Fourteen reportable judgments across the 30 September to 8 October 2026 upload window (Sunday 4 October excluded) — three from the Federal Constitutional Court, four from the Supreme Court, four from the Lahore High Court and three from the Sindh High Court (the Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries).

Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

• Metropolitan Corporation, Islamabad & CDA v. Luqman Ali Afzal (The Monal) — a judgment of the Supreme Court (PLD 2024 SC 925) set aside in review where findings of a final character were recorded, in interlocutory proceedings, on questions within the exclusive domain of the Civil Court and against persons who had not been heard; the power to rectify a manifest wrong inheres in the judicial function and does not depend on an enabling rule. Review petitions allowed; the CDA’s planning jurisdiction over the Margalla Hills restored, the Wildlife Board confined to the 2024 Act, and the underlying disputes returned to the Civil Court.
• Managing Director, OGDCL v. Registrar, FCC — after final disposal of a first review no subsequent review lies; an application for ‘recall’ which in substance seeks reconsideration of the judicial conclusion is a second review whatever its description, and ‘final disposal’ includes a dismissal as infructuous. Civil miscellaneous appeal dismissed and the office objection maintained.
• Suba Khan v. Superintendent Central Prison Mach — the cumulative effect of all remissions shall not reduce the actual period of imprisonment of a life convict to less than fifteen years (Rule 217(ii)), the restriction being mandatory save where the sentence is lawfully altered; a remission computed in derogation of the Prison Rules confers no enforceable right. Petition dismissed; the Balochistan High Court’s consolidated judgment maintained.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Mst. Zainab Bibi v. Muhammad Waseem — the most consequential family-law judgment in years: a Family Court cannot convert a statutory claim for dissolution into khula without the wife’s clear and voluntary election, and shiqaq (a genuine and continuing matrimonial rupture) is a ground recognised as valid for dissolution within the residuary provision of section 2(ix), carrying no surrender of dower. Petitions converted into appeals and partly allowed; decrees modified to substitute dissolution on shiqaq for khula and the dower directions set aside.
• Chairman WAPDA v. Ijaz Ali Gul — seniority and eligibility for promotion are substantive, not procedural, rights; rules detrimental to vested or accrued rights operate prospectively, and a ‘shall come into force at once’ clause cannot be used to unsettle seniority already attained. Twenty-five petitions dismissed and leave refused; the Federal Service Tribunal judgment maintained.
• Collector of Customs, Peshawar v. Shamsur Rehman — where a conveyance falls within clause (b) of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, the option of redemption under section 181 is excluded altogether and no question of the quantum or basis of a redemption fine arises. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the vehicle held liable to outright confiscation.
• Muhammad Islam Badshah v. Abdul Wahab Shah — it is the inherent duty of the Court under section 3 of the Limitation Act to examine limitation whether or not it is raised, and the power to reject a plaint or dismiss a time-barred suit does not depend upon an application by the defendant; maintainability must be decided independently of a pending amendment application. Petition converted into appeal and partly allowed; the trial court directed to decide maintainability first.

Lahore High Court

• Muhammad Latif v. Additional District Judge — section 11 of the Pensions Act 1871 is not attracted to a final maintenance decree of a Family Court: minor decree-holders are not ‘creditors’ and maintenance is not an ordinary debt, so a retired official’s pension may be attached in execution. Reference answered; constitutional petition dismissed, with execution to be concluded, as far as practicable, within thirty days.
• Mst. Shazia Noreen v. District Judge — the right of maintenance belongs to the minor and not to the parent or guardian; it cannot be waived, surrendered or bargained away, and a Family Court may not fix maintenance on parental consent alone without an independent assessment of the child’s needs and the father’s means. Petition allowed; both decrees set aside and the matter remanded.
• Kot Addu Power Company v. Commissioner Inland Revenue — tax credit under section 65B of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 is a statutory assistance directly relatable to the acquisition of qualifying plant and machinery and falls within section 76(10); it must be excluded in determining the cost of the asset for depreciation and initial allowance. Questions answered in the negative; reference applications dismissed.
• Mst. Kaneez Bibi v. Jubilee Life Insurance — time bona fide spent before the Federal Insurance Ombudsman on a complaint of maladministration under section 127 is not time consumed before a wrong forum and cannot be counted towards limitation for a petition to the Insurance Tribunal. Appeal allowed; the Tribunal’s judgment set aside and the matter remitted for decision of all issues on their merits.

Sindh High Court

• M/s Zafar Securities (Pvt.) Ltd v. Appellate Tribunal, Sindh Revenue Board — stockbroker services provided from a Lahore office to clients outside Sindh are not taxable in Sindh before 1 July 2017 (following Summit Capital) but are taxable from that date, the amended definition of the connecting factor in section 2(64) bringing the service within section 3(1) where trades are executed through KATS in Karachi; in reference jurisdiction the Court cannot entertain a challenge to the vires of the Act. Reference 183 of 2025 dismissed and Reference 182 of 2025 partly allowed, the demand set aside for periods before 1 July 2017 and maintained thereafter. (Mandviwalla & Zafar acted for the applicant.)
• Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s Foundation Public School — tuition fee collected in advance of the session is not an amount due upon collection, whereas a non-refundable admission fee is derived when admission is granted; section 21(e) does not reach a gratuity paid directly to an employee where no fund exists. Reference answered and disposed of; the admission-fee addition restored, the deletions as to tuition fee and gratuity maintained, with section 221 identified as the machinery to prevent double taxation.
• Pakistan Kuwait Investment Company v. Amtex Limited — contractual mark-up and cost of funds are distinct in nature and legal basis and are cumulative rather than alternative; an award of cost of funds upon default does not extinguish a contractual entitlement to mark-up accrued during the contractual period. First Appeal No. 54 of 2019 allowed and No. 63 of 2019 dismissed; the decree modified so that the financial institution also recovers the agreed mark-up for the contractual period.