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.
- NATIONAL ORGANISATION OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN POST OFFICES1987 PLC 730 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL MOTORS LTD. vs THE WORKMEN Represented By The Ghandara Industries Employees' Union Through Its General Secretary1987 SCMR 980 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an industrial dispute between National Motors Limited and its workmen regarding the continuity of service following a change in management. The core legal questions were whether an appeal against an Industrial Court award was competent under the Industrial Disputes (Conciliation and Adjudication) Order, 1965, and whether the rescission of said Order revived the right of appeal under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court held that the appeal to the High Court was incompetent because the 1965 Order expressly barred such appeals, and the saving clause in the rescission notification preserved this bar for pending proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a right of appeal is a substantive right that vests at the commencement of the lis, not at the time of the decision. The Court also upheld the Industrial Court's finding that the employees, by accepting termination and compensation, had severed their past service, precluding claims for continuity. The judgment establishes that specific statutory bars to appeal override general incorporated provisions and that saving clauses effectively maintain the legal regime for ongoing litigation.
Questions settled- Is the right of appeal a substantive right that vests at the commencement of legal proceedings?
- Does a specific bar to appeal in a special order override general provisions incorporated by reference?
- Can employees claim continuity of service after voluntarily accepting termination and full compensation?
- Do saving clauses in a rescission order preserve the legal regime for pending proceedings?
- NATIONAL MOTORS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1987 PLC 547 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION MANAGER, ADMINISTRATION, WYETH LABORATORIES (PAK.) Ltd. vs Ch. GULZAR AHMAD And Another1987 PLC 655 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION vs TRADE AND INDUSTRY1987 MLD 434 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL DETERGENTS Ltd. vs THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS1987 MLD 2115 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL DETERGENTS Ltd. vs HEN KEL KOMMANDIT GESELLS CHAFT AUF1987 MLD 2864 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION Ltd. vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL And Others1987 PLC 281 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, BANNU BRANCH through its Manager vs SAYED1987 CLC 1103 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a dismissed recovery suit filed by the National Bank of Pakistan against the respondent for a loan amount, which decisions were upheld by the first appellate court. The core legal question is whether the lower courts erred in discarding the bank's documentary evidence and whether concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with in second appeal where an error of law or misreading of evidence is shown. The Peshawar High Court held that the appellant successfully proved the execution of the disputed loan documents through acceptable statutory modes of proof, such as witnesses in whose presence documents were signed, and that the lower courts committed legal errors in discarding them. The court established that concurrent findings of fact based on misreading or misrepresentation of evidence are open to interference in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that a failure to object to the admission of documents at the initial stage precludes a party from raising such objections later.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in second appeal if they are based on a misreading or misrepresentation of evidence?
- What are the recognized modes of proving a signature or handwriting under the Evidence Act?
- Does the failure to object to the admission of a document into evidence at the trial stage bar a party from raising objections later?
- Is the mere production of a certified copy of a bank statement sufficient per se to charge a person with liability without corroboration?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs UMER & BROTHERS and 3 others1987 MLD 594 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs SADRUDDIN K.HOODA1987 MLD 629 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-10Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs NABI BUX KHAN BHURGARI1987 MLD 3288 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-10Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD USMAN JUNEJO1987 PLC 28 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-07-17Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF SANIK AND ANOTHER_Responuent1987 PLD Lahore 17 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF SANIK AND Another1987 PLD Lahore 17 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Messrs Sh. SARDAR MUHAMMAD & BROS.1987 MLD 1092 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Messrs NATIONAL RICE MILLS and others1987 MLD 401 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-21Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Messrs ELEGZENDER and COMPANY and 21987 PLD Lahore 290 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Messrs ELEGZENDER And COMPANY And 21987 PLD Lahore 290 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Messrs A.B.C. CHINESE RESTAURANT1987 MLD 625 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-21Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs ASAD ALI-1987 PLC 380 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and another vs Messrs FILM EXHIBITORS LTD.1987 CLC 1547 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN and 4 others1987 CLC 23 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 31 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 31 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
- NASRULLA H alias NASRA vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
- NASREEN AKHTAR vs FATEH SHER And Another1987 P Cr. L J 458 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
- NASIRUDDIN QURESHI And Other vs SIND LABOUR COURTKARACHI1987 PLC 633 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
- NASIRIJUDIN KHAN vs ABDUL MAJID1987 CLC 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
- NASIR-UD-DIN vs ADMINISTRATOR, THAL BHAKKAR1987 MLD 416 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
- NASIR SAID vs WATER ANDPOWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Another1987 SCMR 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Chief Engineer at the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), challenged his compulsory retirement before the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Chairman of WAPDA lacked the legal competence to order his retirement. He contended that under the WAPDA Employees (Retirement) Rules, 1979, the power to retire an employee with over 25 years of service vested exclusively in the 'Authority'—comprising the Chairman and Members acting collectively—rather than the Chairman alone. The petitioner relied on various office memoranda issued by the Authority between 1980 and 1985, which purportedly reserved the decision-making power regarding retirement after 25 years of service for the Authority itself. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's contentions regarding the scope of the Chairman's authority versus the collective Authority under the relevant rules and memoranda raised substantial legal questions requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine the validity of the retirement order.
