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. 233,147 judgments in total.

• Invest Capital Investment Bank Limited and anothers vs Messrs House2015 CLD 1828 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-29
  recovery of financebanking court jurisdictioncustomer and financial institutioncertificate of investmentmark-upprofit and loss sharingdevelopment financial institution
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 challenged a judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court in favor of the respondent for the recovery of mark-up. The core legal questions involved whether an investment transaction of lending surplus funds constitutes 'finance' creating a 'Customer' and 'Financial Institution' relationship under the 2001 Ordinance, and whether an investment bank could avoid paying promised mark-up under a profit and loss sharing agreement without adducing evidence of actual losses. The Sindh High Court held that the transaction amounted to 'finance' and that the appellant investment bank acted as a 'Customer' borrowing from a 'Financial Institution' (the respondent), and further held that the appellant failed to prove its plea of suffering losses. The court affirmed the decree, ruling that the suit was maintainable before the Banking Court and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investment transaction where surplus funds are lent to an investment bank constitute 'finance' under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Whether an investment bank borrowing money from a financial institution on a promised mark-up qualifies as a 'Customer' under section 2(c) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a party pleading losses under a profit and loss sharing agreement evade liability for mark-up without leading affirmative evidence to prove such losses?
  • Does a suit filed by a development financial institution for recovery of money lent to an investment bank fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Banking Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Intizar Hussain vs The State and another2015 MLD 1667 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-18
  post-arrest bailrobberyfurther inquiryrecovery memopolice custodycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Intizar Hussain, who was implicated in a case registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of his implication and the nature of the alleged recovery. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons with significant delay, and the petitioner was implicated via a supplementary statement months later. Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the recovery of Rs. 11,000, noting that the petitioner had been in police custody since his arrest, and the recovery memo failed to explain how the petitioner, while locked up, produced the money. The Court held that the prosecution's case against the petitioner required further inquiry. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that recoveries effected while an accused is in police custody without a clear explanation of the source or pointation are legally questionable and warrant further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the recovery of stolen property is allegedly made while the accused is already in police custody without explanation of the source?
  • Does the implication of an accused in a supplementary statement after a significant delay in the FIR warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Are recoveries admissible in evidence if they are not effected on the pointation of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Intikhab Alam vs (1) Tameer Bank (2) The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailfraudfurther inquiryprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustbank fraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant challenging the dismissal of his bail plea by the trial court in a case registered under sections 420 and 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, a former bank employee, was entitled to bail given the allegations of fraud involving bogus documents and artificial gold loans. The High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the applicant, employed as a Public Relation Officer, had no role in the loan approval process, and the FIR lacked specific particulars connecting him to the alleged fraud. Additionally, the court noted an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR and observed that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the court determined that the case required further inquiry as no incriminating material was available to connect the applicant to the crime, and thus granted the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the role of a Public Relation Officer in a bank inherently involve the processing of loan applications?
  • Is a case requiring further inquiry a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for granting bail?
  • When does an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall outside the prohibitory clause for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• International Islamic University, Islamabad and others vs Dr. Shameem2015 PLC (C.S.) 1336 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-07-09
  writ jurisdictiondefinition of personInternational Islamic Universitystatutory rulesaffairs of the federationconstitutional petitionintra court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by a larger bench of the Islamabad High Court addresses intra court appeals and writ petitions concerning the legal status of the International Islamic University, Islamabad, and whether it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the University constitutes a 'person' performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, and whether its rules and regulations are statutory in nature. The court held that the International Islamic University is a body corporate established under the International Islamic University Ordinance, 1985, possessing statutory rules and regulations, controlled substantially by the Federal Government through the President as Chancellor and the Board of Trustees, and financed largely through public funds. Consequently, the court ruled that the University qualifies as a 'person' under Article 199(5) of the Constitution and is fully amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with certain matters remanded for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the International Islamic University, Islamabad is a 'person' within the meaning of Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are the rules and regulations of the International Islamic University of a statutory nature?
  • Is the International Islamic University amenable to the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the International Islamic University perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation?
