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. 232594 judgments in total.
- SANJEDA BANO vs JEHANGTR1987 PLD Karachi 53 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
- SANGE ALI Alias GHULAM SARWAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1610 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- SANDOZ LIMITED and another vs PAKISTAN PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS1987 CLC 1571 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with the Patents and Designs Act 1911, seeking to restrain the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs' registered patents for the drug "KETOTIFEN" sold under the trade name "ZADITEN". The core legal question concerns whether the defendant's marketing and sale of a competing drug under the name "KATIFEN" with similar descriptions and chemical representations constitutes an actionable patent infringement and passing off, justifying interlocutory injunctive relief. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of patent infringement and imitation, as the defendant's packaging created a false impression of containing the plaintiffs' patented compound without plausible explanation, and registration under the Drugs Act does not immunize against patent claims. The court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured suppressing potential piracy and health hazards, thereby granting the injunction to restrain the defendant from using the disputed name or formula.
Questions settled- Whether registration of a pharmaceutical product under the Drugs Act immunizes a party against patent infringement claims under the Patents and Designs Act 1911?
- Can an interim injunction be granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a patent infringement suit where imitation is established?
- Whether photostat copies of documents appended to a plaint or affidavit can be relied upon at the interlocutory stage when no specific objection to their authenticity is raised?
- Does marketing a drug with a similar description and chemical representation of a patented compound constitute actionable imitation under patent law?
- SANAULLAH WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. AND Another vs MONOPOLY CONTROL. AUTHORITY1987 PLD Supreme Court 202 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated civil appeal addressed whether the expression "value of assets" under section 2(1)(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, relates to gross assets, whether liabilities must be deducted when computing the value of assets, and whether current assets are included. The appellants contended that "value of assets" should be restricted to fixed assets capable of depreciation or construed as net assets after deducting liabilities. The Supreme Court held that the statutory definition encompasses all assets in their entirety—including fixed, current, liquid, tangible, or intangible assets—evaluated at cost less normal depreciation where applicable under income tax laws, and that liabilities are not to be deducted. The Court reasoned that size, measured by the total value of assets, serves as the sole criterion to determine undue concentration of economic power under the Ordinance. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court remanding the matters to the Monopoly Control Authority.
Questions settled- Whether the expression 'value of assets' under section 2(1)(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, connotes gross assets or only fixed assets?
- Whether liabilities of an undertaking are to be taken into account and deducted when computing the 'value of assets' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970?
- Does the definition of 'value of assets' include current, liquid, and circulating assets alongside fixed assets?
- How is depreciation to be factored into the calculation of the value of assets under section 2(1)(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970?
- Sanaullah Woollen Mills Limited and another vs Monopoly Control Autho-PTCL 1987 CL. 175 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against High Court judgments regarding the interpretation of the term "value of assets" under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970. The core legal questions were whether "value of assets" includes only fixed, depreciable assets or all assets, and whether liabilities must be deducted to arrive at a "net" value. The Supreme Court held that the definition encompasses the totality of an undertaking's assets, including fixed, current, liquid, tangible, and intangible assets, valued at cost less normal depreciation. The Court rejected the argument that liabilities should be deducted, reasoning that the legislative intent was to measure the "size" of an undertaking as an indicator of economic power. Consequently, excluding current assets or liabilities would undermine the Ordinance's regulatory purpose. The Court affirmed that the reference to income tax laws in the definition serves solely to calculate depreciation rates, not to classify the nature of assets. The appeals were dismissed, confirming that the Authority correctly included all assets to determine if an undertaking exceeds the statutory threshold for undue concentration of economic power.
Questions settled- Does the expression 'value of assets' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, include current and liquid assets in addition to fixed assets?
- Are liabilities to be deducted from the gross value of assets when determining the 'value of assets' for the purposes of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970?
- Does the reference to income tax laws in the definition of 'value of assets' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, serve to classify the nature of assets or merely to provide a method for calculating depreciation?
- SANAULLAH vs WAPDA1987 SCMR 1933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 8-8-1984, which dismissed the appellant meter-reader's service appeal. The appellant had been removed from service on 12-1-1983 under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. Leave was granted to examine whether the Service Tribunal could assume jurisdiction and interfere with WAPDA's orders given the ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act. The Supreme Court noted that the question of the Tribunal's jurisdiction stood finally resolved by prior precedent. Finding no defect in the Tribunal's order—which had dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation and merits—the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
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?
- Can a service appeal be dismissed on the grounds of limitation and merits?
- SANAULLAH vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1987 SCMR 1889 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The core legal question concerns the character of the disputed property situated within the Sialkot Cantonment, specifically whether it constitutes Government/Cantonment Board property or evacuee property, and whether the petitioner, a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir who received an initial transfer of a portion of the land, was entitled to the transfer of an additional adjacent piece of land under the Management of Residual Available Properties Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding the evacuee nature of the property and his entitlement to the additional land require detailed examination, especially since neither the Government nor the Cantonment Board had previously asserted that the land was not evacuee property during earlier transfer proceedings. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these matters further.
Questions settled- Whether land situated within a cantonment limits and previously held on a lease in perpetuity can be treated as evacuee property?
- Can a refugee entitled to an initial transfer of property claim an extra piece of adjacent land under the Management of Residual Available Properties Scheme?
- Whether the High Court was correct in assuming the disputed property belonged to the Government or the Cantonment Board without prior assertion by those authorities?
- SANAULLAH KHAN alias KHAN vs Haji HASSAN KHAN1987 PLD Peshawar 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH BUTT vs THE MASTER OF THE MINT, PAKISTAN MINT, LAHORE1987 SCMR 875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal, which had challenged the termination of his services from the Pakistan Mint. The petitioner, employed as an Assistant Bullion Keeper, faced allegations of misconduct, inefficiency, and subversive activities, leading to departmental proceedings and an inquiry wherein he ultimately boycotted the proceedings. The core legal questions involved whether the failure to provide a separate show-cause notice and a copy of the inquiry report vitiated the termination order, and whether important documents were wrongfully withheld during the inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the contentions were without substance, ruling that the failure to supply a show-cause notice or inquiry report did not invalidate the proceedings in light of established precedent, and that the withheld document allegation was factually incorrect since the document was duly exhibited and the petitioner had chosen to boycott the inquiry. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to provide a show-cause notice and a copy of the inquiry report vitiates an order of termination?
- Can a delinquent employee complain that a document was withheld when he boycotted the inquiry proceedings and failed to cross-examine the author?
- Whether departmental remedies ought to be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction?
- SANAULLAH and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1953 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
- SANATTA And 6 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- SAMUNDAR vs LAL MUHAMMAD and 9 OTHERS1987 PLD Quetta 209 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- SAMIULLAH, GENERAL SECRETARY, SHAH TAJ SUGAR MILLS MAZDOOR ITTEFAQ1987 PLC 712 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
- SAMI-UR-REHMAN vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And 21987 PLC (C.S.) 139 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-10-02Read full judgment →
- SALIM SABIR vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 61 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
- SALIM KHAN and 5 others vs MUHAMMAD /MB KHAN1987 MLD 2413 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
- SALES TAX OFFICER, LAHORE vs Messrs INTERNATIONAL BODY BUILDERS, FEROZEPUR ROAD, LAHORE And Other1987 SCMR 1398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the High Court in a writ petition concerning the assessment of sales tax on the construction and repair of bus and truck bodies by the respondent. The core legal question was whether the respondent's business activity constituted a sale of goods rendering it liable to pay sales tax, or a contract for the performance of work exempting it from the same. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in setting aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remanding the matter for a proper determination of this basic question, which the tax authorities had failed to address initially. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that tax authorities must first determine the foundational nature of a business transaction as either a sale of goods or a contract for work before imposing tax liability.
Questions settled- Whether the construction of bus and truck bodies using customer-supplied chassis amounts to a sale of goods or a contract for the performance of work?
- Can tax authorities impose sales tax liability without first determining the basic nature of the taxpayer's business transaction?
- Is an order of remand by the High Court for determining foundational factual and legal questions open to interference by the Supreme Court under special leave to appeal?
- SALES TAX OFFICER And 2 Others vs COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.1987 SCMR 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondent regarding a refund of sales tax for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75. The core legal dispute arose after the Appellate Tribunal directed the refund of sales tax, but the Sales Tax Officer subsequently requested the respondent to produce records for verification of the claimed amount. The respondent refused, arguing that the Tribunal's earlier orders implied that the refund should be granted without further verification. The High Court upheld the respondent's position, concluding that the final orders in the first round of litigation precluded the necessity of verification. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petition, observed that the question of whether the claim required verification and determination in accordance with prescribed procedures had not been properly examined or decided in the initial litigation. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the necessity of verification and whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in this matter.
Questions settled- Does an order for a tax refund by an Appellate Tribunal automatically preclude the tax authorities from verifying the actual amount claimed?
- Should the High Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under a constitutional petition when a party refuses to comply with a verification request for a tax refund?
- Is a claim for a tax refund subject to verification of the amount paid despite prior appellate orders directing the refund?
- SALEHON vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1987 PLD Quetta 94 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs GHULAM SARWAR And Other1987 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, which acquitted respondents 1 to 7 of charges under sections 302, 149, 148, and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents for murder and rioting. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony and a motive involving illicit relations and prior altercations. The High Court acquitted the respondents by granting them the benefit of the doubt due to the uncorroborated, interested, and inimical nature of the eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court examined the testimony of the purported independent eye-witness and found that he was likewise hostile and inimical, thereby affirming that the High Court's assessment was justified. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in granting the benefit of the doubt and acquitting the respondents based on interested and inimical eye-witness testimony?
- Can an eye-witness considered independent by the complainant be deemed hostile and inimical upon perusal of their statement?
- Does medical evidence alone corroborate interested ocular testimony when independent corroboration is lacking?
- SALEEM vs SAEEDA BEGUN and another1987 MLD 461 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- SALEEM KHAN vs Hakeem JAMIL AHMAD SIDDIQUI and another1987 CLC 1748 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
- SALEEM JAHANGIR vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, MULTAN and others1987 CLC 885 · Lahore High Court · 1973-08-03Read full judgment →
- SALEEM AZIZ KHAN vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 919 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-23Read full judgment →
- SALEEM ANWAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3180 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-12Read full judgment →
- SALEEM AKHTAR vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION, KARACHI1987 CLC 408 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
- SALEEM AHMAD Alias KAKA vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 4 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
- SALEEM AHMAD alias KAKA vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 4 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
- SALAMAT JAN vs CHOTEY KHAN1987 MLD 2971 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
- SALAMAT ALI vs THE STATE1987 KLR Shariat Cases 55 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
- SALAMAT ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
- SALAMAT ALI And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 67 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-13Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN KHAN vs AL MANSOOR LIMITED And 2 Other1987 PLD Lahore 569 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN KHAN LODHI vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 2086 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-25Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, Education And Other1987 SCMR 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a service dispute concerning the determination of seniority between ministerial staff transferred from Local Councils to the Provincial Education Department following the promulgation of the West Pakistan Primary Education Ordinance, 1962, and those already serving in the department prior to the transfer. The core legal question was whether the transferred employees were entitled to count their previous length of service under the Local Councils for seniority or whether their seniority should commence strictly from the date of their provincialization on July 1, 1962. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the petitioners were entitled to receive seniority only from July 1, 1962, when they joined government service. Upon challenge, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing that the questions raised regarding the fixation of seniority upon provincialization or nationalization are of great public importance and pending consideration in other appeals.
Questions settled- How is the seniority of ministerial staff transferred from Local Councils to the Provincial Government under the West Pakistan Primary Education Ordinance, 1962 to be determined?
- Whether employees whose services were transferred to the Provincial Education Department are entitled to count their previous length of service under Local Councils for fixation of seniority?
- Whether an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal is competent when the aggrieved parties have not exhausted the departmental remedy of appeal?
- SALAHUD DIN vs MUHAMMAD HANIF and another1987 MLD 707 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
- SALA HU DDIN vs MURATAB ALI and another1987 CLC 1910 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- SAKINA BIBI vs Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM1987 P Cr. L J 377 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-26Read full judgment →
- SAKHI KHAN vs Messrs SHABBIR TILES AND CERAMICS Ltd.1987 PLC 11 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-22Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD SIDDIQUI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND F. C. M. OF SIND LABOUR COURT NO. V, MUSLIMABAD KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND F. C. M. OF KARACHI AND 3 Other1987 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD HUSSAIN Alias BASARA vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD And Another1987 P Cr. L J 1898 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2253 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD ALI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 825 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
- SAJID ALI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2692 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
- SAINDAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1225 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-10Read full judgment →
- SAIN BUKHSH vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 2 Others1987 PLC (C . S .) 633 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-04-09Read full judgment →
- SAIN and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1176 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →
- Sain ALLAH DITTA vs NABI BAKHSH1987 MLD 337 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
- Sain ALLAH DITTA and others vs NABI BAKHSH and others1987 MLD 535 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
- SAIFULLAH KHAN vs AZIZULLAH KHAN Etc.K.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
- SAIFULLAH KHAN vs AZIZ ULLAH KHAN and 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
- SAIFULLAH KHAN vs AZIZ ULLAH KHAN And 3 Other1987 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
- SAIF ULLAH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2013 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- SAID SHAH And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1227 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN vs The STATE1987 SCMR 709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are cross-petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, where the petitioner Suleman was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Nisar Ahmad and sentenced to imprisonment for life after his death sentence was commuted by the High Court, while the deceased's brother sought restoration of the death sentence. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner acted in self-defence and whether the High Court correctly exercised discretion in reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life given the suddenness of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence was rightly rejected by the lower courts and that no interference was warranted with the High Court's discretion to reduce the sentence, dismissing both petitions while granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principles laid down include the evaluation of sudden altercations for sentencing mitigation and the strict standards required to substantiate a plea of self-defence.
Questions settled- Whether the plea of self-defence can be sustained when the accused fails to substantiate it with evidence and the physical circumstances contradict the version?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in reducing a sentence of death to imprisonment for life in a sudden occurrence?
- Whether an accused involved in a sudden affray at the spur of the moment is entitled to the commutation of a death sentence?
- SAID SHAH AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Supreme Court 288 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- SAID SHAH and 12 others vs Mst.KHURSHID BIBI1987 MLD 2490 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-15Read full judgment →
- SAID RASOOL and 8 others vs Subedar AMIR ZAMAN and 11 others1987 CLC 1582 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →
- SAID MUHAMMAD And Others vs ABDUL MAJID And Another1987 SCMR 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a revision petition filed by the petitioners. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a subsequent suit is maintainable when the dispute between the parties had already been concluded in an earlier suit through a special oath taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the present suit was not maintainable because the matter had already been adjudicated upon the taking of a special oath in the previous litigation. The Court reasoned that if the decree in the earlier suit did not align with the terms of the special oath, the proper remedy for the petitioners was to file an appeal against that specific decree, rather than initiating a new suit. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Is a subsequent suit maintainable when the dispute between the parties has already been concluded by a special oath in an earlier suit?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy if a decree passed based on a special oath does not conform to the terms of that oath?
- SAID AHMED vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1143 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- SAHIBZADA, COMMERCIAL SUPERVISOR (GOODS) RAILWAYS vs GENERALMANAGERPAKISTAN RAILWAYS And Others1987 PLC 735 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada MUHAMMAD IDREES vs Mst. MEHTAB MAHMOOD and another1987 MLD 253 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
- SAHIBUDDIN ASHRAFI vs SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF SIND, AGRICULTURE1987 PLC (C.S.) 735 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →
- SAHEERUNISSA vs UNITED BANK LIMITED1987 MLD 2590 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
- SAGHIR AHMAD And Others vs Begum AKHTAR AKHLAQ HUSSAIN And Other1987 SCMR 1923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a civil suit for a declaration of ownership regarding a house in Gulberg, Lahore, which was resisted by the respondents. The respondents failed to file a statement containing their addresses and names of legal heirs along with their written statement under Rules 11 and 13 of Order VIII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, but subsequently supplied the same shortly after the omission was pointed out in the replication. The trial Court declined to strike off the defence. On revision, the Additional District Judge struck off the defence and decreed the suit. In writ jurisdiction, the High Court set aside the Additional District Judge's order and remanded the case to the trial Court. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved the propriety of invoking constitutional jurisdiction when an appeal was allegedly available and the competence of the Additional District Judge to withdraw the suit to his own file. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, staying further proceedings in the trial Court.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court should interfere in writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy of appeal is available against a decree?
- Is it mandatory for a trial Court to strike off the defence of a defendant who fails to file a statement of addresses along with the written statement?
- Whether an Additional District Judge is competent to withdraw a suit to his own file in revision?
- SAGHIR AHMAD And 12 Other vs Messrs CHIEF SILK MILLS1987 PLC 514 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
- SAFIA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ1987 CLC 656 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 525 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR ALI And 2 Other vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, LAHORE CIRCLE, LAHORE And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 55 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR ABBAS And 2 Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Supreme Court 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the murder of one Sajid Abbas. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular testimony given by related and interested witnesses in the absence of an established motive, the reliability of weapon recoveries made several days after arrest, and whether an unwarranted disparity in sentencing among co-accused brothers warrants reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court, by majority, held that convincing ocular testimony from natural witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction even if the immediate motive is unproven or some co-accused are given the benefit of the doubt, and that weapon recoveries attested by a police officer against whom there is no allegation of dishonesty are admissible and corroborative. The principle laid down is that while corroboration is a rule of prudence, high-quality eyewitness testimony supported by medical and circumstantial evidence requires no corroboration, and minor discrepancies in an FIR do not vitiate the entire prosecution case against participating accused.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony from natural and related witnesses can be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction in the absence of a proven motive?
- Is a police officer's testimony regarding weapon recoveries admissible as corroborative evidence when no independent public witnesses are available?
- Whether an appellate court is justified in discarding weapon recoveries solely because they were effected a few days after the accused's arrest?
- Does an inconsistency or omission in the First Information Report regarding certain co-accused discredit the testimony of eyewitnesses against other participating accused?
- Whether a disparity in the sentences awarded to co-accused brothers requires reducing the death sentence of another brother to life imprisonment?
- SAEEDUDDIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
- SAEED HASSAN vs PACKAGES Ltd.1987 PLC 682 · Labour Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
- SAEED HASSAN vs Messrs PACKAGES Ltd.1987 PLC 681 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- SAEED And 2 Others vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD vs TARIQ NAZIR BUTT And Another1987 SCMR 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from an ejectment order passed against a tenant. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a commercial shop on the ground of personal use. The Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition, but the appellate court reversed this decision. Subsequently, the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction set aside the appellate court's judgment and restored the Rent Controller's order. The core legal question revolved around whether a landlord's temporary absence abroad for studies during the pendency of eviction proceedings negates the bona fides of personal requirement, and whether the High Court could interfere with findings of fact in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that a landlord is not expected to sit idle during protracted litigation, and going abroad or engaging in gainful occupation does not disprove bona fide personal use. Furthermore, the High Court is justified in interfering with an appellate finding of fact if it runs contrary to established legal principles and evidence on record. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a landlord going abroad for studies during the pendency of eviction proceedings negate the bona fides of personal requirement?
- Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the appellate court in rent matters?
- Does the fact that a landlord's father pursues the ejectment proceedings on his behalf imply that his claim for personal use is false?
- SAEED AHMAD KHAN GILL and another vs QAISRUL ISLAM and another1987 MLD 2717 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-28Read full judgment →
- SAEE MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2686 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-03Read full judgment →
- SAEE MUHAMMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-25Read full judgment →
- SADRUDDEEN And 4 Other vs THE STATE And Another1987 PLD Karachi 504 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- SADIQ HUSSAIN vs BEGUM LAILA SARFARAZ1987 MLD 1423(2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
- SADIQ Alias REHRA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2394 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
- SADHAN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 853 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
- SADDAY HUSSAIN vs Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL BIN QASIM, KARACHI1987 PLC 220 · Labour Court · 1986-06-05Read full judgment →
- SADAR KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2164 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- SABUZ HUSSAIN SHAH And 3 Others vs THE STATE1987 PLD Peshawar 164 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
- SABIR MIRZA vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2207 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
- SABIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 PCr.LJ 1126 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
- SABEHUDDIN KHAN vs SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD1987 PLC (C.S.) .756 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SAADAT NAWAZ Alias TIPU And Another vs THE STATE And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that modified the convictions of the accused in a murder case. The accused were originally convicted by the trial court under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the death of the deceased. On appeal, the High Court acquitted two co-accused and converted the conviction of the primary accused to one under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence following the rejection of certain ocular testimony, the reliability of a witness who provided conflicting versions of the identity of the shooter, and the appropriateness of the High Court's acquittal of co-accused despite allegations of intentional killing with a lethal weapon. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the primary accused regarding his conviction and to the complainant regarding the acquittal of the accused under the murder charge. The Court refused leave regarding the acquittal of one co-accused, citing the improbability of his involvement in a minor dispute. The case highlights the necessity of re-examining evidence when witness credibility is challenged.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the primary ocular testimony is contradictory regarding the identity of the assailant?
- Is it appropriate to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal when there are substantial questions regarding the reliability of witness testimony?
- Does the use of a lethal weapon on a vital part of an unarmed person's body necessarily preclude the application of exceptions to murder under the Pakistan Penal Code?
- SAADAT HASSAN vs ABDUL HAKEEM And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 2137 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
- SA-LAHUDDIN KHAN vs ALMANSOOR LIMITED and 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 569 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- S.S. A. MOEED and another vs Messrs EBRAHIM ALIBHAI CHARITABLE TRUST1987 MLD 308 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
- S.M.YUSUF and another vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (CC)/1987 MLD 524 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
- S.M.K. LODHI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1743 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
- S.M. YAQOOB vs TALAT HUSSAIN and 3 others1987 P Cr. L J 1624 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
- S.M. SAEED vs ALI HOSAIN1987 CLC 621 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
- S.M. S A YEED vs Mst. RASHIDA KHATOON and another1987 CLC 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →