed within a specially constructed secret room. The core legal questions involved the conscious possession of narcotics, the evidentiary value of statutory presumptions under section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and the effect of non-compliance with procedural provisions regarding search warrants. The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution successfully established physical custody and direct relation to the contraband, and that the statutory presumption shifted the burden to the accused to disprove conscious possession, which they failed to do. Furthermore, the court reiterated that provisions concerning search warrants in narcotic cases are directory rather than mandatory.

  Questions settled

  • Whether joint possession of narcotics can be established under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 without proving exclusive possession?
  • How does the statutory presumption under section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 shift the burden of proof regarding conscious possession onto the accused?
  • Does the non-compliance with procedural provisions relating to search warrants render a trial and conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 null and void?
  • Whether the owner of a premises can be held liable for narcotics recovered from a secret room constructed therein when failing to establish a valid tenancy or lack of knowledge?
  Read full judgment →
• Mat. Wahdul Mai vs Istrict Police Officer, Muzaffargarh, etc.K.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 46, 2015 PLJ Lahore 101 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mat. Noureen Nazim vs B.I.S.E'., Rawalpindi etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 726 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-12
  educational regulationsintermediate examinationpermissible chancesadministrative irregularitystudent disciplineBoard of Intermediate and Secondary Education
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi, to grant the appellant a fifth chance to pass her Intermediate examination. The appellant, having exhausted the four permissible chances under the Board's regulations, sought a special fifth chance, which was denied. The core legal question is whether a student is entitled to a fifth chance after exhausting the maximum permissible attempts prescribed by the Board's regulations, and whether the erroneous acceptance of an admission form by a Board employee creates a vested right to appear for an unauthorized examination. The Court held that students are strictly bound by the rules and regulations of the educational institution. It found that the appellant had exhausted all permissible chances and that the Board correctly withheld the result of the unauthorized fifth attempt. The Court affirmed the principle that educational institutions are governed by their established regulations, and no student can claim a right to additional chances beyond those prescribed, regardless of administrative irregularities.

  Questions settled

  • Is a student entitled to a special fifth chance to pass an examination after exhausting the maximum permissible chances prescribed by the Board's regulations?
  • Does the erroneous acceptance of an examination form by a Board employee create a legal right for a student to appear in an examination for which they are ineligible?
  • Are students bound by the rules and regulations of an educational institution regarding the number of attempts permitted to pass an examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Mat. Mumtaz Mai vs Sajjad Hussain and 4 others2015 PLJ Lahore 581 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-24Read full judgment →
• Masud Pervez Butt vs Sub-Registrar, etc2015 C.L.R. 501 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-09Read full judgment →
• Master Gul Hassan vs Government of Sindh through Home Secretary2015 PLD Sindh 226 · Sindh High Court · 2014-05-30
  review of criminal judgmentfunctus officioinherent powers of High Courtpolice reportquashing of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed seeking review and recall of an order passed by the High Court in a criminal matter that had set aside a magistrate's order accepting a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a High Court can review, alter, or recall its final judgment or order passed in criminal proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that once a judgment or order in a criminal case is signed, the court becomes functus officio and cannot alter or review the same, except to correct arithmetical or clerical errors as barred by Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, while inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exist to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, they do not permit a court to sit in appeal against its own order or review a decision rendered on merits, unless the order was passed without jurisdiction, without adjudication on merits, in violation of law, or obtained by fraud. The application was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court has the power to review or alter its final judgment or order passed in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction?
  • Does Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a court from altering or reviewing its signed judgment except for clerical or arithmetical errors?
  • Can the inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked by the High Court to review or recall a judgment passed on merits?
  • In what exceptional circumstances can a High Court recall or review its prior criminal order or judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mashooque Ali Mallah vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  illegal weapon possessionbenefit of doubtburden of proofrecovery witnessballistic reportcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for the alleged possession of an unlicensed Kalashnikov and ammunition. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's claims of fabrication and the lack of independent corroboration. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was highly doubtful due to significant evidentiary failures: the weapon was not sealed at the recovery site, it was not sent for ballistic analysis, and no independent public witnesses were associated with the recovery despite the incident occurring in a public street. Furthermore, the court noted material contradictions between the testimonies of the police officials regarding the manner of the weapon's concealment. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, reiterating the principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and that any reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to seal a recovered weapon at the spot and send it for ballistic analysis create a reasonable doubt in an arms possession case?
  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction for arms possession when the recovery occurs in a public place without independent witnesses?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused if they raise a specific plea of police fabrication?
  • Can a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Marvi through her father vs 1ST Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Dadu and 3 others2015 MLD 907 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-24Read full judgment →
• Maroof Hussain etc. vs State and others2015 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 72 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-12-30
  Qisasdying declarationabsconding convictconfirmation of sentenceinjured eyewitnesscommon intentioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns criminal appeals against a judgment of the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, which convicted Rukhsar Ahmed and Maroof Hussain for murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused through reliable ocular evidence, the admissibility and weight of a dying declaration, and whether a reference for the confirmation of a Qisas sentence can be decided against an absconding convict. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent injured eyewitness testimony, recovery of weapons, and a credible dying declaration. The Court affirmed that a dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence that does not require corroboration if found genuine. Furthermore, the Court held that an appellate court is competent to decide a reference for the confirmation of a death or Qisas sentence on merits even if the convict is an absconder, as the convict forfeits the right of audience. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the sentence of Qisas.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dying declaration a substantive piece of evidence that can be acted upon without corroboration?
  • Can a reference for the confirmation of a Qisas or death sentence be disposed of on merits if the convict is an absconder?
  • Who is competent to file an appeal in cases of Qisas and Hadood laws?
  • Does the law prescribe a specific mode for recording a dying declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• Mariam Bibi through Abida Parveen vs Naseer Ahmad and 2 others2015 PLD Lahore 336 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-23Read full judgment →
• Mari Gas Company Ltd vs Byco Petroleum Pakistan Ltd. & anotherSindh High Court · -
  Order 1 Rule 10 CPCnecessary partyproper partystriking off defendantmisjoinder of partiesdominus litiscivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by a proforma defendant seeking to be struck from the array of defendants in a suit for recovery and damages. The plaintiff had impleaded the applicant, claiming it was a necessary party due to its involvement in petroleum concessions and attendance at meetings regarding payment disputes. The core legal question was whether a party against whom no relief is claimed, and whose presence is not required for the effective adjudication of the suit, can be retained as a defendant. The Court held that the applicant was neither a necessary nor a proper party. It emphasized that a necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be made, while a proper party is one whose presence is required for complete adjudication. The Court established that the principle of dominus litis does not permit the unwarranted inclusion of parties. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, directing the removal of the proforma defendant, noting that such entities should be called as witnesses if necessary, rather than impleaded as defendants.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes a necessary party in a civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a party be struck out from a suit if no relief is claimed against them and they are not a necessary or proper party?
  • Does the principle of dominus litis allow a plaintiff to implead any party regardless of the necessity of their presence for adjudication?
  • Is a person who merely possesses relevant evidence a necessary party to a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Yameen vs R.P.O. Multan and others2015 P Cr. L J 923 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-29
  Joint Investigation TeamAnti-Terrorism Actstatutory authorityconstitutional petitioninvestigation proceduredelegation of powersmandatory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of orders issued by the Superintendent of Police (Investigation), Multan, which constituted Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) to investigate a case registered under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether a police officer, specifically the Superintendent of Police, possesses the statutory authority to constitute a JIT under Section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or if such power is exclusively vested in the Provincial Government. The Court held that the impugned orders were illegal and without lawful authority. It determined that Section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, mandates that only the Provincial Government—specifically the Home Department—has the authority to constitute a JIT. The Court established the principle that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act to be performed, it must be executed strictly in that manner. Consequently, the Court set aside the JIT constitution orders and directed that the investigation be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector or by a JIT lawfully constituted by the Government.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Superintendent of Police have the legal authority to constitute a Joint Investigation Team under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the power to constitute a Joint Investigation Team under Section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, exclusively vested in the Provincial Government?
  • What is the legal consequence of an investigation conducted by a Joint Investigation Team that was constituted by an unauthorized authority?
  • Does the failure to follow the specific procedure prescribed by a statute invalidate the action taken?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Alam vs Habib Bank Ltd. Etc.2015 LHC 3804 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-06Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Alam vs Habib Bank Ltd etc2015 LHC 3804, 2015 PLJ Lahore 823 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-06
  execution of decreeauction saleobjection petitionmaterial irregularitybanking courtCode of Civil Procedurefinancial institutions recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This Execution First Appeal challenges an order of the Banking Court, Bahawalpur, which dismissed the appellant’s objection petition regarding the auction of mortgaged property. The appellant sought to set aside the auction proceedings, alleging fraud and material irregularities, including lack of proper notice and failure to conduct a fresh valuation of the property. The core legal question was whether an objection petition filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or Rule 89, is maintainable without the objector first depositing the mandatory percentage of the sale amount or furnishing security. The Court held that the provisions of Order XXI Rules 89 and 90 are mandatory; an objection petition challenging an auction sale cannot be entertained unless the objector complies with the statutory requirement of depositing the specified amount or furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with these procedural prerequisites, affirming that the Court is barred from considering such objections absent the required deposit or security.

  Questions settled

  • Can an objection petition under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be entertained without the deposit of the mandatory amount or security?
  • Is the deposit of a percentage of the sale amount a mandatory prerequisite for challenging an auction sale under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to comply with the deposit requirements under Order XXI Rules 89 and 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render an objection petition non-maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs The State etc.2015 LHC 2785 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-21
  post-arrest bailsupplementary statementrule of consistencyfurther inquirycriminal conspiracyabetmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the FIR and was implicated via a supplementary statement recorded over two months after the incident without a specified source, was entitled to bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court reasoned that the supplementary statement lacked evidentiary value, and the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, as co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner’s case fell under the category of further inquiry, as the investigation was complete and the petitioner was a previous non-convict. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated through a supplementary statement without source, and co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail, the petitioner is entitled to bail under the rule of consistency.

  Questions settled

  • Does a supplementary statement recorded without a source provide a valid basis for implicating an accused in a criminal case?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the rule of consistency if co-accused with similar roles have already been granted bail?
  • Does the commencement of a trial constitute a valid ground to refuse bail to an accused who is otherwise entitled to it?
  • When does a criminal case qualify as one of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs StatePLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 563 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-19
  illegal gratificationtrap casebenefit of doubtanti-corruptioncriminal appealraiding partyevidentiary contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence presented. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by extending him the benefit of doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to material contradictions, including discrepancies regarding the date of the raid, the failure to mark currency notes, and the inability of the raiding party to observe or hear the alleged transaction. The Court reiterated the principle that in trap cases, it is essential for the raiding party to witness the conversation and the exchange of money to rule out the false implication of innocent individuals. The absence of independent witnesses in a busy location further undermined the prosecution's narrative.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary for the raiding party to witness the conversation between the complainant and the accused in a trap case to ensure a conviction?
  • Does a material discrepancy in the date of the raid proceedings between the prosecution's version and the Magistrate's testimony warrant acquittal?
  • Can a conviction for illegal gratification be sustained when the raiding party fails to observe the actual transaction of money?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs State, etcPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 395 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-16
  criminal appealpolice encounterunlawful assemblycommon objectbenefit of doubtmurderterrorismacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b), 324, 353, and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt, common object, and active participation in a police encounter resulting in the death of a constable, absent any specific overt acts, recoveries, or identification in the site plan. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that mere presence or association with members of an unlawful assembly is insufficient to establish criminal liability without proof of shared intention or knowledge, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. The key principle laid down is that criminal liability within an unlawful assembly requires evidence of a shared common object or individual overt acts, and the benefit of any reasonable doubt arising in the prosecution's case must invariably be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere presence or association with members of an unlawful assembly is sufficient to hold an accused criminally liable for offenses committed by others without proof of shared intent?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding their guilt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of any specific overt act attributed to the accused or evidence of a common object?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs Justice of Peace, etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 781 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-08Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain vs Muhammad Irshad AhmedDistrict Consumer Court · 2015-05-20Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Husain alias Jamala Dogar vs Federation of Pakistan2015 LHC 5353 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-20Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Associates (Pvt) Ltd vs Pakistan Power Park Management2015 MLD 1790 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-29
  public procurementwrit jurisdictiontender disputealternate remedymaintainabilityconstitutional petitionbid evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a public procurement process, seeking a declaration that the respondent’s bid was non-responsive and that the petitioner’s bid should be accepted. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to intervene in a tender process that had not yet concluded, particularly when the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory grievance redressal mechanisms. The Court held that the petition was premature and not maintainable. It emphasized that the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 provide a comprehensive mechanism for addressing bidder grievances, including the formation of a Complaint Redressal Committee. The Court affirmed that the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be invoked to bypass established statutory forums unless those remedies are shown to be inefficacious. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that parties must exhaust the prescribed administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention, thereby preventing the frustration of public procurement processes through premature litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge a tender process before the final bid evaluation report is issued?
  • Is the High Court obligated to exercise writ jurisdiction when a statutory grievance redressal mechanism exists under the Public Procurement Rules, 2004?
  • Does the existence of a Complaint Redressal Committee under the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 constitute an efficacious alternate remedy that bars a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Arshad @ Sajjad Hussain and another Ramzan @ Bali2015 LHC 2434 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-17
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtmaterial improvementprivate complaintocular evidencecommon intentionacquittal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, convicting the appellants for murder and attempt to murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence that had undergone material improvements in a private complaint filed months after the FIR, and whether the prosecution proved the appellants' common intention. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the complainant and injured witnesses had significantly improved their statements in the private complaint to implicate the appellants, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the medical evidence did not identify the assailants, and the recovery of weapons lacked forensic corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt. The Court also dismissed the complainant’s petition against the acquittal of co-accused, citing the presumption of double innocence. The principle laid down is that deliberate, dishonest improvements in witness testimony, particularly when made after significant delay, entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material improvement in a witness's statement, made after significant delay, render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal in the absence of perversity or arbitrariness?
  • Is the recovery of weapons of offence sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of positive forensic reports?
  • Does the benefit of doubt accrue to an accused as a matter of right or as a matter of grace?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool alias Qooli vs The State2015 MLD 525 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-03
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtlast seen evidencemedical evidenceacquittalsentence enhancementocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant, Maqbool alias Qooli, for the murder of Naeem Mehmood under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented, specifically the "last seen" testimony and the alleged motive. Upon review, the Lahore High Court found the prosecution's case significantly flawed. The court noted material contradictions between the ocular evidence and the medical report regarding the time of death and the nature of injuries. Furthermore, the court observed inconsistencies in the site plans and the witnesses' accounts of the occurrence, rendering the "last seen" evidence unreliable without independent corroboration. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Applying the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to provide consistent testimony regarding the time and circumstances of an occurrence create reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's version of the incident?
  • Is 'last seen' evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent and strong corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of material contradictions in site plans and witness statements on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 192 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-26
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfirearm injuryfurther inquirymurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 358 dated 11.07.2013 registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Women Police Faisalabad. The core legal question involved was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of consistency with a co-accused who had already been granted bail, and whether his case fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail on the rule of consistency, noting that the firearm injury attributed to him was on the non-vital part (right thigh) of a prosecution witness without any repetition, and no fatal injury was caused to the deceased. The Court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of evidence showing a case of further inquiry, combined with the rule of consistency regarding co-accused and the fact that conclusion of the trial is not in sight, justifies the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted bail?
  • Does causing a non-fatal injury to a witness on a non-vital part of the body without repetition bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the conclusion of the trial is not in sight and further detention serves no useful purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Mst. Safiya Bibi etc2015 LHC 1702 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-24Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Mst. Safiya Bibi and 2 others2015 PLD Lahore 683 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-24Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Haji Khushi Muhammad2015 LHC 3169 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-21Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Ali Muhammad Khan2015 LHC 5017 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-15Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and another vs Mst. Sardaran Bibi and another2015 PLJ Lahore 326 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-05Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ali Meeraci & others vs Muhammad Umar Mangsi & others.Sindh High Court · -
  civil revisionconcurrent findingssale deed cancellationfraudulent transferrevisional jurisdictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arises from concurrent findings of the lower courts whereby a suit for declaration, cancellation of a sale deed, and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against the applicants was decreed. The dispute pertained to agricultural land originally owned by the respondent's mother, who allegedly expired prior to the execution of a registered sale deed relied upon by the applicants. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found that the sale deed was fraudulent and executed after the death of the registered owner, and that the revenue mutation based thereon was delayed for decades. The High Court examined the evidence, noted that the concurrent findings of fact were neither arbitrary, perverse, nor suffering from any misreading of evidence, and reiterated the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Holding that High Courts cannot interfere with concurrent factual findings unless jurisdictional error or perversity is shown, the court dismissed the revision application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a registered sale deed shielded from scrutiny when its execution is specifically denied and proved to have been executed after the death of the purported executant?
  • What are the limited grounds for interfering with concurrent judgments of subordinate courts under revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Malik vs The State and another2015 KLR Criminal Cases 239 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-18
  pre-arrest bailmisuse of authorityanticorruptionprocedural lapsepublic servantbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, alleging misuse of authority by approving building maps without domain and failing to deposit the requisite conversion fee. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, considering the absence of any allegation of bribery, the documentary nature of the evidence, and potential ulterior motives for arrest. The Lahore High Court held that granting permission without authority, absent any illegal gain or gratification, may only amount to a procedural lapse best evaluated by the trial court after evidence, and that a Grade-18 officer facing documentary evidence was not at risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an allegation against a public servant involves potential procedural lapses without proof of illegal gratification, and evidence is documentary, pre-arrest bail should be confirmed to prevent humiliation and disgrace stemming from ulterior motives.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the allegations against a public servant involve a procedural lapse without any allegation of illegal gratification?
  • Does the absence of risk of absconding or tampering with documentary evidence justify confirming pre-arrest bail for a government officer?
  • Whether approval of building maps without proper domain amounts to an offence warranting the denial of pre-arrest bail under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzar vs Muhammad Iqbal and another2015 P Cr. L J 1458 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-18
  DiyatBadl-e-SulahCompromiseRetrospective punishmentQatl-i-AmdCriminal appealSentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against conviction and a revision petition for sentence enhancement in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the value of Diyat (blood money) payable in a compromise (Badl-e-Sulah) should be calculated based on the rate prevailing at the time of the offence or the time the compromise is effected. The Court held that the value of Diyat for Badl-e-Sulah must be determined based on the rate prevailing at the time the compromise is effected, not the time of the offence. The Court reasoned that Diyat in this context functions as a contractual substitute (Badl-e-Sulah) rather than a penal sanction. Consequently, applying the current notified value does not violate the protection against retrospective punishment under Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court accepted the compromise, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellant, while dismissing the revision petition for enhancement of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Should the value of Diyat in a compromise be determined based on the rate prevailing at the time of the offence or the time of the compromise?
  • Does the application of the current notified value of Diyat in a compromise violate the protection against retrospective punishment under Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is Diyat paid as Badl-e-Sulah considered a penalty or punishment under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzar Shah alias Manzar Hussain Naqvi vs Ch. Shafquat Hussain and 2 others2015 YLR 595 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-06
  ejectment petitionrelationship of landlord and tenantregistered sale deeddenial of tenancyconcurrent findingsconstitutional jurisdictiondefault in rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from an ejectment dispute where the respondent sought the eviction of the petitioner from a shop on the ground of default in rent and being the registered owner of the property. The petitioner contested the petition by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant, claiming instead that he was a tenant under the respondent's brother, who allegedly held title and to whom rent was being paid. The Rent Tribunal and the lower appellate court concurrently ruled in favour of the respondent, finding the relationship of landlord and tenant established and the denial by the petitioner to be contumacious. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the respondent proved his ownership through a registered sale deed from the original owner, whereas the rival brother held no title documents. The Court laid down that a tenant cannot deny the established title and tenancy of a landlord merely due to collateral civil litigation between rival family members, and that concurrent findings of fact by rent tribunals are immune from constitutional interference in the absence of gross illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can deny the relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of a pending civil dispute between rival claimants when the landlord holds a registered sale deed from the original owner?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the rent tribunals immune from interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a tenant's denial of tenancy become contumacious when the tenant fails to substantiate alternative tenancy and attempts to exploit inter-se family litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Sharif Hamid and others vs Shafique Rehman and others2015 SCMR 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-02-24
  amenity plot conversionhousing scheme layout planKarachi Development Authorityretrospective application of lawpublic interestvested rightsurban planning
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment declaring the relocation of an amenity plot in a private housing settlement as an illegal conversion under Article 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s 1987 layout plan, which relocated a clinic, violated statutory prohibitions on amenity plot conversion. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court incorrectly applied the 1994 amendment to the KDA Order retrospectively to a 1987 plan. The Court reasoned that the relocation occurred during the initial planning stage, before any third-party rights were established or the scheme was occupied, and did not reduce the total amenity area. The Court established that the strict enforcement of Article 52-A, designed to protect public interest and infrastructure in developed housing schemes, does not apply rigidly to layout plan amendments made during the embryonic planning stage where no public rights have vested and infrastructure capacity remains unaffected. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prohibition against converting amenity plots under Article 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957 apply retrospectively to layout plans approved before the 1994 amendment?
  • Can a landowner relocate an amenity plot within a private housing scheme during the planning stage without violating Article 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957?
  • Does the requirement for public notice and objection under Article 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957 apply to layout plan amendments made before any third-party rights are created or the scheme is occupied?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Sharif Hamid & others vs Shafique Rehman & others2015 SCMR 1172, 2015 PLJ SC 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-02-24
  amenity plotconversion of land uselayout planprivate housing schemeKarachi Development Authority Orderhigh-rise buildingthird-party rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenged the judgment of the High Court of Sindh which had declared the relocation of an amenity plot within a private housing settlement as an unlawful conversion contrary to Article 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957. The core legal question was whether the alteration and relocation of an amenity plot in a layout plan during the embryonic or planning stage of a private housing scheme, prior to public notification or the acquisition of third-party rights, attracts the strict procedural requirements and prohibitions regarding conversion of amenity plots. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the statutory restrictions on land conversion are intended to protect public interest and infrastructure when third-party rights or resident communities are affected. The Court laid down the principle that where the relocation of an amenity plot occurs at the planning or implementation stage before public use or the accrual of proprietary rights, and complies with land usage ratios without injuring public convenience, the strict procedural bars against conversion do not apply retrospectively or prematurely.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the relocation of an amenity plot within a private housing settlement during its planning stage constitutes an unlawful conversion under Article 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957?
  • Can the statutory prohibition against the conversion of amenity plots enacted in 1994 be applied retrospectively to layout plan alterations approved in 1987?
  • Do members of the public who acquire property in a neighboring scheme long after the approval of a layout plan have vested rights to challenge internal relocations made during the embryonic stage of a private settlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Sarwar Khan, vs Election Commission of Advocate Pakistan, etc.2015 LHC 4555 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-25Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Sarwar Khan, Advocate High Court, President Pakistan2015 LHC 4555, 2015 CLC 1477 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-25Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Khalil vs Muhammad Moizuddin and another2015 CLD 1535 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-29
  Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001auction proceedingsultra virespast and closed transactionmortgaged propertywrit of possessionbanking law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Banking Court granting a writ of possession for a mortgaged property auctioned under Section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001. The core legal question was whether the auction proceedings, which were initiated under a provision later declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court, constituted a "past and closed transaction" that remained valid despite the declaration. The Court held that the auction proceedings were not a past and closed transaction because the possession of the property had not been handed over to the auction purchaser. Consequently, the Court set aside the auction proceedings and the impugned order, ruling that the sale deed executed in favor of the respondent was cancelled. The key principle laid down is that for an auction under the now-defunct Section 15 to be considered a past and closed transaction, the process must have attained finality, meaning possession must have been delivered, sale proceeds adjusted, and sale deeds registered; otherwise, the auction is a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the declaration of Section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 as ultra vires apply to pending auction proceedings?
  • What constitutes a 'past and closed transaction' regarding auction proceedings under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001?
  • Can a writ of possession be issued for a property auctioned under Section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 if the auction process was not finalized?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Iqbal Muhammad Ramzan Shabbir Ahmad Rana Shahbaz Zafar2015 LHC 6077 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-20
  white collar crimepre-arrest bailbail cancellationpublic corruptionforgerycriminal conspiracystate land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail filed by individuals accused of orchestrating a fraudulent land transaction involving state land. The petitioners allegedly facilitated the mutation of 89 Kanals and 19 Marlas of state land in their favour based on a bogus sale deed, without proper verification or authorization. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the alleged 'white-collar' crime, which involved public servants and significant potential loss to the state. The Court held that the petitions should be dismissed, recalling the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that white-collar crimes, particularly those involving public functionaries and premeditated conspiracies to defraud the state, constitute offences against society as a whole. The key principle laid down is that in cases of white-collar crime involving public office, courts must exercise strict discretion regarding bail, even if the offence does not strictly fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure code, as such acts represent an exceptional circumstance warranting refusal of bail to protect the broader national interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be refused in cases of white-collar crime even if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the involvement of a public functionary in an offence against the state constitute an exceptional circumstance for the purpose of bail?
  • Is the absence of actual financial loss to the state a sufficient ground to grant bail in cases involving fraudulent mutation of state land?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ahmed Mughal---Decree Holder vs Noor Qadir Tawaqal and 3 others2015 CLD 1404 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ahmed Bajwa vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2015 KLR Labour & Service Cases 78 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-01-26Read full judgment →
• Manna N Feroz vs Shomaila2015 YLR 1235 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mandi Hassan alias Mehdi Hussain and another vs Muhammad Arif2015 NLR Civil 176, 2015 P.S.C. 676, 2015 PLD Supreme Court 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-11-17
  civil revisionnon-prosecutionrestoration applicationlimitation periodresiduary articleinherent jurisdictionSection 115 CPCArticle 181 Limitation Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether an application for the restoration of a civil revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution is governed by a specific 30-day limitation period or the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The appellants' civil revision was dismissed at the motion stage for non-prosecution, and their restoration application, filed after eight months, was dismissed by the High Court as time-barred. The Supreme Court clarified that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is a valuable right of an aggrieved party, not a mere privilege. It held that while the CPC lacks specific provisions for the dismissal and restoration of revisions (unlike suits or appeals), courts may exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to restore such matters. Consequently, as no specific Article in the Limitation Act applies to such applications, the residuary Article 181 applies, prescribing a three-year limitation period. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for a decision on the merits of the restoration application.

  Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Motels, PTDC and others vs Presiding Officer and others2015 PLC 166 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-19
  trans-provincial establishmentjurisdiction of labour courtNational Industrial Relations Commissionconstitutional petitionindustrial relationsreinstatementfunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Punjab Labour Court directing the implementation of a reinstatement and wage order in favor of an employee of Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation (PTDC). The core legal question was whether a Provincial Labour Court retained jurisdiction to entertain implementation or other proceedings regarding an employer with trans-provincial status after the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Lahore High Court held that once an employer operates establishments or branches in more than one province, the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) possesses exclusive jurisdiction over industrial disputes and related proceedings, rendering the Provincial Labour Court functus officio. The key principle laid down is that jurisdiction in such labor matters is determined by the trans-provincial status of the employer rather than the nature of the specific dispute or the interim/implementation character of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Provincial Labour Court retain jurisdiction to entertain implementation proceedings against an employer with trans-provincial operations after the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does the nature of the dispute or the status of the employer determine the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission over a provincial labour court?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order passed by a forum that has become coram non judice, despite the availability of an alternate remedy?
  • Does Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 bar Provincial Labour Courts from taking action in matters falling within the exclusive domain of the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Karachi Fish Harbour Authority vs M/s. Hussain (Pvt) LtdSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Manager ZTBL vs Jind Wadda2015 PLJ Lahore 602 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Tilla Muhammad vs Director General Excise & Taxation, Auqaf2015 PLJ Peshawar 442 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Tariq Mehmood. vs Regional Police Officer, Rawalpindi Region, Rawalpindi and anothers2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 194 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  service appealmajor penaltyregular inquiryprinciples of natural justiceshow-cause noticeforfeiture of serviceinefficiency
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, challenging the orders of the District Police Officer and the Regional Police Officer, which imposed a penalty of forfeiture of approved service for one year upon the appellant, a Sub-Inspector, for alleged inefficiency. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in a major penalty without a regular inquiry and considered performance metrics outside the scope of the original show-cause notice, were legally sustainable. The Tribunal held that the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the department failed to conduct a regular inquiry, which is a prerequisite for imposing a major penalty, and improperly considered performance data for September 2011 and past service records that were not mentioned in the initial show-cause notice. The Tribunal established that disciplinary actions based on arbitrary assessments without providing the accused a fair opportunity to defend against specific allegations are unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo proceedings in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular inquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006?
  • Can a disciplinary authority consider performance periods or service records not mentioned in the original show-cause notice when imposing a penalty?
  • Does the absence of specific guidelines for performance evaluation render a disciplinary punishment arbitrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Tahir Mehmood vs Not2015 CLC 1247 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-02-25Read full judgment →
• Malik Tahir Ayub through Special Attorney vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others2015 PLD Lahore 57 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-13
  dower recoveryspecial power of attorneyFamily Court jurisdictionstrict construction of power of attorneymatrimonial disputeexclusive jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, which had reversed the trial court's decision and decreed the respondent's suit for the recovery of dower (cash and gold ornaments). The core legal questions concerned whether the Family Court possessed jurisdiction over a dispute involving dower allegedly retrieved by the husband after payment, and whether a special power of attorney, limited to a dissolution of marriage suit, authorized an attorney to contest a separate suit for recovery of dower and maintenance. The High Court held that the Family Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over dower disputes, even if the dower was initially paid but subsequently retrieved by the husband. Furthermore, the Court held that a special power of attorney must be strictly construed; an attorney authorized only for a dissolution of marriage suit lacks the authority to file a written statement or represent the principal in a separate recovery suit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Family Court have exclusive jurisdiction over a dispute where dower was paid but subsequently retrieved by the husband?
  • Can a special power of attorney executed for a dissolution of marriage suit be used to contest a separate suit for the recovery of dower and maintenance?
  • Should a special power of attorney be construed strictly to include only the specific functions enumerated therein?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Sheraz Zafar vs The State, etc.2015 LHC 5882 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-04Read full judgment →
• Malik Qurban Ali son of Qurban Ali vs StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailacid throwingfurther inquiryexoneration by complainantanti-terrorismtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application arising from a case registered under section 324, PPC, later augmented with sections 336-B, 109, 34, PPC read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, regarding an acid-throwing incident. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail when his name was absent from the FIR and initial statements, and when the injured complainant herself filed affidavits and made statements before the court exonerating the applicant and expressing no objection to his release. The Sindh High Court held that the case against the applicant called for further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the lack of incriminating material, the omission of his name from the initial police report, and the categorical exoneration by the victim. The court laid down the principle that where an injured complainant voluntarily exonerates an accused person through affidavits and statements before the court, and no direct incriminating evidence connects the accused to the crime at the tentative assessment stage, the accused makes out a strong case for further inquiry and is entitled to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the injured complainant exonerates him through affidavits and statements before the court?
  • Does the absence of an accused person's name from the initial first information report constitute a ground for further inquiry under criminal procedure?
  • Whether bail can be granted when no direct incriminating material connects the accused to the alleged offense during the investigation stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Nasir Mehmood. vs District Transport Officer etc.2015 LHC 5247 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
• Malik Nasir Mehmood vs District Transport Officer, Multan and 32015 LHC 5247, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1086 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
• Malik Muzaffar Ahmed vs Majlis-e-llmi Society through Muhammad Zubair2015-SCP-139, 2016 P.S.C. 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-15
  pre-emptionstatutory interpretationlegislative intentcharitable propertyrejection of plaintdrafting omissionWaqf property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that rejected the appellant's plaint in a pre-emption matter. The core legal question was whether the omission of the word 'purchase' in Section 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, meant that property purchased for charitable or religious purposes was not exempt from the right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the omission was an inadvertent drafting error that, if read literally, would defeat the legislature's clear intent to protect such properties. Applying established canons of statutory interpretation, the Court held that it has the authority to supply such omissions to render a statute workable and sensible. Consequently, the Court ruled that the word 'purchase' must be read into Section 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The principle laid down is that courts may supply necessary words in a statute where a literal construction leads to absurdity or defeats the manifest purpose of the enactment, ensuring the law remains purpose-oriented and consistent with legislative intent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court supply an omitted word in a statute to give effect to the legislative intent?
  • Is property purchased for charitable or religious purposes exempt from the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  • Does the omission of the word 'purchase' in Section 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, render such property subject to pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Munir Ahmed vs Sardar Khair Muhammad Tajik and others2015 CLC 560 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30
  Civil RevisionPossession and Permanent InjunctionConcurrent FindingsJoint Family PropertyRevisional JurisdictionPleadings and EvidenceLease DeedTitle Dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for possession and permanent injunction regarding specific units within 'Kabir Building.' The core legal question was whether the petitioner established exclusive ownership and entitlement to possession based on a lease deed, despite claims of joint family property and lack of physical partition. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove title, noting that the lease deed was merely a paper transaction for tax purposes without physical possession. Furthermore, the court emphasized that evidence contradicting the pleadings is fatal to a case, and the petitioner failed to substantiate the existence of the specific property units claimed. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that mutation or lease entries alone do not confer title without proof of ownership, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' findings that the petitioner failed to establish his claim through either documentary or oral evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a lease deed or mutation entry alone confer title in the absence of physical possession or proof of ownership?
  • Is it permissible for a party to rely on evidence that contradicts their original pleadings?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be reversed under the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Mukhtar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Tariq vs Muhammad Hussain2015 PLJ Lahore 959 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-29
  promissory noterecovery suitrevenue stampscancellation of stampssummary suitevidence admissibilityex-parte proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a suit for recovery of Rs. 40,000 based on a promissory note filed under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court dismissed the suit, primarily citing technical defects regarding the non-cancellation of revenue stamps on the pronote and their placement on the reverse side. The core legal question was whether the failure to cancel revenue stamps on a promissory note constitutes a fatal defect that invalidates the instrument, particularly when no objection was raised during the tendering of evidence. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial court erred in its dismissal. The Court established the principle that an objection regarding the non-cancellation of adhesive stamps on a promissory note cannot be raised at a later stage if it was not contested when the document was initially tendered into evidence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the affixing of revenue stamps on the back of a promissory note does not constitute a legal defect, thereby decreeing the suit in favor of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can an objection regarding the non-cancellation of adhesive stamps on a promissory note be raised after the document has been tendered in evidence?
  • Does the affixing of revenue stamps on the back side of a promissory note constitute a legal defect?
  • Is a suit for recovery based on a promissory note maintainable if the revenue stamps were not cancelled at the time of execution?
  Read full judgment →