  Read full judgment →
• Intermarket Securities Limited: In the matter of vs Not2015 CLD 472 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2013-11-07Read full judgment →
• Institute of Islamic Culture. vs Board of Revenue & 2 others.2015 LHC 3080 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
• Institute of Cost and Management Accountants & others vs Ghulam Abbas2015 LHC 723 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-15Read full judgment →
• Institute for Development Studies and Practices, Quetta vs Government of Balochistan, Secretary Land Utilization_Senior Member Board of Revenue, Quetta2015 C.L.R. 205 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Inspector-General of Police, Punjab vs Tariq Mahmood2015 SCMR 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-04-25
  back benefitsreinstatementcivil servicehonourable acquittalgainful employmentdepartmental proceedingsservice tribunalpresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a challenge by the Inspector-General of Police against a Service Tribunal decision granting full back benefits to a reinstated police constable. The respondent had been dismissed in 1992 following a criminal case and absence from duty, but was reinstated in 2010 after his acquittal. The core legal question was whether a civil servant is entitled to back benefits for a prolonged period of removal if the department delayed the decision on his revision petition pending a criminal trial. The Supreme Court held that the grant of back benefits to a reinstated employee is the general rule, while denial is an exception requiring proof of gainful employment during the absence. The Court found that the department's decision to keep the revision petition pending for 17 years based on a criminal trial was legally flawed, as a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, the Court affirmed the respondent's entitlement to back benefits, excluding the initial four-month period of unauthorized absence, subject to a departmental inquiry regarding gainful employment.

  Read full judgment →
• Inhabitants of Village Battal through Legal Heirs vs District Judge, Muzaffarabad and another2015 CLC 253 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-12-06Read full judgment →
• Inhabitants of Village Battal through Gul Zaman & 4 others vs District2015 PLJ AJ&K 111 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Industrial Fabrication Company through M.D. vs Managing Director, Pak American Fertilizer Limited2015 PLD Supreme Court 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-12-11
  arbitration agreementfull and final settlementexisting disputeaccord and satisfactionarbitration clausecivil appealcontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for the appointment of an arbitrator. The appellant had entered into a contract with the respondent, which contained an arbitration clause. Following the completion of work, the appellant submitted a final bill and subsequently issued a letter accepting a specific payment as "full and final settlement" of all claims. The core legal question was whether an arbitration agreement remains enforceable when the underlying dispute has been resolved through such a settlement. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an existing, unresolved dispute is a sine qua non for invoking arbitration. Since the appellant had accepted the payment as a final settlement without contemporaneously challenging it on grounds like coercion or undue influence, no "existing dispute" remained. Consequently, the Court affirmed that where a contract is extinguished by a final settlement, the arbitration clause perishes, precluding a reference to arbitration. The Court emphasized that parties cannot invoke arbitration after accepting a final settlement without first setting that settlement aside.

  Questions settled

  • Is an existing, unresolved dispute a prerequisite for invoking the jurisdiction of a court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Does an arbitration clause in a contract survive if the parties have entered into a full and final settlement of all claims arising under that contract?
  • Can a party invoke an arbitration clause after accepting payment in full and final settlement of a contract without challenging the validity of that settlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Industrial Fabrication Company through Its M.D. vs Managing2015 NLR Civil 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  arbitration agreementfull and final settlementarbitrable disputeaccord and satisfactioncontractual disputeSection 20 Arbitration Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant, a contractor, sought to refer a payment dispute to arbitration, claiming illegal deductions under a contract dated 03.10.1996. The respondent contended that the dispute had been resolved through a letter dated 17.01.2000, which constituted a full and final settlement, and that the appellant had accepted payment accordingly. The core legal question was whether an existing, arbitrable dispute remained when the parties had previously reached a full and final settlement. The Supreme Court held that where a contract is extinguished by a subsequent settlement in full and final satisfaction, no arbitrable dispute remains. The court emphasized that an existing dispute is a sine qua non for invoking arbitration jurisdiction. Because the appellant had unequivocally accepted the settlement without contemporaneous protest or allegations of coercion in their initial application, the court found no valid dispute existed to warrant a reference to arbitration. Consequently, the High Court's dismissal of the application was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does a full and final settlement of claims under a contract extinguish the right to invoke an arbitration clause?
  • Is an existing dispute a necessary condition for a court to order the filing of an arbitration agreement under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can a party that has accepted payment in full and final settlement subsequently claim coercion to revive an arbitration dispute without having challenged the settlement in proper proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Industrial Fabrication Company thorugh its M.D. vs Managing2015 PLJ SC 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  arbitration agreementarbitration clauseaccord and satisfactionfull and final settlementexisting disputeSection 20 Arbitration Actcontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant sought to refer a contractual dispute to arbitration, despite having previously accepted a payment as "full and final settlement" of all claims. The core legal question was whether an arbitration agreement remains enforceable when the underlying dispute has been resolved through accord and satisfaction. The Supreme Court held that an existing, unresolved dispute is a sine qua non for invoking arbitration under Section 20. Finding that the appellant had unequivocally accepted the settlement and failed to challenge its validity or allege coercion in its initial application or prior correspondence, the Court concluded that no arbitrable dispute existed. The Court affirmed that where a contract is extinguished or a claim is fully settled, the arbitration clause perishes with the contract. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the principle that parties cannot invoke arbitration for claims already settled unless the settlement itself is validly contested in appropriate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is an existing, unresolved dispute a prerequisite for invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does an arbitration clause remain enforceable after the parties have reached a full and final settlement of their claims under the contract?
  • Can a party invoke an arbitration clause for a claim that has already been settled through accord and satisfaction without first challenging the validity of that settlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Hala Spinning Limited, Lahore2015 P.C.T.L.R. 639 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-11Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (IDBP) through Manager vs Crystal Chemicals Ltd. through Director and 4 others2015 CLD 263 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-09Read full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. through Attorney and anothers vs Prosecutor General, Quetta and 7 others2015 PLD Balochistan 54 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-12-30
  Constitutional petitionQuashment of FIRsMultiple trialsDouble jeopardySection 185 Cr.P.C.Jurisdiction of courtsConvenience of accusedAbuse of process of lawFreedom from repeated prosecutionFair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought the quashment or consolidation of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) and trials initiated against the petitioners across various courts for the same alleged offense of "Toheen-e-Ahl-e-Bait" during a morning show. The core legal question revolved around the interpretation of Section 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), specifically whether the principle of "earlier commencement" from subsection (2) applies to subsection (1), and the permissibility of multiple FIRs for a single incident. The Balochistan High Court held that Section 185(1) Cr.P.C., concerning courts subordinate to the same High Court, grants unfettered discretion, allowing consideration of general convenience and other reasons, not solely earlier commencement. It further ruled that multiple FIRs for the same incident constitute an abuse of process and violate constitutional rights against double jeopardy (Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 13). The Court partly allowed the petition, quashing proceedings in three specific FIRs (Crimes Nos. 3, 5, and 35 of 2014) to the extent of the petitioners, while allowing the trial in Crime No. 117 of 2014 before the Sessions Judge, Quetta, to proceed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of discretion of a High Court under Section 185(1) Cr.P.C. when deciding which of two or more subordinate courts should try an offense?
  • Can the principle of 'earlier commencement' from Section 185(2) Cr.P.C. be imported into Section 185(1) Cr.P.C.?
  • Are multiple FIRs permissible for the same incident under the same provisions of law against the same accused?
  • Does the registration of multiple FIRs for the same offense in different parts of the country constitute an abuse of the process of law?
  • Is the convenience of the accused a material consideration when determining the appropriate court for inquiry or trial under Section 185(1) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation (Private) Limited through Authorized2015 CLD 1448 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-19Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Mugheri vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencemedical corroborationrecovery of weaponidentification under torchlightminor contradictionsreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular and circumstantial evidence, identification under torchlight, corroboration by medical evidence, and whether grounds existed for reducing the sentence or acquitting the appellant. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses was consistent, confidence-inspiring, and fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of the crime weapon pursuant to Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court reaffirmed key principles that minor discrepancies do not amount to material contradictions, that the testimony of a real brother is unlikely to substitute an innocent person for the true culprit, and that a sentence other than death requires recorded reasons pursuant to Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses are sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  • Does the medical evidence successfully corroborate the ocular account when the weapon and the nature of the fatal injury match?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of direct evidence without corroborative evidence if the eye-witnesses are natural and confidence-inspiring?
  • Whether the recovery of a crime weapon pursuant to information given by an accused in police custody is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Abdali vs Director-General National Accountability2015 P Cr. L J 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-07-23
  post-arrest bailaccountability courtcorruption and corrupt practicesvoluntary returnconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, Managing Director of a partnership firm, seeking post-arrest bail in a reference pending before the Accountability Court involving allegations of corruption and corrupt practices regarding the rehabilitation of a road project. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail given the allegations of substandard construction, escalation of rates, and the fact that co-accused had made voluntary returns to the National Accountability Bureau. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a prima facie case existed against the petitioner connecting him to the alleged financial loss and corruption, particularly where co-accused project officials had accepted their guilt and deposited amounts via voluntary return. The court laid down the principle that while constitutional courts will not delve into technicalities of construction standards at the bail stage, tentative assessment of record disclosing complicity and voluntary return by co-accused disentitles an accused to bail in accountability cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when co-accused project officials have opted for voluntary return under accountability laws?
  • Can a constitutional court examine the technicalities of road construction standards during the adjudication of a bail petition?
  • Does a prima facie case of corruption disentitle a contractor to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah @ Zahid @ Farho Chandio vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  police encountercriminal appealbenefit of reasonable doubtanti-terrorismballistic expertcontradictory evidenceinjured witnessesarmed attack
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court Larkana convicting the appellant under sections 324, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question involves the reliability of the prosecution's case regarding a police encounter, the sufficiency of evidence, and the benefit of reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the manner of the incident beyond reasonable doubt, noting severe contradictions regarding the recovery of weapon empties, the absence of bullet marks on police vehicles despite heavy firing, and the lack of ballistic matching. The court laid down the principle that while FIRs in police-encounter cases play a pivotal role, the prosecution must still prove its case through consistent, logical, and unimpeachable evidence, and any reasonable doubt arising from structural flaws in the investigation warrants the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an FIR lodged by a police official in a police-encounter case hold a pivotal role compared to ordinary criminal cases?
  • Whether the absence of bullet marks on police vehicles and the disproportionate recovery of empty cartridges create a fatal dent in the prosecution's story?
  • Can mere presence of injuries on prosecution witnesses establish guilt when the overall manner of the incident defies logic and reason?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to send the allegedly recovered weapon and cartridges to a ballistic expert?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat-Ur-Rehman and anothers vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 1487 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-12
  territorial jurisdictionFIA jurisdictioncriminal trialpirated booksCopyright Ordinancequashment of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the quashment of orders passed by lower courts regarding territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases involving the sale of pirated books. The petitioners, accused of selling pirated books in District Swabi, argued that the Judicial Magistrate in Peshawar lacked the territorial jurisdiction to try the cases, asserting that jurisdiction lay with the courts in District Swabi. The core legal question was whether the Peshawar-based FIA Police Station and the corresponding Judicial Magistrate possessed the requisite territorial jurisdiction to try offenses committed in Swabi. The Court held that while Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally mandates that offenses be tried where committed, a specific notification issued by the Federal Government on 10-5-2006 explicitly designated the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director, FIA, Crime Circle, Peshawar, to include District Swabi. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Judicial Magistrate-VI, Peshawar, maintained lawful jurisdiction over the cases. The petitions were dismissed, confirming that the impugned orders of the lower courts were free from jurisdictional defect or illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Federal Government notification defining the jurisdiction of an FIA Police Station override the general rule of territorial jurisdiction under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Judicial Magistrate in Peshawar have jurisdiction to try offenses committed in District Swabi if the FIA Police Station in Peshawar is notified to cover that area?
  • Can a court dismiss a petition for quashment if the lower courts' concurrent findings on jurisdiction are legally sound?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ullah vs The State and another2015 P Cr. L J 1575 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-06
  conditional bailbail cancellationinherent jurisdictionSection 561-A CrPCdishonour of chequeabuse of processcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged a Judicial Magistrate's order cancelling the petitioner's bail in a case registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had been released on conditional bail pursuant to a compromise, but the bail was subsequently recalled after the petitioner failed to honor the underlying financial commitment. The core legal questions concerned the jurisdiction of a Judicial Magistrate to cancel bail under Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the validity of conditional bail based on settlement. The Court held that a Judicial Magistrate possesses the authority under Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to cancel bail. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that conditional bail granted upon an accused's own agreement is legally permissible. The Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, cannot be utilized to circumvent established legal procedures or to provide an alternative remedy where a specific statutory remedy exists. Consequently, the petition was dismissed due to the petitioner's conduct and the availability of alternative legal recourse.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Judicial Magistrate have the jurisdiction to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be released on conditional bail based on a compromise or settlement?
  • Can the inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to bypass the normal appellate or revisional procedure for bail cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat Bibi vs The State, etc.2015 LHC 7898 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-08
  criminal revisionsummoning orderprivate complaintmurder trialrevisional jurisdictionfrivolous complaintdelay in filing complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioner as an accused in a private complaint filed under sections 302, 448, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court should interfere in a summoning order passed by a trial court in a murder case where the petitioner alleged delay and mala fides. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court's order was neither perverse nor arbitrary. The Court emphasized that in criminal proceedings, especially murder cases involving family disputes, parties should be given an opportunity to prove their respective versions through evidence and cross-examination. The Court noted that the petitioner had bypassed the remedy available under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. It was further held that interference at the summoning stage would prematurely stifle proceedings, and that the trial court possesses sufficient powers under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to address false or frivolous complaints at the appropriate stage of acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court should interfere with a summoning order passed by a trial court in a murder case when the order is neither perverse nor arbitrary?
  • Can a trial court be deprived of its authority to consider evidence and determine the truth of a case by premature interference in the summoning process?
  • Does the trial court have the authority to compensate an accused and punish a complainant if a private complaint is found to be false or frivolous?
  • Is a delay in filing a private complaint a sufficient ground to quash the summoning order of the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Inamullah vs Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2015 PTD 2279 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2015-04-03Read full judgment →
• Inamullah Khan vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-14Read full judgment →
• Inam Ullah Zafar vs Orix Leasing Pakistan Limited through Attorney and another2015 CLD 249 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-22
  ex parte decreeBanking Courtpersonal guaranteeSection 12(2) CPCwant of jurisdictionfinancial institutionslease finance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Banking Court dismissing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, read with Section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001. The appellant, a personal guarantor for one of two lease agreements, was held jointly and severally liable for the total decretal amount in an ex parte judgment, despite having no privity to the second lease agreement. The core legal question was whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable in Banking Court proceedings to challenge a decree passed without jurisdiction regarding the extent of liability. The Court held that the Banking Court failed to determine the actual liability of the defendant, resulting in a decree passed without jurisdiction. The Court set aside the ex parte decree, emphasizing that Banking Courts must determine actual liability even in ex parte proceedings, and allowed the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, subject to the deposit of 50% of the decretal amount.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable against a judgment and decree passed by a Banking Court?
  • Does a Banking Court have an obligation to determine the actual liability of a defendant when passing an ex parte judgment and decree?
  • Can a judgment and decree be considered to have been passed without jurisdiction if the court fails to correctly assess the extent of a guarantor's liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Inam Ullah vs Bano2015 PLJ Lahore 965 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-20Read full judgment →
• Inam Ullah Khan. vs Aksa Solutions Development Services Pvt. Ltd. Etc.2019 CLD 355, 2015 IHC 41 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-11-30Read full judgment →
• Inam Plastic Store vs C.I.R, R.T.O., Sargodha2015 PTD (Trib.) 1614 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-03-24Read full judgment →
• In the matter ofShow Cause Notice No, 1(1) SMD/MSRD/C&Iw dated 3rd2015 CLD 433 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2013-11-20Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of vs Not2009-Comp. C-393 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2009-11-20Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan vs Not2008-Comp. C-373 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2008-12-04Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices No. 70 to 73 of/2009 Issued to (1)2010-Comp. C-73 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2010-03-19Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices No. 21 & 22/2010 Issued to M/s2010-Comp. C-109 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2010-06-16Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ahmed vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailextortionfurther inquirytentative assessmentdelay in FIRAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from the dismissal of the applicant's bail plea by the Anti-Terrorism Court regarding FIR No. 270/2012, involving charges of extortion and impersonation. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused, fraudulently obtained a SIM card in the name of the complainant's brother to issue threatening calls demanding extortion money. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to a business dispute, noting that no recovery of the incriminating mobile or SIM was made from him, and that the FIR suffered from an unexplained 11-day delay. The Court, upon tentative assessment, observed that the prosecution failed to produce substantial material directly connecting the applicant to the alleged crime, noting that the recovery was effected from co-accused and the complainant's brother did not initially report the incident. Holding that the prosecution's case was not free from doubt and that the matter required further inquiry, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution lacks direct evidence connecting an accused to the crime and the case rests on questionable circumstances, the matter warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of recovery of incriminating items from an accused justify the grant of bail when the case requires further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to provide substantial material directly connecting the accused to the alleged crime?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for considering a case as requiring further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices No. 20 of/2010 Issued to M/s2010-Comp. C-475 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2010-08-13Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices No. 18 & 19 of/2010 Issued to M/s2010-Comp. C-41 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2010-07-07Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices Issued to Wateen Telecom (Pvt.)2011-Comp. C-129 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2011-03-22Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices Issued to Urea Manufacturers2013-Comp. C-487 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2013-03-29Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices Issued to Pakistan Jute Mills2011-Comp. C-401 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2011-02-03Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices Issued to Paint Manufacturers2012-Comp. C-483 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2012-01-13Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices Issued to M/s. Engro Chemicals2009-Comp. C-101 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2009-12-04Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices Issued to Jamshoro Joint2009-Comp. C-245 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2009-10-28
  abuse of dominant positioncartelizationlimit pricingcompetition lawjurisdiction of regulatory bodiesprice fixinganti-competitive practicesLPG sector
  Summary & questions settled

  The Competition Commission of Pakistan initiated proceedings against Jamshoro Joint Venture Ltd (JJVL) and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Association of Pakistan (LPGAP) for alleged anti-competitive practices, specifically abuse of dominant position and cartelization in the LPG sector. The core legal questions involved the Commission's jurisdiction over the LPG sector, the constitutionality of the Competition Ordinance 2007, the validity of delegating enquiry powers, and whether the respondents engaged in prohibited price-fixing and exclusionary conduct. The Commission held that it possessed exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate anti-competitive conduct, overriding sector-specific regulators like OGRA. It found JJVL abused its dominant position through limit pricing to exclude importers and that LPGAP engaged in horizontal price-fixing. The Commission established that competition law is a special law that prevails over general regulatory statutes in matters of anti-competitive conduct, and that trade associations cannot engage in price-fixing or exclusionary practices under the guise of industry representation. Penalties were imposed on both entities to ensure market deterrence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Competition Commission of Pakistan have jurisdiction to investigate anti-competitive practices in a sector already regulated by a sector-specific authority like OGRA?
  • Can a special tribunal adjudicate upon the constitutional vires of the statute under which it is created?
  • Does the issuance of a show-cause notice by a regulatory body constitute an 'adverse action' requiring compliance with principles of natural justice at the enquiry stage?
  • Can the Competition Commission delegate its power to conduct enquiries and issue show-cause notices to its officers?
  Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices Issued to Engineering2013-Comp. C-389 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2013-03-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices Issued to Askari Bank Ltd, United2010-Comp. C-37 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2010-01-14Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices Issued to All Pakistan Cement2009-Comp. C-49 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2009-08-27
  cartelizationprohibited agreementquota fixationrelevant marketsuo motu proceedingssearch and seizurecontinuing breachpenalty on turnovercompetition law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves show cause proceedings initiated by the Competition Commission of Pakistan against the All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers' Association and twenty-one member undertakings for engaging in cartelization and anticompetitive practices through a marketing agreement fixing production and supply quotas to control market prices. The core legal questions revolved around whether the agreement constituted a prohibited agreement under Section 4 of the Competition Ordinance 2007, whether the Commission had powers to take suo motu notice and enter premises under Sections 30 and 34, and whether the Ordinance could apply retrospectively to an agreement executed before its promulgation. The Commission held that the undertakings engaged in a continuous prohibited agreement and horizontal cartelization restricting output and fixing prices, violating Section 4 of the Ordinance. The Commission laid down that cartel agreements continuing after the enactment of the Competition Ordinance 2007 constitute a continuous wrong subject to prospective penalties, that the Commission's power to enter and search premises under Section 34 does not require prior establishment of a prima facie case, and that an association and its members facilitating market-sharing quotas are liable for anticompetitive practices.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement executed prior to the promulgation of the Competition Ordinance 2007 can be regulated as a prohibited agreement if it continues to remain in force and is implemented afterwards?
  • Does Section 34 of the Competition Ordinance 2007 require the Commission to establish a prima facie case before authorizing an officer to enter and search premises?
  • Whether the Competition Commission is legally required to conduct a formal inquiry under Section 37 as a mandatory prerequisite to initiating proceedings under Section 30 of the Competition Ordinance 2007?
  • Can members of a trade association be held liable for an anticompetitive agreement concluded by the association when they participate in or acquiesce to its implementation?
  Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notices Issued to 1-Link Guarantee Ltd2012-Comp. C-17 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2012-06-12Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notice Issued Toi M/s Indus Motor2013-Comp. C-197 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2013-11-08Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notice Issued to Pakistan Vanaspati2011-Comp. C-425 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2011-06-30Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notice Issued to Pakistan Ship's2011-Comp. C-413 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2011-03-25Read full judgment →
• In The Matter Of Show Cause Notice Issued To M/s. Pakistan Poultry2010-Comp. C-405 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2010-08-16Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Show Cause Notice issued to M/s. Cinepax Limited vs Not2011-Comp. C-61 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2011-03-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notice Issued to Institute of Chartered2013-Comp. C-185 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2013-01-10Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notice Issued to Engro Vopak Terminal2011-Comp. C-441 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2011-06-29Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show Cause Notice dated April 10, 2008 for Violation of Section 3 of the Competition Ordinance, 2007 M_S Karachi Stock Exchange (Guarantee) Limited vs Not2009-Comp. C-233 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2009-05-29Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Show cause notice dated 24 December 2007 for Violation2008-Comp. C-385 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2008-02-21Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Show Cause issued to M/s. Rits Incorporation vs Not2011-Comp. C-133 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2011-05-11Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Proceedings under Section 30 of the Competition2013-Comp. C-189 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2013-04-30Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Polyester Staple Fibre Companies vs Not2008-Comp. C-453 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2008-06-10Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Pakistan Steel Mill vs Not2010-Comp. C-417 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2010-03-22Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Pakistan International Airlines vs N/A2009-Comp. C-397 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2009-12-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Notice of Hearing Issued to Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Private) Limited & Public Notice vs Not2010-Comp. C-137 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2010-02-12Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Yousaf Weaving Mills Limited vs Not2006-Comp. C-349 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-11-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Universal Tobacco Co. (Pvt.) Limited vs Not2007-Comp. C-345 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2007-05-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Unilever Pakistan Ltd & M/s. Dalda Foods (Pvt) Limited vs Not2006-Comp. C-77 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-12-19Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Tharparkar Sugar Mills Limited vs Not2006-Comp. C-479 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-09-11Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Ltd vs N/A2006-Comp. C-471 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-07-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Siza International (Pvt) Limited vs Not2006-Comp. C-341 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-12-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Sindh Abadgar's Sugar Mills Ltd vs Not2006-Comp. C-449 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-07-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Shahtai Sugar Mills Ltd vs N/A2006-Comp. C-445 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-07-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Service Industries Textiles Ltd vs Not2006-Comp. C-337 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asma vs Hirad Ali and 2 others2015 CLC 1202 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-02-19
  family lawdissolution of marriagekhularecovery of dowryappreciation of evidenceburden of proofgold ornaments
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Swabi, which reversed the trial court's findings regarding the recovery of gold ornaments in a family suit. The petitioner had filed for dissolution of marriage via khula, maintenance, and recovery of dowry. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, upon leaving the respondent's house, had taken 1.5 tolas of gold ornaments with her, thereby entitling the respondent to their recovery. The High Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the petitioner denied taking the gold during cross-examination, and the respondent's witnesses failed to establish a credible nexus between the specific gold ornaments allegedly taken and the gold ornaments claimed by the respondent. The Court held that the appellate court erred in its appreciation of evidence, as the respondent failed to prove that the ornaments the petitioner was wearing were the specific items claimed. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment, restoring the trial court's original decree, establishing that a claim for recovery of dowry items requires specific, corroborated evidence to prove the identity and possession of the disputed articles.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on the husband to establish that the wife took specific gold ornaments when leaving the marital home?
  • Can an appellate court reverse a trial court's finding on a factual issue regarding dowry recovery without sufficient evidence on record?
  • Is a general claim of gold ornaments sufficient to warrant a decree for recovery without proof of identity of the specific items?
  Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Searle Pakistan Ltd & International Brands (Pvt.)2007-Comp. C-437 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2007-09-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Rizwan Textile Mills Ltd vs Not2006-Comp. C-333 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-11-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Resham Textile Industries Ltd vs N/A2006-Comp. C-357 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-12-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Remington Pharmaceutical Industries (Pvt) Ltd vs2006-Comp. C-329 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-12-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Redco Textile Mills Ltd vs Not2006-Comp. C-325 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-11-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd vs N/A2006-Comp. C-429 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-07-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Polyfine Chempharma (Pvt.) Limited vs Not2007-Comp. C-321 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2007-05-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Pakistan Mobile Communications Ltd & others vs2008-Comp. C-261 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2008-07-25Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Noon Sugar Mills Ltd vs Not2006-Comp. C-369 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-07-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Nawabsons Laboratories (Pvt.) Limited. vs Not2007-Comp. C-361 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2007-09-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Murtaza Construction Corporation (Pvt) Limited &2007-Comp. C-317 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2007-01-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd vs N/A2006-Comp. C-257 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-07-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Mian Textile Industries Limited vs Not2007-Comp. C-353 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2007-01-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Maqbool Textile Mills Ltd vs N/A2006-Comp. C-309 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-12-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Maqbool Textile Mills Ltd vs Not2007-Comp. C-313 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2007-01-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Lisko Pakistan (Pvt) Limited vs Not2007-Comp. C-305 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2007-01-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Kohinoor Sugar Mills Ltd vs Not2006-Comp. C-217 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-07-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Kashmir Sugar Mills Ltd vs Not2006-Comp. C-213 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-07-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Kamalia Sugar Mills Ltd vs Not2006-Comp. C-209 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-07-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Ittefaa Sugar Mills Ltd vs N/A2006-Comp. C-205 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-07-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Irfan Textiles (Pvt) Limited vs Not2006-Comp. C-301 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-12-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. International Brands (Pvt.) Limited vs N/A2007-Comp. C-201 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2007-10-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Indus Sugar Mills Ltd vs N/A2006-Comp. C-193 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-07-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Husein Sugar Mills Ltd vs N/A2006-Comp. C-173 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-06-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Hunza Sugar Mills Ltd vs Not2006-Comp. C-169 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-06-17Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. HinoPak Motors Limited vs Not2006-Comp. C-297 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-08-01Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of M/s. Haseeb Wagas Sugar Mills Ltd vs N/A2006-Comp. C-165 · Monopoly Control Authority · 2006-06-17Read full judgment →