Fifteen reportable judgments across the 27 to 30 October 2026 upload window (with stragglers swept from 23 and 26 October) — four 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

• Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Muhammad Mustafa Gigi — review refused of the judgment holding the Income Support Levy Act 2013 invalid for having been enacted as a Money Bill: the constitutional character of legislation is determined by substance, not nomenclature or the instrument used, and the Article 73 Money Bill procedure cannot bypass the Senate’s role under Article 70; review is corrective, not substitutive, and a subsequent grant of leave by another Bench cannot displace an earlier determination, a course the Court held to raise serious concerns about judicial discipline. Review petitions and connected matters dismissed (one adjourned).
• Muhammad Ahmad Yousaf v. Muhammad Adeel Akhtar — the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 is a mandatory jurisdictional bar excluding an intra-court appeal where the law governing the original proceedings provided any remedy of appeal, review or revision; independently, a notified settlement officer had no jurisdiction, forty-seven years after the 1975 Repeal Act, to declare a Permanent Transfer Deed void, an allegation of fraud conferring no jurisdiction. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the Division Bench judgment set aside and the Single Judge’s restored.
• NBP Workers Welfare Union v. Full Bench, NIRC — the appellate jurisdiction of the NIRC Full Bench under section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012 includes an implied power of remand as ancillary to the power to set aside, vary or modify, notwithstanding the absence of express authorisation; an inherent lack of jurisdiction renders proceedings coram non judice, but an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction lawfully vested does not. Leave refused; the Islamabad High Court judgment maintained.
• Khaliq us Zaman v. Deputy District Officer (Consolidation) — once a recital of consent is deleted from a High Court order, the Court must adjudicate the matter on the record rather than remit it, and remitting to the revenue hierarchy without deciding whether an earlier order stood implemented is unsustainable. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the High Court order set aside, with guiding principles issued to the revenue authorities on delay in consolidation proceedings.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• The State v. Kamil Shah — re-examination under Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order is the right of the party calling the witness (confined to matters raised in cross-examination, with the Court’s leave for new matter) and is distinct from recall under section 540 Cr.P.C., an exceptional judicial power exercisable only where further evidence is essential to a just decision; a party that omits to re-examine cannot afterwards claim recall as of right. Leave refused; petition dismissed, with directions circulated to all High Courts and Prosecutors General.
• Collector of Customs, Quetta v. Abdul Aziz — almonds without shell and cashew nuts do not fall within ‘foodgrains and food items, all sorts’ at Serial No. 15 of S.R.O. 566(I)/2005 (ejusdem generis), so they are not smuggled goods within section 2(s)(ii) of the Customs Act and the restriction on redemption of the carrying vehicle under S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 is not attracted; an import-policy restriction does not of itself make goods smuggled. Leave refused; petitions dismissed.
• CEO, NTDC v. Masood Ahmad Qureshi — employees of a corporatised successor company such as NTDC are not civil servants amenable to the Federal Service Tribunal, section 17(1-B) of the WAPDA Act not extending to corporatised successors and internal adoption of WAPDA rules conferring no Tribunal access; but under the doctrine of indoor management the Board must apply its own rules fairly and extend the same Time Scale Upgradation granted to others. Petitions converted into appeals and allowed; the Tribunal judgment set aside, with the Board directed to reconsider and grant parity by speaking order.
• Mst. Rasheeda Begum v. Province of Sindh — writ jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be used to set aside the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court as if hearing a second appeal, or to decide a question of title in rent proceedings; rent laws are special, self-contained laws for the fast-track resolution of tenancy disputes, and a tenant who recognised the tenancy and paid rent cannot belatedly convert the matter into a title dispute. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the High Court judgment set aside and the matter remanded.

Lahore High Court

• Tahir Mehmood v. Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue — merely uploading an appellate order on the IRIS portal does not constitute valid electronic service under section 218(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance read with Rule 74, and so does not start limitation for an appeal to the Tribunal under section 131; accessibility of a document is not service, and limitation runs only from the event the statute prescribes. Question answered in the negative; the Tribunal’s orders set aside and the appeals restored on the merits.
• Qaiser Shabbir v. Federation of Pakistan — criminal prosecution for ‘wilful default’ under section 2(g) read with section 20(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 requires prior determination of the civil liability by the Banking Court under section 9(1), the measure of punishment being tied to an amount that must first be adjudicated (following Taj International); a non obstante clause permitting a direct complaint does not dispense with that precondition. Petitions allowed; the FIA’s section 160 Cr.P.C. notices set aside as without jurisdiction.
• Dr. Syed Shah Rukh Hassan Rizvi v. Chief Secretary, Punjab — the PMDC Regulations 2025, framed under a federal enactment, prevail over inconsistent provincial Service Rules on the minimum professional eligibility for medical teaching posts (Article 143), the province being free to add lawful conditions but not to reduce the federal minimum. Petition partly allowed; the advertisement, to the extent it prescribes criteria inconsistent with the Regulations, declared without lawful authority.
• Muhammad Ismail v. The State — the deposit of Daman and Arsh in compliance with the judgment appealed against does not waive the convict’s right of appeal under section 415-A Cr.P.C.; payment in compliance with a judicial order is not acquiescence, and a procedural disqualification cannot be engrafted by inference. Appeal allowed; the appellants acquitted, the prosecution case being found riddled with doubt.

Sindh High Court

• Punhal v. The State — in a narcotics appeal, safe custody and safe transmission are proved by producing every person who handled the sealed parcels together with the contemporaneous police record; where charas is recovered in separate slabs a sample must be drawn and tested from each (done here, proving the whole 1,500 grams), and the absence of private witnesses (section 103 Cr.P.C. being excluded by section 25), of a video recording, or action by an officer below the prescribed rank does not vitiate the conviction. Appeal dismissed; the conviction altered to the correct clause of the Table as a curable slip and the sentence maintained.
• Abdullah Raja v. Sultan Rehman — on an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), a limitation bar must be tested on the plaint as a whole under Article 113 (the date fixed for performance or, failing that, the date of notice of refusal); neither a long lapse of time between agreement and suit nor a bare assertion of recent refusal is by itself conclusive, and Article 199 review of a revisional order is supervisory only. Petition dismissed; the orders below maintained.
• Kando v. Ameen — section 115 CPC confers a limited supervisory jurisdiction, not a second appeal, and concurrent findings are disturbed only on material misreading or non-reading or perversity; a claim described as one of inheritance is not for that reason exempt from limitation, a revenue entry followed by open possession being an overt denial that requires any plea of late discovery to satisfy section 18, and a mutation entry alone does not prove a gift though here the courts rested on the evidence as a whole. Civil revision dismissed in limine.