Questions settled- Does the power to retire an employee under the WAPDA Employees (Retirement) Rules, 1979, vest in the Chairman alone or the Authority collectively?
- Can office memoranda issued by the Authority restrict the definition of 'competent authority' established in the WAPDA Employees (Retirement) Rules, 1979?
- Is an order of retirement issued by the Chairman of WAPDA legally effective if the power to retire is reserved for the Authority by internal office memoranda?
- NASIR SAID vs WAPDA Through Its Chairman And Another1987 PLD Supreme Court 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave was granted to examine whether the retirement order of a former WAPDA employee holding a Grade-20 post, passed under Rule 3(a) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Retirement) Rules, 1979, was issued by the competent authority. The appellant contended that subsequent administrative memoranda issued by WAPDA had the force of rules and restricted the definition of the competent authority under Rule 2(c), requiring retirement orders for employees completing 25 years of service or attaining 55 years of age to be passed by the full Authority rather than the Chairman or appointing authority alone. The Supreme Court held that the general instructions and memoranda issued by WAPDA effectively modified the application of the retirement rules by redefining the competent authority for officers who completed 25 years of service or reached 55 years of age, including those in Grade-20. Consequently, the retirement order passed by the appointing authority rather than the full Authority suffered from a jurisdictional defect. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned retirement order was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether administrative memoranda issued by WAPDA can modify or supersede the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Retirement) Rules, 1979?
- Did the Chairman of WAPDA possess the lawful authority to retire a Grade-20 officer under Rule 3(a) in view of subsequent general instructions?
- Whether an order of retirement passed by an authority other than the designated competent authority suffers from a jurisdictional taint?
- NASIR MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 810 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
- NASIR MAHMOOD MUGHAL vs MUHAMMAD AZAM and others1987 MLD 2526 · Election Tribunal · 1987-07-29Read full judgment →
- NASIM HIJAZI vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF N. W.F.P. And 4 Other1987 SCMR 93 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding eligibility and limitations on chances for a competitive examination conducted by the Public Service Commission. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner could challenge the imposition of a limit on the number of examination chances when admission to the examination and candidature were expressly made provisional and subject to government decisions regarding such limits. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's admission and candidature were provisional and subject to the pending decision of the Provincial Government concerning the limitation of chances, thereby leaving the petitioner with no valid grievance against the subsequent disqualification. The key principle laid down is that a candidate admitted provisionally to a competitive examination subject to specific departmental instructions and pending government decisions cannot claim vested rights to challenge rules or limitations duly applied pursuant to such provisional terms.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate admitted provisionally to a competitive examination can challenge the subsequent imposition of a limit on examination chances?
- Does a provisional admission certificate subject the candidature to pending government decisions regarding service rules?
- Can a petitioner claim accrued rights when their admission to an examination is expressly made subject to being found eligible in all respects?
- NASIM AKHTAR and 2 others vs GHULAM ZOHRA and another1987 MLD 2550 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-22Read full judgment →
- NASIM AHMED BHATTI vs RIAZUDDIN AHMED and another1987 MLD 1412 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →
- NASEER AHSAN And ANOTHER vs Syed VAQAR RAZA and another1987 P Cr. L J 803 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
- NASEER AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 590 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-23Read full judgment →
- NASEER AHMAD vs DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR (PLOTS) and others1987 CLC 921 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- NASEEM DEEN vs SIND GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE ASSISTANT1987 PLD Karachi 98 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NASEEM AHMAD vs ABDUL RAllAQ1987 CLC 702 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-16Read full judgment →
- NARAINDAS and another vs HINANAND and 2 others1987 MLD 464 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-12Read full judgment →
- NAJAF KHAN vs Dr. TAJAMAL HUSSAIN1987 CLC 1971 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
- NAJABAT ALI vs BASHIR AHMAD AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a constitutional petition challenging an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, which set aside a consolidation scheme. The scheme, originally confirmed on the basis of a compromise among certain parties, had split a compact land holding into two separate plots divided by a canal. A party who acquired interest in the land via a civil court consent decree intervened in the proceedings. The central question was whether consolidation authorities are bound by a compromise scheme between private parties where the scheme violates basic statutory principles of consolidation and causes injustice. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that where a consolidation scheme is offensive to the statutory requirements of law and is unjust or unfair on its face, consolidation authorities are under a legal duty to reject it, notwithstanding any compromise or agreement among the parties or most of them.
Questions settled- Are consolidation authorities bound to accept a consolidation scheme based on a compromise among parties if the scheme violates statutory consolidation principles?
- Whether consolidation authorities have a duty to reject an unjust consolidation scheme that splits a compact land holding despite an agreement between the parties?
- Does a person who acquires an interest in land via a civil court consent decree during litigation have locus standi to challenge a consolidation scheme affecting that land?
- NAIMAT KHAN vs SIND LABOUR COURT1987 PLC 619 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
- NAIK MUHAMMAD vs BAGH ALI1987 PLD Lahore 208 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- NAIK LATH KHAN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (ADDITIONAL1987 CLC 2121 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- Naib Subedar MUHAMMAD AYUB vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And 2 Other1987 SCMR 370 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-07-22Read full judgment →
- NAHEED NOOR LTD. vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Karachi 10 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
- NAHEED NOOR LTD. vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER (Copy)1987 PLD Karachi 10 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
- NAHEED FATIMA vs Syed AMIR AZAM RIZVI and OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 670 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- NAHEED FATIMA vs Syed AMIR AZAM RIZVI And Other1987 PLD Karachi 670 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- NAEEMULLAH HASHMI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1966 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
- NAEEM SABIR MUGHAL vs NAZIM Alias NIZAMUDDIN And 6 Others1987PCr.LJ 1656 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
- NAEEM RAZA KHAN vs ABDUL K A DIR H USS A IN1987 CLC 1801 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- NADIR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1987 PLD Peshawar 12 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- NADIR KHAN AND 2 Other vs THE STA TE1987 PLD Peshawar 12 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- Nadir Khan & 2 others. vs The State.PTCL 1987 CL. 383 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- NADIR ALI And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 956 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
- NADIM AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 980 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- NABI BUX vs SUPERINTENDENT, DARUL AMAN and another1987 MLD 1549 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
- NA ZIR A H MA D vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA and 4 others1987 CLC 1508 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
- NA TH U KHAN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others1987 CLC 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from the dismissal of an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by an unsuccessful rival pre-emptor. Two pre-emption suits were filed regarding a land sale, leading to a decree in favour of the respondent and the dismissal of the petitioner's suit. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to set aside the decree under Section 12(2) alleging fraud and misrepresentation, as the successful pre-emptor had exchanged the land with the original vendee post-decree. The trial court dismissed the application, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The High Court affirmed that post-decree alienation or exchange of land by a decree-holder who has become full owner does not constitute fraud or misrepresentation in the proceedings of the suit. Following precedent, the Court held that Section 12(2) applies only to fraud or misrepresentation committed in connection with suit proceedings. Furthermore, an order dismissing an application under Section 12(2) is not a decree under Section 2(2) and is thus non-appealable.
Questions settled- Whether post-decree exchange of property by a successful pre-emptor constitutes fraud or misrepresentation under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to alleged acts of fraud that were not committed in connection with the proceedings of the suit?
- Is an order dismissing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) and therefore appealable?
- N04OR MUHAMMAD And 3 Other vs JAHANGIR ALI And 8 Other1987 PLD Lahore 473 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
- N A SEER vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1987 CLC 520 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- N A EEM MIRZ A vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND through SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT1987 CLC 1487 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the decision of the respondent authorities refusing him admission to the first-year MBBS class for the academic session 1985-86 at Dow Medical College, Karachi. Despite holding an equivalence certificate from the University of Karachi equating his foreign qualifications to Intermediate (Pre-Medical Group) with 83.17% marks, his admission was denied because he had not passed Urdu or any other language at 'O' Level, as mandated by the college prospectus. The petitioner contended that the University of Karachi holds the exclusive authority to prescribe admission qualifications under the University of Karachi Act 1972, and the Government could not unilaterally vary these conditions. The High Court of Sindh held that while the University of Karachi is the primary authority to prescribe minimum qualifications for affiliated colleges, the colleges may lay down additional, consistent conditions with the implied or express consent of the University. Finding that the language requirement was consistent with the University's standards and that no vested right of the petitioner was violated, the Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the provincial government or an affiliated college can prescribe additional admission criteria beyond the minimum qualifications set by the university?
- Does a candidate have a vested right to admission in a medical college based on previous years' prospectus criteria before actual admission is granted?
- Can an affiliated medical college enforce additional eligibility conditions if the university has impliedly consented to them?
- M/s. UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD ALI HAJI KASSIM ALI1987 CLC 2321 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Sterling Foods...... vs State of Karnataka and another.PTCL 1987 FC. 289 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-21Read full judgment →
- M/s. Siddique Trust. vs Income Tax Officer and another.PTCL 1987 CL. 557 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-11Read full judgment →
- M/s. Raj Parkash Chemical Limited & another. vs Union of India & others,PTCL 1987 FC. 305 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
- M_s. Rafhan Maize Proucts Co. Limited. vs Pakistan Food and Agriculture Commitee and another_PTCL 1987 CL. 157 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a manufacturer of maize starch and by-products, challenged the levy of excise duty on maize oil under the Oil Seeds Committee Act, 1946. The core legal questions were whether maize qualifies as an "oilseed" under the Act and whether the specific extraction process, involving the separation of maize germs before crushing, satisfies the statutory requirement of "crushing" for the imposition of cess. The Supreme Court held that maize constitutes an "oilseed" because the term encompasses all oil-yielding seeds, regardless of oil content or classification as a food grain. Furthermore, the Court interpreted the term "crushed" in Section 3(1)(a) of the Act broadly, determining that it includes indirect extraction methods that destroy the seed's integrity. The principle laid down is that in the absence of a restrictive definition, statutory terms should be given their grammatical meaning, and "crushing" includes any process that applies pressure to extract oil, whether directly or through intermediate stages, thereby justifying the levy of excise duty on the extracted oil.
Questions settled- Does the term 'oilseed' under the Oil Seeds Committee Act, 1946, include maize?
- Is the definition of 'oilseed' limited to seeds that are predominantly oil-bearing?
- Does the term 'crushed' in Section 3(1)(a) of the Oil Seeds Committee Act, 1946, include indirect extraction processes that involve separating seed components?
- M/s. Patnaik and Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax, OrissaPTCL 1987 FC. 93 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
- M/s. Pakistan Industrial Engineering Agencies Limited, Karachi vs ThePTCL 1987 CL. 501 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. P. & S. Export Cor-poratioa vs Deputy Director of En-forcement.PTCL 1987 FC. 339 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
- M/s. Niranjan & Co. Pvt. Limited. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, WestPTCL 1987 FC. 397 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Limited. vs The Commissioner of Excise, BiharPTCL 1987 FC. 123 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- M/S. HABIBULLAH MINES Ltd. And Others vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1987 SCMR 1822 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed by M/S. Habibullah Mines Ltd. and others against the Municipal Corporation, Quetta, seeking relief regarding the establishment of warehouses for the temporary retention of goods. During the proceedings, the petitioners' counsel requested permission to withdraw the petition, expressing an intention to approach the Municipal Corporation directly by filing a formal application under the regulatory framework provided in Chapter XII of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees Octroi Rules 1964. The petitioners further requested that the Court direct the Municipal Corporation to consider their application on its own merits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted the request to withdraw the petition. Regarding the request for a judicial observation, the Court held that it was unnecessary to issue specific directions, as it is expected that the Municipal Corporation, upon receiving a formal application under the relevant rules, will naturally process and decide the matter on its merits in accordance with the law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Questions settled- Is it necessary for the Supreme Court to issue specific directions to a municipal authority to decide an application on its merits when the law already mandates such a process?
- Can a petitioner withdraw a constitutional petition to pursue alternative remedies under specific municipal rules?
- M/s. Dawood Hercules vs Income Tax Officer, etc. Limited.PTCL 1987 CL. 315 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. Consolidated Exports Limited. In re: Dyer Textile and Printing MillsPTCL 1987 CL. 301 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Chunni Lai Parshadi Lal. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow.PTCL 1987 FC. 361 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- M/s. Brilliant Fabrics & Silk Factory, Karachi. vs Income Tax Office, WestPTCL 1987 CL. 144 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
- M/S. BRILLIANT FABRICS & SILK FACTORY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1987 Tax Custom Cases 15 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
- MUZAMMIL KHAN vs FATEH MUHAMMAD KHAN And Others1987 P Cr. L J 670 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
- MUZAMMIL KHAN And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P.Cr.L.J 471 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-04Read full judgment →
- MUZAMMAL SHAH Alias ZUMEY SHAH And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 398 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 813 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR KHAN And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1000 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR KHAN And Other vs THE STATEK.L R. 1987 Shariat Cases 24 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Hussain vs MRS. LILAVATI HARCHANDANI AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Supreme Court 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an election dispute for a non-Muslim reserved seat in the Sind Provincial Assembly, where the Returning Officer, faced with tied votes, drew lots to declare a winner rather than to exclude a candidate. The core legal question was whether the drawing of lots under Rule 66(5) of the Representation of the Peoples (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977, is intended for the selection of a successful candidate or for the elimination of a candidate in a proportional representation system. The Supreme Court held that Rule 66(5) mandates the drawing of lots specifically for the purpose of exclusion, not for declaring a winner. Consequently, the Returning Officer’s reliance on Rule 92 was erroneous as it applied to a different election mode. The Court clarified that while the election of the improperly returned candidate was void, the Election Tribunal erred in declaring the entire election void. The key principle laid down is that in proportional representation systems using the single transferable vote, drawing lots is an integral mechanism for elimination, and an error in this process warrants setting aside the specific result rather than the entire election.
Questions settled- Does Rule 66(5) of the Representation of the Peoples (Conduct of Election) Rules 1977 require drawing lots for the purpose of selecting a winner or for excluding a candidate?
- Is the drawing of lots under Rule 92 of the Representation of the Peoples (Conduct of Election) Rules 1977 applicable to elections held under the proportional representation system?
- Should an entire election be declared void due to an error by the Returning Officer in the procedure for drawing lots?
- MUTEE AHMED vs Syed KHURSHEED ALI1987 MLD 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-10Read full judgment →
- MUSTAFA Alias BHOLA vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 204 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-11Read full judgment →
- MUSSARAT UZMA USMANI AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1987 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns seventy-four constitutional petitions filed by female students challenging the admission policy of Government Medical Colleges in Punjab, which restricted female admission to a limited number of seats despite the petitioners possessing higher academic merit than admitted male candidates. The core legal question was whether the state's policy of allocating separate, fewer seats for women in medical colleges, thereby excluding more meritorious female candidates, violated the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex. The Court held that the policy was unconstitutional, ruling that the state cannot deny admission to qualified female candidates on the basis of sex alone when they possess higher merit than admitted male students. The Court clarified that Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution, which omits 'sex' as a prohibited ground for discrimination, applies only to institutions receiving aid from public revenue and does not authorize discrimination in state-owned and maintained institutions. The judgment establishes that fundamental rights under Article 25(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, are enforceable and override administrative policies that restrict educational opportunities for women.
Questions settled- Does the omission of 'sex' in Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 permit the state to discriminate against women in admissions to state-owned medical colleges?
- Can the state justify the exclusion of more meritorious female candidates from medical colleges based on a policy of separate seat allocation for men and women?
- Are non-impleaded beneficiaries of an allegedly unconstitutional admission policy necessary parties in a constitutional petition challenging that policy?
- Does Article 25(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in admissions to government-maintained educational institutions?
- MUSLIM RAZA vs Mst.SAGHIRA BANO1987 MLD 3269 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM RAZA vs Mst. SAGHIRA BANO1987 MLD 2916 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM CONSTRUCTION WORKS CO. vs CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURAL1987 MLD 517 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-01Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., NAWABSHAH vs GHULAM MAHBOOB1987 PLC 164 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs UBEDULLAH And Another1987 PLC 692 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs Mian MUHAMMAD SHARIF1987 SCMR 1768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the High Court of Baluchistan. The petitioner, a tenant, faced eviction on the grounds of the landlord's personal requirement for the premises for his son. The tenant contended that the eviction plea was mala fide, arguing it was a retaliatory measure following the tenant's refusal to accede to the landlord's demand for a significant rent increase. While the lower courts found the requirement genuine, the Supreme Court noted that the landlord had initially demanded higher rent and then served a notice to vacate without mentioning personal use, only filing the eviction application shortly thereafter. The Supreme Court distinguished this case from precedents where rent increases were historical, noting that the proximity in time between the failed rent negotiation and the eviction notice raised serious questions regarding the landlord's bona fides. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the timing and circumstances of the eviction plea required further judicial examination to determine the landlord's true intent.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's prior demand for increased rent automatically invalidate a subsequent claim for personal requirement of the premises?
- Can the timing of an eviction notice in relation to a failed rent negotiation be considered as evidence of mala fide intent?
- Is a landlord's failure to mention personal requirement in an initial notice to vacate relevant to the assessment of the bona fides of a subsequent eviction application?
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs ASLAM KHAN and others1987 CLC 2043 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →