Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Subah Sadiq Khan vs Punjab Public Service Commission And Other1989 MLD 3859 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Suba vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2256 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
- Sualiheen vs Noor Zaman and another1989 SCMR 1403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in a civil dispute concerning the ownership and sale of land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had successfully proven that the disputed land was purchased from the respondent, Noor Zaman, and that the name of his brother, Yasin, had been erroneously recorded as the vendor in the mutation record. The High Court had previously determined that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish this alleged sale and that the matter of who the vendor was constituted a question of fact. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings of the lower courts were unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that findings of fact made by lower courts, when supported by evidence, are not subject to interference in revision or appeal proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a finding of fact regarding the identity of a vendor in a land mutation record open to challenge in civil revision if supported by evidence?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish a sale of property when the mutation record reflects a different vendor than the one alleged?
- State vs Zahid Hussain1989 PLD Lahore 242 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- State vs Muhammad Aslam and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
- State vs Mian Abbas Ahmad, Advocate1989 PLD Lahore 376 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
- State vs Abdul Ghafoor1989 MLD 652 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- State through AdvocateGeneral, N .W F P vs Jumma and anothers1989 PLD Peshawar 149 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate General, Sind & Ex-OfficiopublicK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 14 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Yousaf KhanPLD 1989 Peshawar · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Ghalib Raza Gilani1989 P Cr. L J 782 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P. vs Safdar and another1989 P Cr. L J 1972 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate General N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Abdur RazzaqK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 523 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- State of U.P vs Ram Swarup And Other1989 MLD 1795 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-26Read full judgment →
- State Of U. P. vs Anil Singh1989 MLD 1575 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-26Read full judgment →
- State of Punjab vs Raj Kumar1989 MLD 3140 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-11Read full judgment →
- State of Punjab vs Amarjit Singh1989 MLD 1475 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
- State of Orissa vs Dandasi Sahu1989 MLD 404 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-07-22Read full judgment →
- State of Orissa And Others vs Messers Lall Brother1989 MLD 1480 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-08-25Read full judgment →
- State of Maharashtra vs Pollon.II Darabshaw Daruwalla1989 MLD 1111 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
- State of Karnataka vs Shivalingaiah1989 MLD 1119 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
- State Life Insurance Corporation vs Mst. a Z1Z Anjum Haider1989 PLD Supreme Court 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant, State Life Insurance Corporation, against the dismissal of its Civil Revision by the High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent money decrees passed in favor of the respondent regarding an insurance claim. The core legal questions involved whether the counsel's concession before the High Court was correctly recorded and whether the deceased insured had misrepresented his state of health regarding hypertension at the time of entering into the insurance contract, thereby justifying the repudiation of the claim. The Supreme Court held that the minor discrepancy in recording the counsel's concession did not affect the outcome, and since the state of health of the deceased was or could be presumed to be known to the insurer, the Corporation could not avoid its liability. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether an insurance corporation can repudiate liability on the ground of misrepresentation when the state of health of the insured was known or presumed to be known to the insurer?
- Whether a minor inaccuracy in recording a counsel's concession by the High Court vitiates the impugned judgment?
- Whether persons suffering from hypertension can be insured under certain conditions upon disclosure and further investigation?
- State Life Insurance Corporation of. Pakistan vs Board of Trustees1989 PLD Karachi 605 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Erasmus Osmund Interlinks (Pvt.) Ltd.1989 MLD 3194 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
- State Bank Of Pakistan vs Aim InternationalPTCL 1989 CL. 516 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-23Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Administrator, Abandoned Properties, Cabinet Division1989 MLD 1196 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan Class IV Employees' Union vs State Bank of Pakistan and others1989 PLC 536 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Star Textile Mills Limited vs Assistant Collector of Customs and 21989 PTD 1 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- St. PAUL's Tobacco Company (City of London) Inc. Limited. vs The Registrar of Trade Marks1989 MLD 983 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →
- Sri Lashmi Dry Fish Traders And Etc. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh.PTCL 1989 FC. 25 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1985-04-10Read full judgment →
- Squardon Leader (Retd.) Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli vs Chief of the Air1989 CLC 2038 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
- Sqn Leader Mirza Abdul Matin And Another vs Board of Trustees1989 MLD 4744 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
- Special Court (Offences In Banks) Syed Iftikhar Hussain Tirmazi vs The State1989 MLD 4957 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
- Sparas Khan vs Manzoor Haider Shah and others1989 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's revision petition, which in turn upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's civil suit. The respondents owned certain lands and had entered into mortgage transactions with the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently filed a suit claiming ownership of the land by purchase based on a mutation. The trial court, appellate court, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the petitioner's suit upon finding that the land was mortgaged rather than sold, and no evidence supported the claim of a sale. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent factual findings regarding the nature of the transaction as a mortgage rather than a sale suffered from any misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings were well-founded and no misreading of evidence was established. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed in the absence of a demonstration of misreading or non-reading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the nature of a land transaction as a mortgage rather than a sale can be interfered with without proving misreading of evidence?
- Does a mutation entry reflecting a mortgage rather than a sale confer ownership rights through purchase to the mortgagee?
- Souvenir Tobacco Company Limited. vs Deputy Collector Etc.PTCL 1989 CL. 522 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Sosan vs The State1989 MLD 4864 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Sort. Sudha Devi vs M. P. Narayanan And Other1989 MLD 1894 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-26Read full judgment →
- Soofi Noor Muhammad vs Additional District and Sessions Judge-I1989 PLD Lahore 34 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- Sonomal and another vs Muhammad Suleman1989 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that ordered the ejectment of tenants from a shop in Ratodero. The core legal question was whether the landlord had established a bona fide personal need for the premises to conduct a tailoring business with his son, and whether the Rent Controller correctly rejected the ejectment application based on the landlord's failure to prove his son's unemployment and the availability of sufficient capital. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the Rent Controller had erred by placing undue emphasis on the son's employment status and by imposing an unnecessary requirement for the landlord to prove sufficient funds for a small-scale tailoring business. The High Court properly reappraised the evidence to conclude that the landlord’s personal need was genuine. Additionally, the Court affirmed that a survey report produced after the High Court’s judgment could not be admitted as evidence to challenge the findings of fact. No further point of law was identified to warrant interference.
Questions settled- Does a landlord seeking ejectment for personal business need to prove the availability of sufficient funds for that business?
- Can a court admit evidence in a petition for leave to appeal that was generated after the High Court's decision?
- Is the Rent Controller's finding on the bona fide need of a landlord subject to reappraisal by the High Court?
- Sonex Corporation vs Collector of Customs1989 MLD 4595 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-23Read full judgment →
- Sohni And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4082 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-09Read full judgment →
- Sohawa vs Pakistan1989 MLD 3419 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Sohawa (Deceased) Etc. vs Inayat Ali Etc.(K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases - 30) · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
- Sohanra vs Rashid Ahmad and six others1989 SCMR 961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning a pre-emption suit where the trial court initially decreed in favour of the appellant, despite an objection regarding the deficiency of court-fee. The first appellate court subsequently set aside this decree, ruling that although the appellant had rectified the court-fee deficiency, the suit had become time-barred by the time the payment was made. The Lahore High Court upheld this dismissal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit is entitled to make up a deficiency in court-fee and whether such rectification renders the suit time-barred. Relying on established precedents, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to at least one opportunity to rectify a deficiency in court-fee. The Court determined that once this opportunity is availed and the deficiency is made up, the issue of limitation does not arise to defeat the suit. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court, allowing the appeal.
Questions settled- Is a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit entitled to an opportunity to make up a deficiency in court-fee?
- Does the rectification of a court-fee deficiency in a pre-emption suit render the suit time-barred if the payment is made after the initial filing?
- Sohail Azam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
- Sodho vs The State1989 MLD 3188 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
- Smt. Sova Ray And Another vs Gostha Gopal Dey And Other1989 MLD 2358 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-18Read full judgment →
- Smt. Savitramma vs Cicil Naronha And Another1989 MLD 1133 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-23Read full judgment →
- Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat, AhmedabadPTCL 1989 FC. 1 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Smt. Jahejo Devi And Others vs Moharam Ali1989 MLD 2099 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-09Read full judgment →
- Smt. Indira Kaur And Others vs Shri Sheo Lal Kapoor1989 MLD 2420 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-28Read full judgment →
- Smith Kline and French of Pakistan Ltd. vs Spencer & Co. (Pakistan1989 MLD 38 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
- Sirajul Haq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 480 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-16Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 8 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din vs Member Board of Revenue, PunjabK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 55 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din and others vs Siraj Din and others1989 SCMR 1941(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by landowners challenging the dismissal of their Constitutional petition by the High Court regarding a land consolidation dispute. The core legal questions presented were whether the petitioners' entitlement to land was improperly reduced, whether the area surrounding their tube-well was unfairly diminished, and whether the High Court erred in its determination regarding the choice of land allocation. The Supreme Court declined to entertain the new arguments concerning the reduction of land and tube-well area, noting these points were not raised before the High Court. Regarding the choice of land, the Court held that such matters fall within the realm of findings of fact and the propriety of judgment, rather than jurisdictional error. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity or lack of lawful authority in the impugned order. The petition was dismissed, establishing the principle that the Supreme Court will not permit the introduction of new questions of fact in a petition for leave to appeal that were not urged before the High Court.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise new questions of fact in a petition for leave to appeal that were not argued before the High Court?
- Does a dispute regarding the choice of land allocation in consolidation proceedings constitute a question of law or a finding of fact?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order passed by the High Court in a constitutional petition regarding land consolidation?
- Siraj Din and others vs Raj Ada1989 SCMR 1780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court. The respondent-plaintiff had filed two separate suits which were consolidated and decided through a single consolidated judgment. The petitioners initially filed only one appeal against this consolidated judgment. Upon realizing that separate appeals might be required to challenge the two resulting decrees, the petitioners filed a second appeal, which was subsequently dismissed by the lower appellate court as time-barred. The High Court upheld this dismissal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether filing a single appeal against a consolidated judgment in consolidated suits satisfies legal requirements, or if such a technicality should be resolved in favor of the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court seeks to determine whether the delay in filing the second appeal should have been condoned under the relevant limitation law and whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, failed to act in aid of justice to correct the procedural error. The Court granted leave to appeal to address these significant procedural questions.
Questions settled- Does filing a single appeal against a consolidated judgment in two consolidated suits satisfy the requirements of law?
- Should a technical delay in filing a second appeal against a consolidated decree be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is the High Court obligated to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to correct procedural errors in the interest of justice?
- Siraj Din and another vs Peer Salim and another1989 SCMR 1385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a private complaint filed against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Following a preliminary inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Additional Sessions Judge issued bailable warrants against the petitioners. The petitioners sought the quashment of these proceedings before the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the application, observing that the preliminary inquiry and the statements recorded therein sufficiently disclosed a prima facie case against the accused, rendering the proceedings fit to continue. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision. The Court held that where a preliminary inquiry establishes a prima facie case, the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. The judgment reinforces the principle that quashment is not appropriate when the initial judicial process is supported by sufficient material gathered during a preliminary inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a preliminary inquiry has established a prima facie case?
- Is the issuance of bailable warrants by a trial court following a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
- Siraj Ahmad Khan vs Gogai And 23 Other1989 CLC 1756 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
- Sir Shadi Lal and Sons, Shamli vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kanpur1989 PTD 808 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-10-31Read full judgment →
- Singer Industrial Labour Union vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1989 PLC 929 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Sind Seed Corporation and another vs Shahid Mehmood1989 PLC 977 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
- Sind Employees' Social Security Institution vs Messrs Quetta Textile1989 PLC 993 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Sind Employees' Social Security Institution vs Consolidated Sugar Mills Limited1989 SCMR 888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns leave to appeal granted to the Sind Employees' Social Security Institution to examine whether a sugar mill was under a legal obligation under section 20 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, to make social security contributions in respect of employees engaged through independent contractors for executing work on its premises. The respondent mill had contracted out various works such as the removal of mud/ash and baggase, loading/unloading of sugarcane, and carriage of workers, leading to contribution demands by the Institution which were initially struck down by the Social Security Court and the High Court. The core legal question is whether the owner of an industrial establishment is liable to pay social security contributions for workers engaged through independent contractors. The Supreme Court held that under the definitions of 'employer' and 'employee', read alongside the charging provisions of section 20 of the Ordinance, the owner of the industry is indeed liable for contributions in respect of employees engaged for its industry even through independent contractors. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Questions settled- Whether the owner of an industrial establishment is liable under section 20 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to pay contributions for workers engaged through independent contractors?
- Does the definition of 'employee' under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 require a direct contract of service between the mill owner and the worker?
- What is the scope of the term 'employer' under section 2(9) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 in cases involving independent contractors?
- Sind Employees' Social Security Institute vs Pakistan National1989 PLC 81 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous appeal arises from an order of the Social Security Court setting aside the Commissioner's order directing the respondent establishment to pay social security contributions for workers engaged through independent contractors. The core legal question is whether an establishment is liable to pay social security contributions under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, for workers employed through independent contractors, and whether such workers qualify as 'employees'. The court held that workers employed through a contractor to perform work in or in connection with the establishment's undertaking are employees under the Ordinance, provided they have normally worked for at least twenty-four hours per week, and that the contractor acts as a representative of the employer. However, since the appellant failed to prove that the workers in question met the twenty-four-hour threshold or were enrolled as secured persons, the contribution could not be recovered. The key principle laid down is that welfare statutes like the Social Security Ordinance must be interpreted liberally to advance their purpose, and that workers engaged through independent contractors can be deemed employees of the principal employer if the statutory criteria are satisfied.
Questions settled- Whether an establishment is liable to pay social security contributions under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, in respect of workers employed through independent contractors?
- Do workers engaged through a contractor qualify as 'employees' under section 2(8) of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Is a contractor considered a representative or agent of the employer for the purposes of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- What is the required duration of work per week for a person to be deemed an employee under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Sikandar Hayat vs The State1989 MLD 4637(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Hayat vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 62 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Hayat vs Bahadur and 2 others1989 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted two respondents of double murder charges. The prosecution alleged that the respondents killed two individuals following a prior quarrel. The trial court had initially convicted the respondents under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death. However, the High Court acquitted them, citing unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, material contradictions regarding who transported the victims to the hospital, and a lack of confidence in the ocular witnesses. Furthermore, the High Court noted the failure to examine natural witnesses present at the scene and rejected the recovery evidence due to the unreliability of the witnesses. The Supreme Court considered whether the evidence warranted re-appraisal. The Court held that it would not re-appraise evidence unless there was a material illegality or irregularity going to the root of the case that necessitated reconsideration in the interest of justice. Finding no such grounds, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a criminal appeal against acquittal?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report constitute sufficient grounds for the High Court to disbelieve the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular witnesses are found to be unreliable and natural witnesses were not examined?
- Sikandar and 2 others vs Muhammad Ayub and 6 others1989 PLD Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ali vs The State1989 MLD 644 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 613 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment disposes of two criminal appeals filed by the appellant challenging his convictions and four-year rigorous imprisonment sentences under Section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi. The appellant was convicted for forging orders of the A.D.C. to the Prime Minister of Pakistan to secure employment for individuals in National Bank of Pakistan and United Bank Limited. Although the jurisdiction of the Special Court was not pressed during oral arguments, the High Court examined whether forging an employment order constituted a 'scheduled offence' committed in respect of or in connection with the business of a bank under Section 2(d) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984. The High Court held that forging employment orders did not affect or relate to the business of the banks, meaning the link was remote rather than direct. Consequently, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction, making the proceedings void ab initio. The appeals were allowed, the appellant was acquitted, and the prosecution was given liberty to try him under ordinary law.
Questions settled- Does forging an employment order to secure a job in a bank constitute an offence committed in connection with the business of a bank under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
- Can a Special Court under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 assume jurisdiction over offences that do not directly affect or relate to the business of a bank?
- Does omission to raise an objection or consent by a party invest a court with jurisdiction where it lacks statutory jurisdiction?
- Sikandar Ali Shaikh And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2847 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-04Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ali Khan and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1001 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 171 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
- Sijawa Khan vs Messrs Gul Ahmad Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.1989 PLC 262 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-14Read full judgment →
- Siddique vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 435 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-28Read full judgment →
- Siddique Textiles Ltd. vs The Commissioner, Incometax, Rawalpindi1989 SCMR 1595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an impugned decision of the High Court regarding tax references. The petitioner challenged the assessment made by the Income-tax authorities, specifically questioning the interpretation and application of Section 13 of the Income-Tax Act, 1922, in a case where the accounts were not considered regular. The core legal question involved whether the assessment basis and the methodology employed by the Income-tax authorities were justified under the facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and relevant precedents, held that the legal questions regarding the interpretation of Section 13 were already settled by existing case law. Regarding the factual dispute, the Court found that the relevant basis for the assessment was not ignored, nor was there any defect in the methodology adopted by the authorities. The Court concluded that the assessment was made honestly, taking into account the petitioner's conduct, and consequently refused to grant leave to appeal, finding no justification for interference on the merits.
Questions settled- Whether the assessment methodology adopted by Income-tax authorities in a 'no regular account' case is justified when based on the petitioner's conduct?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings and assessment merits of Income-tax authorities when the assessment is found to be honest?
- Siddique Textiles Limited vs The Commissioner, Income-Tax, Rawalpindi ,1989 PTD 1182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the impugned decision of the High Court in two tax references concerning the interpretation and application of section 13 of the Income-Tax Act, 1922. The core legal question involved the correct interpretation of section 13 and whether the basis and manner of assessment adopted by the tax authorities against the petitioner, in a case involving no regular accounts, were justified under the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that while the questions of law regarding the interpretation of section 13 stood already resolved, the matter essentially turned on questions of fact and the appreciation of material before the income-tax authorities. Finding that the relevant basis for assessment was not ignored, the procedure adopted was proper, and the assessment was honest with due regard to the petitioner's conduct, the court found no justification for interference on merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the questions of law regarding the interpretation of section 13 of the Income-Tax Act, 1922 stand already resolved?
- Does an assessment made by tax authorities in the absence of regular accounts warrant interference when based on proper material and an honest appraisal of the petitioner's conduct?
- Siddique Javaid, And Others vs Muhammad Yunis And Other1989 MLD 4705 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Siddiq Akbar vs President, Habib Bank Ltd.. Karachi and 2 others1989 PLC 680 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
- Si Iaheryar Bakhtiar vs The State And 3 Other1989 MLD 1713 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Shujaur Rehman vs Central Board of Revenue And Another1989 MLD 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
- Shiv Charan vs State of Haryana1989 MLD 4096 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- Shila Samual vs Dr. Syed Shaukat Ali Shah and others1989 SCMR 1597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from orders of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner, a nurse, against the Medical Superintendent of a hospital under section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged defamatory remarks contained in an official inquiry report. The core legal question was whether the respondent's official remarks regarding the petitioner's conduct were protected as privileged communication under the Exceptions to section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the remarks were duly covered by the Seventh Exception to section 499 and that the petitioner failed to establish any mala fides or bias, additionally noting that the underlying writ petition and review petition before the High Court were barred by time and incompetent. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that official communications made in the line of duty regarding a subordinate's conduct, absent substantiated bias or ulterior motives, attract the protection of judicial exceptions against defamation.
Questions settled- Whether official remarks made by a superior officer in an inquiry report regarding a subordinate's conduct are protected under the Exceptions to section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a criminal complaint for defamation proceed when the impugned remarks are covered by the privileged exceptions of section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal is maintainable against a time-barred and incompetent writ petition dismissed by the High Court?
- Sherin vs Sher Zaman and another1989 P Cr. L J 1660 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
- Sheri Zaman and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1526 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Sherd. Masih vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 318 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
- Shera and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 678 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Sher, Muhammad And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4061 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
- Sher Nawaz Khan vs Bat in Khan And Other1989 CLC 1332 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs The State1989 MLD 3252 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 422 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs The Revenue Officer, City WAPDA, Sialkot and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 217 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-02-28Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Sh. Muhammad Aslam And Other1989 MLD 4508 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab and another1989 SCMR 1596 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 7-3-1981, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The petitioner had been allotted State land under the Tenants Scheme, later converted to the Ejected Tenants Scheme, and sought proprietary rights under 1960 Government instructions. Subsequently, a portion of the land was resumed for Chiragah, leading to administrative proceedings where the petitioner was only allowed proprietary rights for a part of the land. The core legal question concerns whether the option to purchase proprietary rights must be exercised for the whole allotted lot under the 1960 instructions, and whether subsequent 1971 instructions could be applied retrospectively to deny the petitioner's claim to the entire land. The Supreme Court held that the case requires consideration regarding the applicability and retrospectivity of the administrative instructions, and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the option to purchase proprietary rights under the 1960 Government instructions must be exercised for the whole allotted lot?
- Are subsequent Government instructions dated 22-1-1971 retrospective in operation regarding the transfer of proprietary rights of State land?
- Can the Collector resume a portion of allotted State land after an application for grant of proprietary rights has been made?
- Sher Muhammad vs Ghulam Farid and others1989 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal filed by a vendee challenging the dismissal of his writ petitions by the High Court in a pre-emption case. The core legal questions were whether the respondents could successfully claim a right of pre-emption based on a plea of tenancy and whether the suit land, classified as Banjar Qadeem, could be legally categorized as agricultural land subject to pre-emption. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding the factual determinations regarding the respondents' tenancy status to be unexceptionable. Regarding the nature of the land, the Court rejected the argument that land classified as Banjar Qadeem or used for growing grass is not agricultural. The Court held that growing grass serves as both a cash crop and a method for land improvement, and a prior classification as Banjar Qadeem does not preclude land from being considered agricultural for pre-emption purposes. Consequently, the Court found no legal error in the impugned judgment, refused leave to appeal, and dismissed the petitions with costs.
Questions settled- Can land classified as Banjar Qadeem be considered agricultural land for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Does the cultivation of grass on land qualify it as agricultural land?
- Is a finding of fact regarding tenancy status in a pre-emption case subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Sher Muhammad Shah vs Abdul Aziz and others1989 SCMR 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property in Dera Ghazi Khan, initially allotted to the petitioner and subsequently auctioned to the respondent following a determination that the premises were commercial rather than residential. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, acted correctly by substituting its own findings on the property's status for those of the Settlement Commissioner, and whether the Settlement Commissioner's order was valid given potential issues regarding limitation and the nature of the property's use. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by deciding the factual issue of the property's usage based on new material not previously considered by the tribunal. The Court established the principle that where an inferior tribunal or authority has failed to decide a material question or has overlooked relevant evidence, the High Court should not substitute its own judgment. Instead, it must quash the impugned order and remand the case to the competent authority for a fresh decision based on the evidence, ensuring the tribunal exercises its jurisdiction properly.
Questions settled- Should the High Court substitute its own findings for those of an inferior tribunal when material questions remain undecided?
- Is it appropriate for the High Court to consider new evidence not presented before the original Settlement authority?
- What is the correct course of action when a revision petition is accepted by a Settlement authority without addressing a potential limitation bar?
- Sher Muhammad Gill vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan and another1989 PLC 754 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad And 6 Others vs Haji Sher Muhammad1989 CLC 202 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad And 6 Others vs Gul Fraz1989 CLC 1344 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition was filed by the defendant-vendees against an appellate court's judgment restoring a pre-emption decree in favor of the plaintiff-respondent. The trial court had decreed the pre-emption suit on 25-10-1984, subject to the deposit of the balance pre-emption money within 'one month'. The plaintiff deposited the amount on 25-11-1984, which the trial court rejected as being out of time, subsequently dismissing the suit. The appellate court reversed this decision. The High Court examined whether the day of the order is excluded from computation and how 'one month' is calculated. Applying the equitable principles of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act 1897 and Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act 1908, the Court held that the date of the order must be excluded. Furthermore, under Section 3(33) of the General Clauses Act 1897, 'month' means a British calendar month, which terminates on the day of the succeeding month numerically corresponding to the day of its beginning less one. Consequently, the deposit made on 25-11-1984 was within time, and the revision petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the equitable principles of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act 1897 apply to the construction of time periods prescribed in court decrees and orders?
- Whether the day on which a court order is passed should be excluded when computing a prescribed period of time for making a deposit?
- How is the term 'month' to be calculated when it does not commence on the first day of a calendar month?