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.
- Yusuf Raza Hussain vs The Ivth Additional District Judge (South), Karachi and others1987 MLD 2989 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
- Yusuf Masih vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1412 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
- Yusuf Khan And Others vs Wadera Muhammad Siddique And Other1987 SCMR 1738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the civil revision application filed by the petitioners. The underlying litigation involves a suit for declaration and possession of land filed by the respondents before the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection regarding the limitation period and sought the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question concerned whether the trial court and the High Court erred in refusing to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation at the preliminary stage without recording evidence or allowing a proper hearing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had provided proper and cogent reasons for its decisions and had issued adequate clarifications directing the trial court to decide the question of limitation in accordance with law, either upon hearing the parties or after recording evidence if necessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the High Court's view.
Questions settled- Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation without recording evidence?
- Can a civil revision be maintained against an interlocutory order refusing to reject a plaint?
- Whether the High Court's direction to the trial court to hear parties and decide the question of limitation in accordance with law is legally sustainable?
- Yusuf Habib vs Messrs Sarmad Associates and Another1987 PLD Karachi 139 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
- Yunus Masih vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1917 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
- Yousuf Masih vs The State1987 MLD 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
- Yousuf Hassan vs Amir Ali1987 MLD 3283 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
- Yousaf Bashir Toor vs The Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hydera Bad and another1987 MLD 297 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Yousaf And 5 Others vs The State and others1987 PCrLJ 844 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- Yousaf Ali vs Fazal Muhammad Malik And Another1987 SCMR 328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
- Yousaf & Co. vs Oriental Steam Co.1987 CLC 961 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-02Read full judgment →
- Younus Ali vs Mst. Fatima Bai1987 MLD 432 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
- Yasin vs Ibrahim And Other1987 SCMR 1345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, whereby a learned Single Judge in revisional jurisdiction vacated the temporary injunction granted to the petitioner by the District Judge, Vehari. The petitioner had filed a civil suit challenging an order of the Divisional Canal Officer allowing private respondents to draw water from a canal outlet used by the petitioner. The High Court had set aside the District Judge's order granting a status quo solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to serve a pre-appeal notice under rule 3(1) of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the required notice under Order XLIII Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was actually served prior to filing the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention that notice was indeed served, supported by a postal acknowledgment receipt and statements in the memorandum of appeal, required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed the maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the appeal, and ordered security.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary injunction granted by a District Judge can be set aside in revision solely on the ground of non-service of notice under Order XLIII Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the production of a postal acknowledgment receipt substantiate the service of notice prior to filing an appeal?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when a question of fact regarding the service of a mandatory pre-appeal notice requires examination?
- Yasin And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 946 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
- Yasin Ali Hashmi vs Chief Secretary, Sind And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 716 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
- Yaseen vs Khan Muhammad And Another1987 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption dispute involving competing claims over a parcel of land. The petitioner filed a pre-emption suit based on co-sharership, while the respondent filed a separate suit based on tenancy in a revenue forum. The respondent obtained a consent decree in the revenue hierarchy, which was upheld through the Board of Revenue. The petitioner did not challenge this revenue decree in the High Court via writ jurisdiction. Subsequently, the civil court granted the petitioner a pre-emption decree, but conditioned it upon the respondent's prior revenue decree. The petitioner challenged this condition through appeal and revision, which were dismissed. The core legal question was whether the civil court, or the High Court in revision, could set aside a final decree passed by a revenue forum when that decree was not independently challenged. The Supreme Court held that the revenue decree remained binding as it was not challenged in appropriate proceedings. Consequently, the condition attached to the petitioner's decree was lawful, and the petition was dismissed, affirming that collateral challenges to final revenue decrees in civil proceedings are impermissible.
Questions settled- Can a civil court or High Court in revision set aside a final decree passed by a revenue forum if that decree was not independently challenged?
- Is a condition in a pre-emption decree making it subject to a prior revenue decree lawful when the revenue decree remains unchallenged?
- Does a failure to challenge a revenue decree in writ jurisdiction preclude a party from attacking it in subsequent civil proceedings?
- Yar Qand Khan vs Taj Bar Khan and 3 others1987 MLD 84 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
- Yar Muhammad through his Legal Heirs and another vs Saleh Muhammad1987 CLC 567 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
- Yar Muhammad and another vs Province of Sind and Others1987 PLD Karachi 375 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
- Yar Muhammad And Another vs Province of Sind And Other1987 PLD Karachi 375 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
- Yaqub Khan. vs The StatePTCL 1987 CL. 62 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
- Yaqub And 2 Others vs The State-1987PCr.LJ 1119 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- Yaqub Ali vs The State1987 MLD 2921 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-15Read full judgment →
- Yaqoob vs Wazir Ali1987 SCMR 2030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court, which directed the petitioner to appear for cross-examination regarding the contents of a counter-affidavit he had filed. The respondent had initiated a suit for specific performance and subsequently filed an application for the appointment of a receiver regarding a cash deposit. The petitioner, a defendant in the suit, opposed this application via a counter-affidavit. The respondent then successfully moved the High Court under Order XIX, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to summon the petitioner for cross-examination on that affidavit. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the authority to compel the petitioner's attendance for cross-examination on his affidavit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's order was legally sound. The Court affirmed that once a party files an affidavit in court proceedings, they are subject to the court's power under Order XIX, Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be summoned for cross-examination.
Questions settled- Can a court order the cross-examination of a deponent who has filed a counter-affidavit in response to an application for the appointment of a receiver?
- Does the court have the power under Order XIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to compel a party to attend for cross-examination on their affidavit?
- Yaqoob vs The StateK.L.R. 1987 Tax & Customs Cases 36 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-25Read full judgment →
- Yaqoob And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioners' convictions for murder and sentences of life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners attacked the deceased, Bashir, following a prior incident involving the deceased's brother. The trial court convicted the petitioners based on ocular evidence and recovery of weapons, while acquitting a co-accused. The High Court affirmed these convictions, rejecting the defense's plea of false implication and the theory that unknown assailants committed the crime. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the prosecution failed to explain the deceased's presence at the accused's premises and challenged the reliability of the eye-witnesses for not specifying individual blows. The Supreme Court held that the arguments raised by the petitioners did not involve any substantial question of law or principle. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's appraisal of the evidence, the Court refused to re-appraise the evidence and dismissed the petition, thereby maintaining the convictions.
Questions settled- Does the failure of eye-witnesses to specify which blow caused which injury necessarily render their testimony unreliable?
- Is the Supreme Court required to re-appraise evidence in a criminal appeal where no legal infirmity is shown in the High Court's judgment?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed if the arguments raised do not involve any question of law or principle?
- Yaqoob and 25 others vs Anwar Hussain1987 CLC 530 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- Yaq00b Ali vs Ismail1987 CLC 526 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an application filed by a tenant under section 10(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance seeking the restoration of an amenity alleged to have been closed by the appellant landlord. The core legal question is whether a tenant can be held to have waived or acquiesced their right to claim the restoration of an amenity by remaining silent and inactive for an unreasonable period before bringing an application, particularly when such application is filed as a counterblast to an ejectment proceeding. The Sindh High Court held that the right to claim the restoration of a personal amenity is a private privilege rather than a matter of public policy, and a tenant's unexplained silence and lack of protest for a prolonged period of two years constitutes waiver and acquiescence, disentitling them to discretionary relief under the law. The court laid down the principle that where a party sleeps over their rights regarding a personal statutory benefit without raising a timely objection, their conduct implies waiver and disentitles them to a discretionary remedy.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant's prolonged silence and failure to object to the closure of an amenity for an unreasonable period amounts to waiver and acquiescence?
- Can a tenant claim the restoration of an amenity under Section 10 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance after a delayed period when the application is filed as a counterblast to ejectment proceedings?
- Is the right to claim the restoration of an amenity under the rent laws a matter of public policy or a personal privilege that can be waived?
- Does Section 10 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance obligate the Rent Controller to order restoration of amenities in every case of closure regardless of the tenant's conduct?
- Wyeth Laboratories (Pakistan Limited) vs Asmatullah Khattak And 61987 PLC 675 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
- Works Manager, Rohri Cement Works, Rohri vs Ali Gohar1987 PLC 105 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
- Workers, Union vs Messrs Pakistan Herald Publications1987 PLC 13 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- Workers Union vs Messrs Yousuf Textile Printing Mills1987 PLC 415 · Labour Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- Wilayat Masih vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal And Others1987 PLC 781 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
- Wilayat Masih vs Messrs Metal Containers Ltd.1987 PLC 7 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
- Wilayat Khan vs Mst. Riaz Begum and another1987 CLC 1079 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- Wilayat Alias Walu vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1642 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
- Wilayat Ali Khan vs Ahmad Ali1987 CLC 1871 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-22Read full judgment →
- West Pakistan Province vs Col. J.J.V.C. Coningham and others1987 CLC 1858 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
- Wazir Rind vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1408 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
- Wazir Laiq vs The State and Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses whether the revisional authority under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Laws (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975 has the jurisdiction to examine and cancel bail orders passed prior to formal cognizance of an offence. The appellant's bail, granted on medical grounds, was cancelled by the Additional Secretary acting as a revisional authority under section 24 of the Regulation, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the word 'proceedings' in section 24 of the Regulation and whether bail matters fall within its scope. The Supreme Court held that the term 'proceedings' is comprehensive and covers intermediate steps including bail applications, thereby giving the Government full revisional jurisdiction over bail orders. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the revisional authority's jurisdiction to cancel bail.
Questions settled- Does the word 'proceedings' in section 24 of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Laws (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975 include bail applications?
- Whether the Government as a revisional authority under section 24 of Regulation I of 1975 has jurisdiction to cancel bail granted prior to the formal cognizance of an offence?
- Does the power to grant bail under section 16 of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Laws (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975 operate independently of formal cognizance?
- Wazir Khan And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 532 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-20Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Zaka Khalid And Another1987 SCMR 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three civil appeals filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against orders of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the removal of the respondents from service. The respondents, employed as meter readers, were removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 without assigned reasons. The core legal question was whether the Federal Service Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to entertain appeals against removal orders passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958, given the purported immunity under Section 17(1-C). Relying on the precedent set in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi, the Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate terms and conditions of service and to examine the propriety of removal orders passed under Section 17(1-A). The Court further found that the appellant failed to provide material evidence to justify the removals before the Tribunal and declined to remand the cases for further evidence, as the appellant had already been afforded an opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon an order of removal from service passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958?
- Is an order of removal passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 immune from challenge before the Service Tribunal due to Section 17(1-C) of the same Act?
- Can the Supreme Court refuse to remand a case to the Service Tribunal when the appellant failed to produce evidence during the initial proceedings?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Shokat Ali1987 SCMR 1930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 26th June 1984, which accepted the respondent's appeal against his removal from service. The respondent, a Junior Engineer and later Deputy Director in WAPDA, was removed from service on 18th August 1982 under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine whether the Federal Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed by WAPDA in respect of its employees, given the ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act. The Supreme Court held that the question of the Federal Service Tribunal's jurisdiction stood already resolved by this Court in the earlier ruling of WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18). Finding the reasoning of the Service Tribunal on merits to be cogent and well-founded, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the tribunal's order.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed by WAPDA in respect of its employees in view of section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
- Does section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 exclude the power of the Federal Service Tribunal to review removal from service?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Muhammad Azhar1987 SCMR 1931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 9-7-1984, whereby the respondent's removal from service as an Executive Engineer in WAPDA under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, was set aside and he was reinstated. The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to entertain appeals against removal orders in view of the ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Service Tribunal possesses the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, as previously settled in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18). Furthermore, on merits, the appellant failed to produce any documents or material before the Tribunal or the Supreme Court to justify the respondent's removal. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction in such service matters despite statutory ouster clauses, and failure by the employer to substantiate allegations or produce records justifies the setting aside of the removal order.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with orders of WAPDA in respect of persons employed under it in view of section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
- Is the Service Tribunal justified in accepting an appeal against removal from service when the employer fails to produce required documents or material for examination?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Muhammad Ali1987 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the Federal Service Tribunal's order reinstating a WAPDA employee whose services were terminated. The respondent, a Lineman, was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, while departmental proceedings regarding an accident were pending. The Tribunal had held that once departmental proceedings were initiated, the authority was precluded from invoking Section 17(1-A) and that such removal carried a stigma. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, holding that if the law provides two distinct modes for terminating services, the initiation of one does not legally bar the authority from adopting the other, absent a statutory prohibition. The Court further held that a termination order issued under Section 17(1-A) without assigning reasons does not attach a stigma to the employee, as the allegations in the pending inquiry remained unproven. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order, affirming the authority's power to terminate services under the Act regardless of pending departmental proceedings.
Questions settled- Can an employer invoke statutory powers to terminate service while departmental proceedings are pending against an employee?
- Does the initiation of departmental proceedings legally preclude an authority from later exercising its power to terminate service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958?
- Does a termination order issued under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 without assigning reasons carry a stigma?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Muhammad Akram1987 SCMR 1929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 22-10-1984, whereby the respondent's removal from service as a Line Superintendent Grade II in WAPDA under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act was set aside. The core legal question involves the extent of the ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act and whether the Federal Service Tribunal could assume jurisdiction to interfere with removal orders passed by WAPDA. The Supreme Court held, following its prior precedent in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18), that the Tribunal's jurisdiction stands resolved, and since the appellant failed to place any material or record before the Tribunal or the Supreme Court to justify the action taken against the respondent, no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that while section 17(1-A) restricts jurisdiction, the employer must still substantiate or justify the factual basis of the action when challenged before the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Is it necessary for WAPDA to justify the action taken under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act when challenged before a judicial forum?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Irtiqa Rasool Hashmi And Another1987 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the entitlement of a former Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) employee to pensionary benefits following his removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether a 1982 notification, which amended the Pakistan WAPDA Pension Rules, 1977 to exclude employees removed under Section 17(1-A) from pension eligibility, could be applied retrospectively to an employee removed in 1977. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, holding that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively to divest the respondent of vested rights. The Court affirmed that executive orders and rule-making powers, absent explicit legislative authorization, cannot operate retrospectively to deprive individuals of accrued benefits. It concluded that the respondent had acquired a vested right to pensionary benefits upon his removal in 1977, which could not be extinguished by subsequent administrative notifications. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle against the retrospective application of administrative rules affecting vested rights.
Questions settled- Can an administrative rule or notification be given retrospective effect to divest an employee of vested pension rights?
- Does Section 18 of the WAPDA Act 1958 authorize the WAPDA to amend service rules with retrospective operation?
- Are employees removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 entitled to pensionary benefits if the rules at the time of removal did not expressly exclude them?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Ajmal Ali Khan and another1987 MLD 2899 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-20Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Aijaz Ahmad Sheikh And Another1987 SCMR 1940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves cross-appeals against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the removal of a Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) employee into retirement with pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals against WAPDA orders concerning its employees, given the purported ouster of jurisdiction under Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The Supreme Court, relying on established precedent, held that the Service Tribunal maintains exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate matters regarding the terms and conditions of WAPDA employees effective from 30-9-1975. Regarding the merits, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to convert the removal from service into retirement, noting that the absence of charges involving corruption or dishonesty justified a less severe penalty. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's reasoning was sound and dismissed both appeals, thereby upholding the modification of the disciplinary order. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Service Tribunal is the competent forum for service-related disputes involving WAPDA employees, notwithstanding statutory ouster clauses.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals against orders passed by WAPDA regarding its employees?
- Can the Service Tribunal interfere with disciplinary orders passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
- Is the removal of a WAPDA employee from service subject to review by the Service Tribunal despite the provisions of Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
- Water and Power Development Authority Through Its Chairman And Others vs Syed Munir Hussain And Another1987 SCMR 331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which declared the removal of respondent No.1 from service by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect, while granting him intervening emoluments. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court had constitutional jurisdiction to entertain a petition relating to terms and conditions of service, and whether WAPDA was competent under section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 to remove a provincial government employee serving under it on deputation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these important legal questions and suspended the operation of the High Court's order in the interim, while allowing the Provincial Government to take the respondent back into service.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under its constitutional jurisdiction to entertain a petition seeking relief relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Whether WAPDA is competent under section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 to remove from service a permanent employee of the Provincial Government serving under it as a deputationist?
- Water and Power Development Authority and another vs Additional1987 MLD 2449 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority and 2 others vs Syed Faqir1987 MLD 2911 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
- Wasim Fatima vs Karachi Development Authority and another1987 MLD 471 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
- Wasil Din and another vs The State1987 MLD 985 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- Waris Ali vs Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore And 2 Others1987 PLC (C. S.) 674 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-06-04Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Rao Zilledar Khan1987 SCMR 1947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which set aside the removal of the respondent from the service of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The respondent had been removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the record established that the "Authority" had collectively and validly passed the order of removal. The Supreme Court examined the file notings and observed that while some members had agreed to the proposal, the Chairman’s note was entirely unrelated to the removal of the respondent and did not signify approval. Consequently, the Court held that there was no valid, unanimous order of removal passed by the Authority as required by law. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the purported removal was of no legal consequence, as the necessary collective decision-making process had not been satisfied. The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory authorities must ensure that their decisions, particularly those affecting the service rights of employees, are clearly, specifically, and collectively recorded to be legally binding.
Questions settled- Does an order of removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 require a unanimous decision by the Authority?
- Can an order of removal be validly passed if the record fails to show the Chairman's concurrence?
- Does a vague or unrelated administrative note by the Chairman of a statutory body constitute a valid approval for the removal of an employee?
- WAPDA vs Muhammad Saleem Etc.1987 PLC 649 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Anwar MahmoodK.L.R. 1987 Laboar and Service Cases 216 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Abdul Latif Qureshi1987 SCMR 1348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Central Service Tribunal dated 8-10-1986, which allowed the respondent's service appeal against his removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question concerns the limits of the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction to interfere with removal actions taken under Section 17(1-A) and whether the respondent's case fell within the permissible categories for interference established by prior precedent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since there was no distinguishing feature between the present case and a previously adjudicated parallel case where leave to appeal was refused, the petition must also be dismissed. The key principle laid down is that consistent treatment must be applied to materially identical service matters, and where a petition for leave to appeal has been dismissed in a virtually identical case involving the same statutory provision, leave will likewise be refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with the removal of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958?
- Should leave to appeal be refused when there is no distinguishing feature between the case at hand and a previously decided parallel case?
- WAPDA And Others vs Haji Nizam Din And Another1987 SCMR 1981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondents filed civil suits challenging the disconnection of electricity and the issuance of detection bills by WAPDA, alleging theft of electricity. After the trial court and the appellate court rejected the respondents' applications for interim relief, the respondents filed civil revisions in the High Court. The High Court, relying on reports from the Electric Inspector stating that theft could not be confirmed due to the non-availability of the removed meters, directed the restoration of electricity supply pending the final disposal of the civil revisions. WAPDA sought leave to appeal, arguing that the High Court erred by granting final relief at an interim stage, particularly when WAPDA possessed laboratory reports indicating meter tampering and raised significant questions regarding the maintainability of the suits. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners' contentions required examination but declined to comment on the merits to avoid prejudicing the pending revisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court suspended the High Court's order for restoration of electricity and directed the parties to seek an early disposal of the revision petitions from the High Court.
Questions settled- Can a High Court grant the final relief claimed in a suit as an interim measure during the pendency of a civil revision?
- Is a court justified in ordering the restoration of electricity supply based solely on the non-availability of meters for inspection?
- WAPDA and 2 others vs Shaukat Ali and 2 others1987 CLC 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-22Read full judgment →
- Walter Rau Neusser 01 and Fett Ag. vs Registrar of Trade Marks and another1987 MLD 1415 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1987 MLD 762 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-14Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Ashraf and others1987 MLD 3316 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-14Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad And Others vs Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum And Another1987 SCMR 2046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for Special Leave to Appeal arises from a dispute concerning the unauthorized withdrawal of a pre-emption suit. The respondents filed a suit for pre-emption, which their counsel subsequently withdrew, citing a compromise. The respondents later filed a review application, alleging that they had never authorized the withdrawal and that the dismissal order was obtained through fraud. The trial court found that fraud had been committed and restored the suit. An appellate court reversed this decision, but the High Court restored the trial court's order. The petitioners, challenging the High Court's decision, argued that the counsel possessed the authority to compromise and withdraw the suit under the executed Vakalatnama, and that instructions were received from a family member of the respondents. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the scope of the counsel's authority and the alleged fraud required further judicial examination. The Court directed that the trial court should not announce a final judgment while the appeal remains pending before the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Does a counsel have inherent authority to withdraw a suit on behalf of a client without specific instructions?
- Can a court order of dismissal be set aside on the grounds of fraud if the counsel acted without authorization?
- Is a review application maintainable against an order of dismissal passed on the basis of an unauthorized compromise?
- Walayat Hussain Raja vs Secretary, Establishment Division And Other1987 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 1st July, 1985. The core legal questions concern whether the Service Tribunal erred in basing its seniority decision on a replaced Office Memorandum instead of the operative one, and whether appointments under specific paragraphs of the 1975 Office Memorandum were subject to or in excess of departmental quotas prescribed by rules. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the points raised by the petitioner warranted a full examination and granted leave to appeal, ordering the petition to be heard along with connected pending appeals where leave had already been granted. The key principle laid down is that where substantial questions regarding the applicability of administrative office memoranda and departmental quotas in seniority matters are raised, leave to appeal is appropriately granted for a comprehensive hearing alongside similar pending cases.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal can base its decision on seniority on an Office Memorandum that has already been replaced?
- Are appointments made under para 6 of the Office Memorandum subject to any quota?
- Can appointments of officers under para 4 of the Office Memorandum be made in excess of the departmental quota prescribed by rules?
- Wahid Bux vs Divisional Manager Utility Stores1987 PLC 932 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-18Read full judgment →
- Wahid Bakhsh And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 710 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- Wa Zir Ali Khan and others vs Settlement Commissioner, Sind and others1987 CLC 2324 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- Volkart (Pakistan) Limited vs Cotton Trading Corporation and 21987 CLC 1770 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
- Venu G. Advani and another vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and 6 others1987 CLC 1422 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
- Uzin Export Import Enterprises vs M. Iftikhar & Company Ltd.1987 CLC 2205 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-04Read full judgment →
- Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And Other1987 PLD SC 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals arose from a High Court judgment dismissing writ petitions that challenged the orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core dispute involved the retrenchment of supervisors by the Utility Stores Corporation. The Labour Court and Tribunal had ordered that the retrenched supervisors be reverted to their original posts of salesmen, invoking the 'just and proper' provision of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court held that the respondents had no inherent right to be reverted to their original posts, as no lien existed on those positions under any law. The Court clarified that the power of the Labour Court to pass 'just and proper' orders under Section 25-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is restricted to adjudicating violations of rights guaranteed by law and does not empower the Tribunal to create new rights or override existing legal principles. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an error of law by a Tribunal is a jurisdictional error, making it subject to correction via writ jurisdiction, thereby rejecting the notion that Tribunals have the authority to decide matters 'rightly or wrongly' when the law is misapplied.
Questions settled- Does a promoted employee have an inherent legal right to be reverted to their original post upon retrenchment from a higher post?
- Can a Labour Court, under Section 25-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, create rights not guaranteed by law under the guise of passing 'just and proper' orders?
- Does a Tribunal's error of law constitute an excess of jurisdiction amenable to correction via writ jurisdiction?
- What is the scope of the term 'just and proper' in the context of adjudicating grievances under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Usman Ghani vs G Ulzar Ahmed1987 CLC 1753 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller dismissing an eviction application filed under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment, subletting, and personal bona fide requirement for his brother. The Court examined whether the tenant's failure to pay rent within the statutory period constituted default, given a long-standing practice of lump-sum payments accepted by the landlord. The Court held that where a landlord establishes a consistent practice of accepting rent in lump sums over extended periods, such conduct precludes a finding of willful default. Regarding subletting, the Court found that the premises were rented for a minor by his father, who operated a clinic therein from the inception of the tenancy, thus negating the claim of subletting. Finally, the Court noted the landlord's concession regarding the bona fide requirement ground. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Rent Controller correctly exercised discretion in rejecting the eviction application based on the established conduct of the parties.
Questions settled- Does a consistent practice of accepting rent in lump sums preclude a landlord from claiming default for late payment?
- Can a minor's father running a business in premises rented in the minor's name be considered subletting?
- Does the definition of landlord under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 include a co-owner?
- Usman And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2182 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
- Usman and others vs Shahru1987 MLD 165 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
- Usman alias Bawa vs The State and 2 others1987 MLD 2250 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
- University of the Punjab vs Gulfam Akhtar1987 SCMR 706 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that set aside the University of the Punjab’s decision to disqualify a student for using unfair means in an examination. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere with the University’s disciplinary findings in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the University's decision. The Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings within educational institutions are akin to parental proceedings and are not bound by the strict technical rules of evidence applicable in judicial trials. The Court established that there is an initial presumption of guilt in cases of impersonation, which the student must rebut by proving mala fides. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the quantum of material for factual findings lies within the exclusive domain of the University authorities. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that courts should not interfere with such disciplinary findings unless the decision is proven to be unfair, arbitrary, or based on mala fides.
Questions settled- Are disciplinary proceedings in educational institutions bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable to courts of law?
- Can a High Court interfere with the factual findings of a University's disciplinary committee in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is there an initial presumption of guilt against a student in cases of examination impersonation?
- What is the scope of judicial review regarding the disciplinary decisions of educational authorities?
- University of the Punjab And Another vs Farooq Ahmad And Another1987 SCMR 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
- United Liner Agencies of Pakistan Ltd. vs Sind Employees' Social1987 PLC 538 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. and 7 others1987 CLC 1781 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Muhammad Yaseen and 2 others1987 CLC 2433 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-19Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Mian Abdul Rashid and another1987 CLC 331 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Akbar Agencies Ltd.1987 PLD Karachi 81 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Messers Akbar Agencies Ltd.1987 PLD Karachi 81 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Haji Tahir Muhammad1987 MLD 3072 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-13Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Haji Malik Muhammad Umer1987 SCMR 1833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court, which remanded two connected suits to the trial court for re-trial. The respondent had filed two separate suits against the petitioner Bank, which were decided differently. While the petitioner's appeal against the decree in one suit was timely, the respondent's appeal against the dismissal of the other suit was admittedly time-barred. Despite explicitly acknowledging that the respondent's appeal was barred by limitation and that no grounds for condonation of delay were presented, the High Court condoned the delay solely on the basis that the suits involved the same parties and account, and that the connected appeal had been remanded. The core legal question is whether a court has the jurisdiction to condone a time-barred appeal and remand a case when no valid grounds for condonation of delay exist. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction in condoning the delay without legal justification requires examination, and ordered a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending the appeal's disposal.
Questions settled- Can a High Court condone a delay in filing an appeal solely on the ground that a connected case is being remanded?
- Does a court have jurisdiction to remand a case when the appeal against the trial court's judgment is time-barred and no grounds for condonation are established?
- United Bank Ltd. vs Ghulam Sarwar Rasul and another1987 MLD 3077 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Consolidated Sugar Mills1987 CLC 716 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Amir Weaving Factory and others1987 CLC 581 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. Karachi vs Malik Rashid Ahmad and another1987 MLD 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. And Another vs Muhammad Tufail Ahmad1987 PLC 1 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. And 12 others vs Messrs Kohistan Ltd.1987 CLC 2364 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
- United Bank Limited vs Shabbir Ahmad Abbasi and another1987 MLD 2586 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-02Read full judgment →
- United Bank Limited vs Muhammad Luqman Muhammad Hanif Brothers1987 CLC 2541 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-01Read full judgment →
- United Bank Limited vs Muhammad Hanif1987 PLC 874 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-22Read full judgment →
- United Bank Limited vs Messrs Fazaka Industries Ltd. and others1987 MLD 49(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
- United Bank Limited vs A. Hafeezsons Limited and others1987 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- Union of India & others. M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. and others. vs M/s. ModiPTCL 1987 FC.266 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Union Bank of the Middle East vs Miss Rehana Naheed And Another1987 PLC 703 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →