Thirteen reportable judgments across the 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 September 2026 upload window (with three judgments recovered from earlier issues) — five from the Supreme Court, four from the Lahore High Court and four from the Sindh High Court (the Federal Constitutional Court and the Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries).

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore v. M/s Sui Northern Gas Pipelines — rectification under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 is confined to mistakes glaring and obvious on the face of the record; it cannot be used to create a fresh fiscal liability (here Workers’ Welfare Fund) requiring a determination of “industrial establishment” status. Appeals dismissed, the questions answered against the department — the definitive recent statement on the limits of rectification, closing an eighteen-year dispute.
• Federation of Pakistan v. Kamran Khan — the seniority of a probationer is determined by the batch in which he passes the final passing-out examination; a civil servant who fails to qualify cannot claim seniority with his original batch, and time spent repeating the course confers no dispensation. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the Service Tribunal judgment set aside.
• Altaf Hussain v. M/s Bayer Crops Science Pakistan — a grievance founded on the registration of a criminal case that was cancelled lies in malicious prosecution, not defamation, and a claim cannot be converted from one tort to the other by the label attached to it. Petition dismissed, the concurrent findings upheld.
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Mst. Bacha Jehan — retirement and resignation are juristically distinct; a Service Tribunal may declare a resignation invalid but cannot, absent express statutory authority, convert it into retirement to confer pensionary benefits. Petition converted into appeal and partly allowed; the invalidity finding maintained, the conversion set aside, the employee deemed to have continued in service.
• Central Government through Collector, D.I. Khan v. Tariq Mansoor — an authority to “undertake defence of all court cases” confers a general mandate to conduct litigation and extends to instituting a revision arising out of the same proceedings unless expressly curtailed; a technical objection to authority is ordinarily curable. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the revision remanded for decision on merits within two months.

Lahore High Court

• Punjab Healthcare Commission v. District & Sessions Judge — the Hearing Committee, being the Competent Authority under the Regulations, may impose a fine under section 28 of the PHC Act 2010, and a drug-sale licence confers no authority to practise medicine (quackery). Petition allowed; the District Judge’s order set aside and the Hearing Committee’s Rs. 300,000 fine restored.
• Sheikh Aamir v. Idrees Javed (Larger Bench) — leave to contest under section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009 cannot be partially refused while ordering eviction and simultaneously remitting arrears and Pagri for separate determination on evidence; Muhammad Liaqat Ali (2022 MLD 1720) preferred over Asad Ali Khan (PLD 2019 Lahore 363). Both petitions dismissed, the eviction upheld, Pagri held not set-off against arrears.
• Ashba Kamran v. President of Pakistan — “public service” in Article 259(2) (as inserted by the 26th Amendment) is not confined to unpaid voluntary civic activity, and the Court cannot insert qualifying words the constitutional text does not contain; a third party has no right to demand withdrawal of civil awards conferred on others. Petition dismissed in limine as legally misconceived.
• Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s D. H. Fertilizer — where the Tribunal decides the character of an expense (capital vs revenue) by adopting a previous order without examining the items in dispute, the order is non-speaking; and the High Court may reframe the questions referred to it. Reference disposed of; matter remanded to the Tribunal for a speaking order within sixty days.

Sindh High Court

• Sharjeel Quddos v. Federation of Pakistan — the Director Valuation cannot add to or subtract from an existing valuation ruling by a clarificatory letter; a fresh ruling under section 25A, or review under section 25D (which vests in the Director General), is the only route. Petition held maintainable and allowed; the clarificatory letter and the assessment premised on it set aside, with a direction to assess afresh (the second in a settled line).
• Muhammad Nadeem Taj v. Mst. Tehmina Latif — a conditional compromise decree in guardianship, once breached, furnishes a fresh cause of action, and jurisdiction follows the minors’ ordinary residence at the time of the fresh application; a mother’s lack of independent means is no ground to deny custody. Petition dismissed; permanent custody to the mother with visitation to the father upheld.
• Ghulam Mohyuddin Awan v. Director General KDA — enforcement of an order of the Provincial Ombudsman lies under section 16 of the Act of 1991 (which carries its own contempt power), and a constitutional petition cannot ordinarily bypass that mechanism. Petition disposed of with liberty to approach the Ombudsman for implementation.
• Ikram Danish v. Muhammad Javeed Khan — whether to grant conditional or unconditional leave to defend in a summary suit is a matter for the trial court’s discretion, and a reasoned order will not be disturbed in revision (authenticity of signature on a negotiable instrument, and limitation as a mixed question, being classic grounds for conditional leave). Revision dismissed; conditional leave upheld.