Latest 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.

• Mir MUBARAK ALI vs ABU MOHIYUDDIN ABDUL WAHAB And Another1987 P Cr. L J 1603 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →
• MIR KHAN vs MANZOOR AHMAD And Another1987 P Cr. L J 840 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mir JAVED-UR-RAHMAN vs AFZAL SIDDIQI and another1987 MLD 2191 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
• Mir HAZAR vs Shaikh ABDUL HAI1987 MLD 195 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-31Read full judgment →
• MIR HASSAN SHAH (deceased) through Legal Representatives vs PIR SHAH1987 MLD 2857 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-03Read full judgment →
• MIR HASSAN And ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1336 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mir GHULAM ABBAS and 4 others--Applicants vs Mst.SARAN and 13 others1987 MLD 2856 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-08Read full judgment →
• MIR ASAD ALI vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER LAND, HYDERABAD and others1987 MLD 272 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
• MIR ALI AHMAD KHAN TALPUR vs JOSEPH D'MELLO1987 CLC 544 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mir AIJAZ ALI vs PROVINCE OF SIND and 3 others1987 MLD 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
• MIR AFZAL vs ALI ASGHAR1987 PLD Peshawar 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-13Read full judgment →
• MIDLAND ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, and another1987 CLC 1539 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-03
  trade mark registrationtrade mark oppositionphonetic similarityvisual similaritylikelihood of confusioncontinuous userRegistrar of Trade Marksdiscretion of Registrar
  Summary & questions settled

  This Miscellaneous Appeal was filed under the Trade Marks Act 1940 against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, which rejected the appellant's opposition to the registration of respondent No. 2's trade mark "REM" for Class 9 electrical apparatus. The appellant, owner of the registered trade mark "MEM", contended under Sections 8(a) and 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1940 that the mark "REM" was visually and phonetically similar to "MEM", creating a likelihood of confusion. The Registrar found that respondent No. 2 had established continuous user since 1960 and that the marks differed in their first letter. The High Court affirmed the Registrar's decision and dismissed the appeal. Relying on binding Supreme Court precedents, the court held that in short three-letter words, a distinct initial letter creates sufficient dissimilarity to avoid phonetic and visual confusion. Furthermore, appellate courts should be loath to interfere with the statutory discretion of the Registrar unless shown to be patently in error.

  Questions settled

  • Does a difference in the initial letter of two short three-letter trade marks render them visually and phonetically distinctive to prevent confusion?
  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with the statutory discretion exercised by the Registrar of Trade Marks?
  • Can long continuous user of a trade mark be taken into account when assessing opposition to its registration under the Trade Marks Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian ZAHID SARFRAZ vs Raja NADIRSPERVAIZ KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-04
  election petitionpreliminary issueinterlocutory orderright of appealfinality of decisionRepresentation of the People Actpiecemeal litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1976, challenging the election of the respondent. The Election Tribunal decided a preliminary issue regarding the respondent's disqualification against the appellant but allowed the petition to proceed for further trial. The appellant appealed this interlocutory decision to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether an order deciding a preliminary issue by an Election Tribunal constitutes an appealable "decision" under Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was incompetent. The Court determined that the term "decision" in Section 67(3) is limited to the final orders enumerated in Section 67(1) that effectively conclude the trial of the election petition. The Court established the principle that the right of appeal under the Act is restricted to final judgments or orders that determine the merits of the controversy, thereby preventing piecemeal litigation and ensuring expeditious disposal of election matters, consistent with the legislative intent of the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Is an interlocutory order passed by an Election Tribunal on a preliminary issue appealable under Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Does the term 'decision' in Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, encompass all orders passed by an Election Tribunal or only those enumerated in Section 67(1)?
  • Can an appeal be maintained against an order of an Election Tribunal that does not conclude the trial of the election petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian ZAFAR IQBAL And 5 Other vs BASHIR AHMAD KHAN And Another1987 PLD Lahore 650 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-20Read full judgment →
• Mian Z AFAR IQBAL and 5 others vs BASHIR AHMAD KHAN and another1987 PLD Lahore 650 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-20Read full judgment →
• Mian SHER ZADA vs DOST MUHAMMAD and another1987 MLD 1613 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mian RIAZ AHMAD vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Through CHIEF SECRETARY And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 685 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
• Mian RASHID AHMAD vs AZAD JAMMU AND KASHIMIR GOVERNMENT, Through Chief Secretary And Another1987 PLC (C S.) 419 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Mian MUNIR AHMED vs Mrs.MANZAR JAFFERY and another1987 MLD 2922 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-02Read full judgment →
• MIAN MUHANIMAD vs THE STATE and others1987 MLD 1832 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
• Mian MUHAMMAD TALIB vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, NAWABSHAH1987 MLD 2919 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mian MUHAMMAD SALEEM And Others vs Mst. HAMEEDA BEGUM And Other1987 SCMR 624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-16
  specific performancecompromise agreementfraudulent transferdebtor and creditoruncertainty of contracttender of debt
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected civil appeals arising from concurrent litigation concerning a disputed land transaction and a compromise agreement. The core legal questions involved the certainty of description in an agreement to sell for a decree of specific performance and whether a suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 could proceed when the alienees offered to satisfy the original debt in full. The Supreme Court held that where the identity of the land agreed to be sold cannot be ascertained with certainty from the terms of a compromise deed, a decree for specific performance cannot be granted. Furthermore, the Court held that if a debtor or alienee offers to satisfy the creditor's debt in its entirety, a suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 cannot be decreed, as the creditor has no right to set aside a transfer once the debt is tendered. The principle laid down is that uncertainty in a compromise agreement regarding property details bars specific performance, and a bona fide offer to pay off the underlying debt defeats a fraudulent transfer action.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree for specific performance be granted when the identity of the land agreed to be sold cannot be ascertained with certainty from the terms of a compromise deed?
  • Does a suit filed under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act fail if the debtor or alienee offers to pay the full debt due to the creditors during the proceedings?
  • Can a registered sale-deed be declared void and of no legal effect without a proper declaration sought in that regard?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL And Other1987 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-10
  election petitionelection irregularitiesmaterially affected resultwrit jurisdictionleave to appealelection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging an Election Tribunal's order declaring the petitioner's election to the Lahore Municipal Corporation void. The petitioner contended that the irregularities identified by the Election Tribunal were insufficient to materially affect the election result and that there was no evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged illegalities. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the respondent did not dispute these contentions and consented to the setting aside of the lower court orders. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the judgments of both the High Court and the Election Tribunal, and dismissed the original election petition. The judgment reaffirms the principle that for an election to be declared void based on irregularities, it must be demonstrated that such irregularities materially affected the election result and were committed with the knowledge or connivance of the returned candidate.

  Questions settled

  • Can an election be declared void based on irregularities without evidence that they materially affected the result?
  • Is it necessary to prove that election irregularities were committed with the instigation or connivance of the returned candidate to set aside an election?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs Haji GHULAM NABI1987 SCMR 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12
  pre-emptioninfructuous petitionIslamic injunctionsplaint rejectioncourt feeslineal descendantsstatutory invalidity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a suit to pre-empt a sale made by their father in favor of the respondent. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the deliberate and contumacious underpayment of court fees, a decision upheld by the High Court. While the Supreme Court initially considered converting the petition for leave to appeal into an appeal based on the precedent in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakoor Khan, the respondent argued that the matter had become infructuous. The respondent contended that because the right of pre-emption for lineal descendants under Section 15(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act had been declared repugnant to Islamic injunctions in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Syed Kamal Shah, and no pre-emption decree had been passed in favor of the petitioners, the suit was no longer maintainable. Recognizing the significant legal importance of whether the invalidation of the statutory right of pre-emption renders pending litigation infructuous, the Court ordered the matter to be placed before a larger Bench.

  Questions settled

  • Does the declaration of Section 15(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as invalid render pending pre-emption suits based on that provision infructuous?
  • Can a suit for pre-emption proceed if no decree was passed in favor of the pre-emptor prior to the invalidation of the underlying statutory right?
  Read full judgment →
• MIAN KHAN and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
• MIAN KHAN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1772 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mian GHULAM DASTGIR BARI vs Rai SALAHUDDIN AND 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 39 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mian GHULAM DASTGIR BARI vs Rai SALAH UD DIN AND 3 Other1987 PLD Lahore 39 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mian GHOS MUHAMMAD vs Syed MORAD ALI SHAH and others1987 CLC 861 · Election Tribunal · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mian FAROOQ IQBAL And 3 Others vs Haji NAWAZ KHAN1987 SCMR 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-12
  specific performanceinterim injunctionpartition suitextension of timedecree executionleave to appealres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute concerning a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell property. The core legal question is whether a decree-holder, who is prevented from completing a transaction due to an interim injunction issued in a separate partition suit, is entitled to an extension of time to deposit the balance sale price. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioners were unable to comply with the original payment deadline due to the existing injunction. Consequently, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the partition suit and granted the petitioners an extension of time to deposit the balance amount. The key principle laid down is that courts possess the equitable power to extend the time for compliance with a decree when external legal impediments, such as an interim injunction, render strict adherence to the original timeline impossible or unjust, thereby ensuring that the rights of the parties are not prejudiced by circumstances beyond their control.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court extend the time for depositing the balance sale price in a specific performance decree if an interim injunction prevents the transaction?
  • Does an interim injunction in a separate partition suit constitute a valid ground for failing to comply with a payment deadline in a specific performance decree?
  • Is a court empowered to expedite the disposal of a pending partition suit when it affects the execution of a decree for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian BASHIR MUHAMMAD AND 7 OTHERS vs Ch. ABDUL REHMAN GILL AND 71987 PLD Lahore 145 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
• Mian BASHIR MUHAMMAD AND 7 Other vs Ch. ABDUL REHMAN GILL AND 7PLD 1987 Lahore145 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MIAN ABDUL MAJID vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 2 others1987 MLD 3304 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-08Read full judgment →
• Mian ABDUL GHANI vs MUHAMMAD SALIM QURESHI, RENT CONTROLLER and others1987 MLD 1096 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →
• MIAN ABDUL GHANI vs Mrs.FARRUKH TAJ and others1987 MLD 2618 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mgt. MAJIDA BEGUM vs Sh. ZALFIQAR ALI AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 45 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
• Me:3Srs JANG PUBLICATION LTD. vs PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT And1987 PLC 274 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
• METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION UNION vs METROPOLITAN STEEL1987 PLC 509 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs. SIND TRADING COMPANY vs M.E. LEANDES and others1987 MLD 1062 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs. SAIFEE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs RAFIQUE AHMAD And Others1987 PLC 613 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs- GENERAL SERVICES CORPORATION vs Messrs PAKISTAN NATIONAL1987 MLD 2149 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs ZEENIT TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1987 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-08
  dismissal in defaultrestoration of petitionsupplementary cause listservice of noticenon-appearance of counselcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from the dismissal in default of the petitioner's writ petition by the Lahore High Court due to non-appearance, and the subsequent rejection of applications for its restoration and condonation of delay. The core legal question concerned whether the absence of a counsel whose case was suddenly fixed in a supplementary cause list could be excused where the Bar Association failed to supply him a copy of that list, and whether such publication constituted sufficient notice. The Supreme Court held that while the transmission of regular cause lists to the Bar Association constitutes sufficient notice, supplementary cause lists issued sporadically at late hours stand on a different footing, and the established practice of supplying them directly to concerned counsel must be factored in. Setting aside the High Court's orders, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the High Court to examine whether the Bar Association had failed to supply the supplementary list to the petitioner's counsel, and if so, to decide the case on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether publication of a supplementary cause list in the Bar Association constitutes sufficient notice to a counsel whose case is fixed therein?
  • Is the absence of a counsel excusable when the Bar Association fails to supply a copy of the supplementary cause list in accordance with established practice?
  • Does the transmission of regular weekly or daily cause lists to the Bar Association amount to notice to all advocates whose cases are listed?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs ZEENIT TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Other1987 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-12
  dismissal for defaultrestoration applicationcause listprocedural fairnesswrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from the dismissal of a writ petition for default by the Lahore High Court due to the absence of the petitioner and its counsel. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking restoration, arguing that the case was placed on a supplementary cause list that was not provided to them, rather than the regular weekly list. The High Court dismissed this application, citing the publication of the supplementary list and the lack of a formal condonation of delay application. A second restoration application was similarly dismissed, relying on precedents regarding counsel absence. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns whether a dismissal for default is justified when a party claims lack of notice due to the non-receipt of a supplementary cause list, and whether precedents involving counsel absence in regular lists are applicable to situations involving supplementary lists. The Supreme Court held that these contentions required deeper examination, necessitating a full hearing on the merits of the restoration application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition be dismissed for default if the cause was listed in a supplementary list not provided to the petitioner?
  • Does the failure to provide a supplementary cause list to counsel constitute sufficient grounds for restoring a dismissed petition?
  • Are precedents regarding counsel absence in regular cause lists distinguishable from cases involving supplementary cause lists?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs YOUSUF RE ROLLING Millss vs THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS And Another1987 SCMR 1609 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-06
  customs dutydetention of goodsadjudication proceedingsconstitutional petitionleave to appealcustoms clearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court regarding the detention of imported goods by customs authorities. The petitioner imported two consignments of goods, paid the assessed customs duties, but the goods were subsequently detained. During the pendency of the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the detention, the respondents initiated proceedings under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. The High Court declared the detention of the goods illegal and ordered their release, but simultaneously observed that the customs authorities were competent to initiate or continue adjudication proceedings under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, even after the goods were cleared or released. The petitioner challenged these observations, arguing that they were legally incorrect and would prejudice their defense in the ongoing Section 32 proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the petitioner's submission regarding the validity of the High Court's observations on the maintainability of Section 32 proceedings in these circumstances warranted further consideration by the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can customs authorities initiate proceedings under Section 32 of the Customs Act 1969 after goods have been cleared and released?
  • Does the release of detained goods invalidate subsequent adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act 1969?
  • Are customs authorities authorized to detain goods under Section 32 of the Customs Act 1969 after they have already been examined and cleared?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs WELLCOME PAKISTAN LTD. vs ABDUL RASHID1987 PLC 487 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs WASEEM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs PROVINCE OF SIND and 41987 CLC 612 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs WASEEM CONSTRUCTION CO.- vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Other1987 PLD Karachi 575 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs WASEEM CONSTRUCTION CO. vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 575 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs V/O TECHMASH-EXPORT vs Messrs AKBAR COTTON MILLS LTD. and1987 MLD 600 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs UNITED WOOLLEN MILLS Ltd. vs WORKERS' UNION1987 PLC 810 · Labour Court · 1986-07-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs UNITED BANK LTD. vs Messrs MANBROW INDUSTRIES and others1987 MLD 3038 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs UNITED BANK LTD. vs Messrs DEEN AUTOS and another1987 PLD Lahore 529 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs UNITED BANK Ltd. vs Messrs CLIMAX TRADING CORPORATION and 71987 MLD 754 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
• MESSRS UNION BANK OF THE MIDDLE EAST LTD. vs MESSRS ZUBNA LTD. AND 31987 PLD Karachi 206 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs ULBRICHT's PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD QASIM1987 PLC 880 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs TUFIQUE PETROLEUM SERVICE vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and another1987 CLC 2213 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs TRUST CERAMICS INDUSTRIES, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD IDRIS1987 PLC 205 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs TRUST CERAMIC INDUSTRIES, KARACHI vs SHAMSHER RIAZ1987 PLC 44 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs TRADE AND INDUSTRY PUBLICATIONS LIMITED vs SIND EMPLOYEES'1987 PLC 658 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs TANWIR WOOLLEN MILLS Ltd. vs HAFEEZUDDIN and 7 others1987 MLD 904 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs TAHER M. SHAIKH ALI vs MONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF PA KISTAN1987 MLD 654 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs TABAQ vs REGISTRAR, TRADE MARKS, KARACHI and another1987 CLC 738 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs TABAQ Restaurants vs Messrs TABAQ RESTAURANT1987 SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-24
  trade mark infringementpassing offterritorial jurisdictioninterim injunctionappellate forumTrade Marks Act 1940property rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three civil appeals regarding the registration of a trade mark and the grant of interim injunctions in a dispute between two restaurant businesses operating under the name 'TABAQ.' The core legal questions were whether a suit for 'passing off' must be filed in a District Court under Section 73 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, and whether the pendency of such a suit dictates the appellate forum under Section 76 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the District Court is the competent forum for suits involving trade mark infringement or rights relating to trade marks, including 'passing off' actions. Consequently, the Sind High Court correctly returned the appeals for presentation before the Lahore High Court, as the pending suit in the District Court at Rawalpindi triggered the proviso to Section 76. The Court affirmed that trade marks constitute property rights protected by law, and the statutory provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, provide a comprehensive framework for both registered and unregistered marks, with Section 73 being broad enough to encompass passing off claims related to trade marks.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'otherwise relating to any right in a trade mark' in Section 73 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 include actions for passing off?
  • Is a suit for passing off involving a trade mark required to be instituted in a District Court rather than a court of lower grade?
  • Does the pendency of a suit in a District Court concerning a trade mark mandate that appeals against Registrar decisions be filed in the High Court having jurisdiction over that District Court?
  • Can an interim injunction be granted to restrain the use of a trade name in a passing off action?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs SUNSHINE BISCUITS LTD. and 7 others vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others1987 CLC 1659 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs SULTAN FEROZE vs Mst. SEEMA BEGUM1987 CLC 714 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs SUFI SOAP & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, LAHORE vs PUNJAB1987 PLC 946 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION vs MAHMOOD ALI1987 MLD 2430 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs SPINZER SNACK BAR vs Mrs. LAILA EHSAN ULLAH and others1987 MLD 319 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs SOUVENIR TOBACCO Co. Ltd. vs SIND LABOUR COURT No.2 And Others1987 PLC 605 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-08
  territorial jurisdictionwrit petitionscope of Labour Court jurisdictiondomestic enquiryreinstatementback benefitsadverse inference
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the orders of the Sind Labour Court No.2 and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby the respondent worker's dismissal was set aside and reinstatement with back benefits was ordered. The core legal questions involved were whether the petitioner could raise the objection of territorial jurisdiction for the first time in constitutional writ proceedings, whether an adverse inference was rightly drawn against the employer for failing to produce the Enquiry Officer in rebuttal of specific allegations of bias, and the exact scope of the Labour Court's jurisdiction under section 25-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The High Court held that a party cannot raise the question of territorial jurisdiction for the first time in a writ petition when it failed to do so before the tribunals below, and that principles of estoppel also apply. Furthermore, the Court held that where a workman makes specific allegations of bias and misconduct against the Enquiry Officer on oath and the employer fails to produce any evidence in rebuttal or examine the Enquiry Officer, drawing an adverse inference is fully warranted. Finally, the Court affirmed that under section 25-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, the Labour Court has wide jurisdiction to go behind a dismissal order and examine all facts both on merits and in law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise the question of territorial jurisdiction for the first time in a writ petition after failing to raise it before the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal?
  • Whether an adverse inference is justified against an employer who fails to produce the Enquiry Officer in rebuttal when the workman makes specific allegations of misconduct against him?
  • What is the scope of jurisdiction of a Labour Court under section 25-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 when adjudicating a grievance of dismissal?
  • Does the mere exhibition of enquiry proceedings through the cross-examination of the workman amount to the proof of impartiality of the enquiry or nullify allegations made against the Enquiry Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs SIDDIQUE TRUST vs INCOMETAX OFFICER and another1987 CLC 2366 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-11
  constitutional petitioninterim stay orderextension of staymaxim actus curiae neminem gravabitincome tax assessmentmandatory provision
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with Article 199(4-B) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 sought an extension of an interim stay order beyond the constitutional limit of six months in a pending constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court has the power to extend an interim stay order beyond the six-month period mandated by Article 199(4-A) when the main petition cannot be disposed of within that time through no fault of the petitioner. The court held that the maximum period of six months for an interim stay order under Article 199(4-A) is mandatory and cannot be extended, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 199(4-B) requiring the court to decide the case within six months, because the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' and general ancillary powers cannot override express constitutional prohibitions. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional limitation restricting interim stay orders to six months in constitutional petitions is strict and unextendable by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court extend an interim stay order beyond the six-month period prescribed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit permit the extension of a constitutional stay order beyond the express statutory limit?
  • Is the six-month limitation for interim orders under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 mandatory or directory?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs SARHAD ENGINEERING CO. LTD. vs QASIM KHAN1987 PLC 193 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs SALIM INDUSTRIES Ltd. vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, etc.1987 MLD 234 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs S.M.TRADING COMPANY vs THE FAUJI LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS and others1987 MLD 2896 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs RIAZUR RAHMAN & Co. vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another1987 MLD 2355 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs REHAT AUTO CO. vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others1987 CLC 629 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs QADARIA DYES & CHEMICAL COMPANY Ltd. and another vs UNITED1987 MLD 406 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs PRINT PACK (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs BALUMA DATE PACKING LTD.1987 CLC 1734 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs PRINCE GLASS WORKS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER, SIND EMPLOYEES'1987 PLC 541 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs POPULAR CLEARING SERVICES vs DIRECTOR OCTROI, K.M.C. and another1987 MLD 306 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs PANTHER INDUSTRIES LTD. vs MATEENUDDIN1987 PLC 384 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. vs PAK CIGARETTES LABOUR1987 SCMR 575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-01
  industrial disputeindustrial relationsconciliation proceedingsreference to NIRCleave to appealconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 21-5-1985, which dismissed the petitioner's Constitution Petition challenging the Federal Government's order referring an industrial dispute to the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) under section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and the subsequent awards given by respondents. The core legal question raised was whether the Federal Government was competent to make a reference under section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, and whether the dispute was of national importance warranting such reference. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the competency of the reference and the nature of the dispute deserved consideration by the Court. The key principle laid down is that contentious legal questions concerning the statutory powers of the Federal Government to refer industrial disputes during ongoing conciliation proceedings warrant a full hearing by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Federal Government competent to make a reference under section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 during the pendency of conciliation proceedings?
  • Whether an industrial dispute must be of national importance to be referred to the National Industrial Relations Commission under section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs PAKISTAN INSURANCE CORPORATION vs CEYLON SHIPPING LINES1987 MLD 2767 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs PAK ICE FACTORY vs WAPDA and others1987 MLD 2277 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs ORIENTAL SHIPPINGS CO. LTD. vs Messrs HABIB INSURANCE CO. LTD.1987 CLC 2194 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs NOOR ENGINEERS CONSULTANTS AND CONTRACTORS Through ZULFIQAR ALI vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through1987 PLD Lahore 465 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs NOOR ENGINEERS CONSUL1ANTS AND CONTRACTORS through ZULFIQAR ALI vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT and 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 465 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs NIAZI INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE ORGANIZATION vs Mst. ANWAR ZAMANI1987 CLC 1804 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs NATIONAL TANKER COMPANY Ltd. vs SALEEM HAYAT KHAN1987 PLC 161 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs NATIONAL CEMENT INDUSTRIES vs MUHAMMAD MAUROOF1987 PLC 332 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs NAGINA FILMS LTD. vs USMAN HUSSAIN and others1987 CLC 2263 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-25
  winding upjust and equitable clausequasi-partnershippiercing the corporate veiloppression of minorityexclusion from managementprivate limited companyremoval of director
  Summary & questions settled

  These two connected High Court Appeals arose from company petitions seeking the winding up of private limited companies under Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1913. In both cases, minority shareholders holding 20% equity were systematically ousted from directorship and excluded from management by the majority groups, violating foundational family agreements and understandings upon which the companies were incorporated and operated as quasi-partnerships. The Company Judge ordered winding up on the 'just and equitable' ground. The appellants challenged these orders, contending that dissolution principles of partnership firms should not apply to companies with unequal shareholding, and that alternative remedies under the law should have been pursued. The Sindh High Court dismissed both appeals, affirming that the corporate veil may be pierced to discern the true nature of a private limited company. Where a company is founded on mutual trust and an understanding of shared management participation, an unjustified breach through the exclusion or removal of a founding member justifies winding up on just and equitable grounds under Section 162(vi).

  Questions settled

  • Can the principles governing the dissolution of a partnership firm be applied to wind up a private limited company under the just and equitable clause of Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1913?
  • Whether the exclusion of a minority shareholder-director from management in breach of a foundational understanding or mutual trust justifies the winding up of a private limited company?
  • Can the court pierce the veil of incorporation to determine whether a private limited company is in reality being run as a partnership?
  • Is a petition for rectification of the share register inconsistent with a simultaneously filed petition for winding up of a company?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs MUSLIM TRADING COMPANY vs Messrs NAZIR COTTON TRADING1987 MLD 2866 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs MOTHERCAT LTD. vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and 2 others1987 CLC 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• MESSRS MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LTD.- vs CONSOLIDATED SUGAR MILLS LTD.1987 PLD Karachi 225 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS Ltd. vs CONSOLIDATED SUGAR MILLS Ltd.1987 MLD 2417 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
• MESSRS MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs CONSOLIDATED SUGAR MILLS LTD.1987 PLD Karachi 225 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs MIDDELBURG STEEL AND ALLOYS (PTV.) LTD. vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, KARACHI and 3 others1987 MLD 2827 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs MIAN MUHAMMAD SHARIF & Co. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX1987 SCMR 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-03
  income taxrejection of accountsgross profit ratetrading accountprofit and loss accountadmissible deductionsacademic referencecommercial principles
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals, directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, arise out of income tax references concerning assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The appellant firm, engaged in construction work, challenged the disallowance and treatment of certain business expenses relating to machinery and vehicle repairs by tax authorities who had rejected the accounts under the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and applied a flat gross profit rate based on past history. The High Court dismissed the references as infructuous, holding that whether the disputed expenses were debited to the trading account or the profit and loss account, the net taxable profit remained unchanged and the questions were merely of academic interest. The Supreme Court examined the contentions regarding the application of section 10(2) and English precedents, and held that the High Court's conclusion was unexceptionable since the net result on income tax liability was identical under either method of accounting. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessment to income tax can lawfully be made under section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 disregarding mandatory statutory deductions?
  • Whether the Income-tax Officer is justified in rejecting account results and applying a gross profit rate based on past history when an assessee deviates from a regularly employed method of accounting?
  • Whether a High Court is justified in dismissing income-tax references as infructuous when the disputed accounting treatment results in no material change to the net taxable income?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs METALOCK vs Messrs DUKER'S MET A LOCK COMPANY1987 MLD 303 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs MEHRAN SHOES vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and 3 others1987 CLC 148 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-12
  landlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantrent controller jurisdictiondenial of tenancyagreement of exchangeejectment petitionsummary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses whether the Rent Controller correctly determined the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship where the occupant denied tenancy and claimed possession under an agreement of exchange. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller can resolve complicated disputes regarding title or disputed tenancy without regular trial and evidence. The court held that the Rent Controller erred in finding a tenancy relationship based merely on the bare, uncorroborated allegations of the landlord and inadmissible counterfoils, without proper proof of tenancy. The ratio is that when a bona fide dispute concerning the relationship of landlord and tenant arises and involves intricate questions of fact or title—such as an agreement of exchange—the Rent Controller should refrain from deciding complex issues and direct the parties to approach a regular civil court. The key principle laid down is that the Rent Controller exercises limited summary jurisdiction and lacks the means or mandate to conduct deep investigations into disputed ownership or complex contractual breaches.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller can decide complex questions of title and disputed tenancy?
  • Does the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant oust the summary jurisdiction of the Rent Controller?
  • Can a Rent Controller establish tenancy based solely on the bare allegations of the landlord without corroborative evidence?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for a Rent Controller when a bona fide dispute regarding ownership or exchange of property is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs MEHRAN JUTE MILLS Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD FAZLUL HAQUE1987 PLC 981 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →