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.
- Ch. MUHAMMAD AKBAR VIRK vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 394 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-28Read full judgment →
- Ch. KHAN MUHAMMAD and others vs Mst. HALEEMA BIBI and 3 others1987 CLC 2389 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
- Ch. KARAMAT ULLAH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 947 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Ch. K.A.M. BAJWA and 2 others vs ASGH AR ALI and 3 others1987 CLC 2256 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-03Read full judgment →
- Ch. HAMID ULLAH vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 226 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- Ch. Habibullahs vs SHEIKHUPURA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD_1987 PLD Supreme Court 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the ownership of fixed deposit accounts opened by a father in the names of his children, which the respondent-Bank subsequently adjusted against the father's outstanding debts. The core legal question was whether these deposits constituted valid gifts to the children or were benami transactions, and whether the Bank could lawfully exercise a lien or right of set-off against them. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to prove a valid gift, confirming the High Court’s finding that the father remained the beneficial owner of the funds. Consequently, the Bank was entitled to adjust the father's liabilities against these accounts. The Court affirmed the principle that, unlike English law, there is no presumption of advancement in Pakistan when a father deposits money in a child's name. The burden of proving an intended gift rests on the claimant; absent such proof, the law presumes a resulting trust in favor of the person providing the funds, allowing the Bank to exercise its right of set-off against the customer's debts.
Questions settled- Does a deposit made by a father in the name of his child create a presumption of advancement or gift under Pakistani law?
- Can a bank exercise a right of set-off against accounts held in the name of a third party if the account is found to be a benami transaction?
- What is the burden of proof for establishing a gift in a benami transaction involving a bank deposit?
- Does a banker have a right to set off a customer's debts against deposits held in the customer's name, even if the account is nominally in another person's name?
- Ch. GHULAM ANWAR And 20 Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT And 4 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 86 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- Ch. FAYYAZ AKBAR vs Messrs DELITE HOUSE LIMITED1987 SCMR 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which reversed the Rent Controller's order and held that previous ejectment proceedings operated as a bar under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The core legal questions concern whether the previous orders barred the fresh ejectment application under section 23 of the said Act, and whether the landlord's personal need and bona fides were sufficiently established, including his willingness to surrender his licence to practice as an Advocate. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the shop is required bona fide and in good faith, whether the landlord's undertakings regarding his legal practice and business are valid, whether the High Court failed to give due consideration to the landlord's bona fide requirement, and whether there was an incorrect interpretation of section 23 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to examine these questions on the record.
Questions settled- Whether previous orders of the Rent Controller and appellate authorities operate as a bar to subsequent ejectment proceedings under section 23 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Whether the statement of the landlord read with section 17, subsection (6) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is sufficient to prove bona fide and personal need?
- Whether the shop in dispute is required by the petitioner bona fide and in good faith when he offers to surrender his licence to practice as an Advocate?
- Ch. BARKAT ALI vs GHULAM HUSSAIN and others1987 MLD 2447 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
- Ch. BARKAT ALI vs FAZAL AHMAD KARIM FAZLI and others1987 CLC 804 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-08Read full judgment →
- Ch. ATTA MUHAMMAD GHUMMAN vs DISTRICT JUDGE and another1987 MLD 2419 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- Ch. Akhtar Ali vs LAL1987 PLD Supreme Court 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals against the dismissal of second appeals by the Lahore High Court regarding pre-emption suits. The appellants, who purchased agricultural land in District Jhelum, claimed exemption from the right of pre-emption based on a government notification granting relief to persons displaced by the construction of the Mangla Dam. The core legal question was whether the appellants, as sons of a displaced person, were entitled to this exemption despite not personally holding the required certification. The Supreme Court held that the exemption notification explicitly requires the vendee to be a displaced person and, crucially, to possess a certificate issued in their own favour by the Commissioner, Mangla Dam Affairs. Because the certificates produced were issued to the appellants' father rather than the appellants themselves, the Court ruled they failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions of the notification. The principle laid down is that statutory exemptions for displaced persons are strictly construed; a vendee cannot rely on a certificate issued to a family member, as the certificate must be issued in the vendee's own name to qualify for the exemption.
Questions settled- Does a certificate issued in the name of a father satisfy the requirement for a vendee to claim exemption under the Mangla Dam notification?
- What are the mandatory conditions a vendee must satisfy to claim exemption from pre-emption under the notification issued pursuant to section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Is it essential for a vendee to possess a certificate in their own name to qualify for the Mangla Dam displaced person exemption?
- Ch. ABDUL SATTAR vs DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (EXTENSION) COTTON1987 PLC (C.S.) 816 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL GHANI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and others1987 CLC 2401 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL GHANI and 2 others vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Department and 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 440 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL GHANI And 2 Other vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through1987 PLD Lahore 440 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Through MEMBER1987 SCMR 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave was filed by the Central Board of Revenue against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had declared show-cause notices issued under Section 32 of the Customs Act for the recovery of erroneously refunded customs duty rebate to be without lawful authority. The respondent had obtained duty repayment for imported chemicals allegedly used in manufacturing exported sheep casings, but subsequent information indicated the chemicals were never used. The High Court quashed the notices on the grounds that the initial representation was made to the Central Board of Revenue, not a customs officer, and that rebate was granted under the Board's plenary discretionary powers under Section 21. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, holding that the respondent had made declarations on export documents submitted to customs officers to claim the rebate. Therefore, if the chemicals were not actually used, the declarations were false, making Section 32(2) directly applicable. The appeal was accepted and the High Court's order set aside.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings under Section 32 of the Customs Act can be initiated for recovery of refunded rebate when a declaration claiming the repayment is submitted to a customs officer on export documents?
- Whether an importer who falsely declares the utilization of imported raw materials in export goods to obtain duty repayment is liable under Section 32(2) of the Customs Act?
- Does the plenary discretionary power of the Central Board of Revenue to grant rebate bar customs authorities from recovering duties erroneously refunded on the basis of false declarations?
- CASHIER, UNITED BANK Ltd. vs THE STATE1987 PLC (C.S.) 122 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
- Capt.(Retd.) ABDUL JABBAR vs WAPDA And 3 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 672 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
- Capt. MANSOOR E. KHAN vs Mrs. SOPHIA MANSOOR KHAN1987 MLD 737 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
- Capt. (Rtd.) ABDUL QAYYUM vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- Capt. (Retd.) MUHAMMAD YUNUS JAFAR vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT1987 PLC (C.S.) 110 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-09-14Read full judgment →
- CANTONMENT BOARD, KHARIAN through EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KHARIAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1987 CLC 1612 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- CANNO N RUBBER Limited vs S. MUHAMMAD SAEED and another1987 CLC 453 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →
- BUX ALI and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- BULAND KHAN And 3 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Buland Khan and Mst. Mubarak Jan sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained Buland Khan's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code while altering his death sentence to imprisonment for life, and set aside the murder convictions of Sumandar Khan and Taj Khan while upholding their convictions under sections 323 and 324. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of ocular testimony and medical evidence in light of material contradictions regarding the fatal injury. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-appraise the evidence, noting discrepancies between the first information report, the medical report, and the statements of eye-witnesses. The principle laid down is that where material contradictions exist between ocular accounts and medical evidence regarding the attribution of a fatal blow, leave to appeal may be granted for a thorough re-appraisal of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted for the re-appraisal of evidence when material contradictions exist between the ocular account and the post-mortem report?
- Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when eye-witness accounts regarding the specific attribution of fatal blows conflict with medical evidence?
- BUKKAL KHAN and 5 others vs Mst. WAZIRI and 8 others1987 CLC 579 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- Brig. (Retd.) MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs ABDUL REHMAN DURRANI1987 PLC 719 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
- BOSTAN KHAN vs SULTAN KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 1549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Bostan Khan, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment dated 16-11-1980, which had dismissed his revision petition against the acquittal of three respondents. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the testimony of a police witness, Sher Muhammad (P.W.12), and the complainant (P.W.9), particularly in the absence of independent corroboration despite a history of blood feud between the parties. The petitioner argued that the presence of the complainant at the crime scene, as observed by the police witness shortly after the incident, should have been sufficient to warrant a conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions. The Court concurred with the High Court's assessment of the evidence and concluded that the testimony did not provide a sufficient basis to overturn the acquittal. Consequently, the Court held that the case did not warrant the grant of leave to appeal and refused the petition, thereby upholding the acquittal of the respondents.
Questions settled- Can a revision petition against an acquittal be sustained when the evidence lacks independent corroboration in a case of blood feud?
- Does the presence of a complainant at the crime scene, as witnessed by police shortly after the incident, necessitate a conviction despite the absence of other corroborating evidence?
- BOSTAN KHAN vs DIRECTOR, EXCISE and TAXATION, RAWALPINDI DIVISION, RAWALPINDI and others1987 CLC 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
- BOOTA MASIH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. LJ 1030 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-22Read full judgment →
- BOOTA KHAN And Others vs FAIZ ALI And Other1987 SCMR 1475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a regular second appeal regarding inheritance and ownership of agricultural land previously held as occupancy tenancy under the Punjab Tenancy Act. The core legal question was whether a female limited owner, who acquired proprietary rights under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act, held the property as an absolute owner or as a limited estate for the benefit of the reversioners of the last male holder, and whether her possession ripened into adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that the predecessor remained in occupation as a limited life-estate holder under custom, keeping the estate alive for the reversioners, and never asserted a hostile or adverse title to their knowledge; hence, upon the extinction of occupancy rights and acquisition of proprietary ownership, the property accrued to the benefit of the reversioners. The key principle laid down is that a limited owner or life-tenant cannot alter their character of possession without overt, hostile assertion to the knowledge of the real claimants, and statutory enfranchisement of tenancy land into ownership in the hands of a limited owner enures for the benefit of the rightful reversioners of the last male holder.
Questions settled- Whether a female holding a limited estate in occupancy rights can prescribe an absolute title by adverse possession against the reversioners without overt hostile assertion?
- Does the acquisition of proprietary rights under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act by a limited owner enure for the benefit of the reversioners of the last male holder?
- Can a party raise new pleas of adverse possession and acquiescence for the first time before the Supreme Court when they were not pleaded in the original plaint or lower courts?
- BOOTA And Another vs THE STATE-1987 PCr.LJ 1220 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- BOOLCH AND vs Qazi MUHAMMAD BACHAL1987 CLC 1109 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under section 24(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raised the question whether a proceeding pending before a Rent Controller under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 can be transferred by invoking section 24(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Sindh High Court held that a Rent Controller appointed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 acts in a quasi-judicial capacity as persona designata and not as a civil court, and therefore proceedings before them cannot be transferred under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court established that where a self-contained special enactment provides a specific mechanism and remedy for the transfer of cases—such as section 4(3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 empowering the District Judge or Deputy Commissioner to transfer proceedings—parties must exhaust remedies within that statute, rendering section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inapplicable. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller appointed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is a court or persona designata?
- Can proceedings pending before a Rent Controller be transferred by invoking section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Does a self-contained special enactment oust the general application of section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding transfer of cases?
- BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI vs PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL1987 CLC 218 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
- BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED1987 SCMR 1197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding the ownership of a building housing the Rang Mahal Christian High School, Lahore. The school was nationalized under Martial Law Regulation No. 118, and the Provincial Government subsequently asserted ownership over the building, claiming it vested in the Government as an asset of the school. The core legal question was whether the term 'vest' in paragraph 5 of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 transferred ownership of the property to the Government or merely transferred the management of the educational institution. The Supreme Court held that the Regulation intended only to take over the management of educational institutions, not to confiscate the private property housing them. The Court clarified that 'vest' is a term of variable import and does not necessarily connote 'vesting in title'. Consequently, the Government's assertion of ownership and its actions to demolish the building were declared without lawful authority, affirming that the appellant retained proprietary rights over the premises.
Questions settled- Does the term 'vest' in paragraph 5 of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 transfer absolute ownership of property to the Government?
- Did the nationalization of privately managed schools under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 include the confiscation of the buildings housing those schools?
- Are proprietors of buildings housing nationalized schools competent to sue for ejectment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- BNS AIR SERVICES (PVT.) Ltd. vs ANWAR ALI and another1987 MLD 3009 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-07Read full judgment →
- BLACK SEA SHIPPING COMPANY and another vs POLSKIE LINIE OCEANICZNE1987 CLC 2314 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
- BISMILLAH BEGUM vs Messrs THE PAK CONSTRUCTION CO. Ltd.1987 MLD 648 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
- BILQIS BEGUM And Others vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns the validity of a property transfer order issued by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to re-open a finalized transfer of a residential unit in 1977, following the repeal of the Act on July 1, 1974, under the guise of a 'pending proceeding.' The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the saving provisions of the Evacuee Property & Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, only applied to proceedings that were actually pending immediately before the repeal date. Since the application to re-open the case was filed in 1976, long after the matter had been finalized and the writ petition dismissed in 1974, it did not constitute a pending proceeding. The Court further declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere, noting the long-standing possession of the respondents.
Questions settled- Does the Evacuee Property & Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 allow a Deputy Settlement Commissioner to re-open a finalized property transfer case after the repeal date?
- What constitutes a 'pending proceeding' under the saving provisions of the Evacuee Property & Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Can a Deputy Settlement Commissioner assume jurisdiction over a property dispute that was finally disposed of prior to the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- BILLAND vs MUHAMMAD DIN And Another1987 P Cr. L J 2340 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
- BILAWAL and another vs ABDUL RAZZAK1987 CLC 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-30Read full judgment →
- Bhai AZIZUR REHMAN and 5 others vs Messrs GHAFUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI and 19 others1987 CLC 577 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a constitutional or company law petition filed by Bhai Azizur Rehman and others against Messrs Ghafur Textile Mills Ltd. and others before the Sindh High Court. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a petition filed under sections 235 to 237 of the Companies Act, 1913, in the absence of any pending winding-up proceedings or prayer for winding up, and whether the petition could be converted or treated as an application under section 290 or a complaint under section 493 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The Court held that sections 235 to 237 of the old Act were not attracted without a winding-up petition, that the petition could not be treated as one under section 290 of the new Ordinance since the prerequisite 20 percent shareholding qualification was neither pleaded nor established, and that section 493 of the new Ordinance was inapplicable as the proceedings were not akin to criminal proceedings nor pending at the enforcement of the new Ordinance. The petition was consequently dismissed as not maintainable, with the clarification that the dismissal would not bar available remedies under the new Ordinance.
Questions settled- Are sections 235 to 237 of the Companies Act, 1913 attracted when no winding-up petition is pending or prayed for?
- Can a petition filed under the old Companies Act be treated as an application under section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 without pleading the requisite 20 percent shareholding qualification?
- Can proceedings under the Companies Act, 1913 be converted into a complaint under section 493 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 if they were not pending as criminal-like proceedings upon the enforcement of the new Ordinance?
- BHAG BHARI vs AKBAR KHAN and others1987 CLC 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
- BENQU E INDOSUEZ vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others1987 CLC 795 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- BENGAL FIBRE INDUSTRIES Ltd. vs LAWRENCEPUR WOOLLEN AND TEXTILE MILLS1987 MLD 509 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-05Read full judgment →
- BEGUM ZARIN AZAM JAN vs MASOOD KHAN and 2 others1987 MLD 3073 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
- BEGUM ISMAT AZHAR vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, EDUCATION AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a public servant challenging an order of the Secretary, Education, Government of the Punjab, which reinstated her into service following a decision of the Punjab Services Tribunal but placed her services for adjustment against a vacancy outside Lahore for pay purposes while posting her as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) in Lahore until superannuation. The petitioner sought a direction to be reposted to her original position as Headmistress in Lahore, asserting potential financial losses. The core legal question was whether the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction could interfere with administrative orders regarding the posting and transfer of a civil servant. The Lahore High Court held that posting and transfer are essential conditions of service that fall within the discretion of the executive authority. Furthermore, under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, matters relating to terms and conditions of service are barred from the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with orders of posting and transfer of a civil servant?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar judicial review of service matters such as postings and transfers?
- BEGUM ISMAT AZHAR vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT TAROUGH SECRETARY, EDUCATION AND ANOTHERP L- D 1987 Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
- Begum Capt. Mirza GHULAM SARWAR And Another vs DISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM And Other1987 SCMR 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment petition where an order was passed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance directing the petitioners to deposit arrears of rent and future rent. The petitioners failed to deposit the required balance amount within the stipulated time, leading the Rent Controller to strike off their defence, a decision upheld by the District Judge and the Lahore High Court in a writ petition. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' failure to deposit the tentative rent as ordered justified the striking off of their defence, and whether claims regarding repairs or waiver could excuse non-compliance. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were indeed in default for failing to comply strictly with the deposit order according to its terms, and pleas regarding repairs or waiver could only be raised after complying with the tentative rent order. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether failure to comply with a tentative rent deposit order under section 13(6) justifies striking off the tenant's defence?
- Can a tenant raise pleas of repairs or waiver without first complying with the tentative rent deposit order?
- Whether the inclusion of the current month's rent in a tentative rent order invalidates the deposit order?
- BEGUM A TIYA HASHIMI and 3 others vs Mst. A AMEE and 8 others1987 MLD 305 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-05Read full judgment →
- Before SaZeem Akhtar, BARKATULLAH KHAN vs Mirza MUHAMMAD HASSAN1987 CLC 572 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- Before Muhammad Munir Khan, MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs SAJJAD ALI1987 CLC 623 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
- Before Mamoon Kazi, INTERNATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED vs BRITISH INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION CO. LTD. and another1987 CLC 152 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
- Before Abaid Ullah Khan, NAWAB KHAN and anothers vs HAKAM KHAN and another1987 CLC 513 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- BEEJAL MAL vs PUNAJI1987 CLC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These rent appeals challenge an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellants. The respondent, having purchased evacuee property in an auction, sought the appellants' eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent and unauthorized construction. The appellants denied the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, claiming they were in occupation since before the establishment of Pakistan and that the respondent purchased the property on behalf of the occupants. The core legal question was whether the respondent successfully established the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Court held that the respondent failed to prove such a relationship. It noted that there was no documentary evidence of tenancy, and the oral evidence provided by the respondent was riddled with material contradictions regarding the commencement of the tenancy and the terms thereof. Furthermore, the respondent's unexplained delay in taking action after the alleged default rendered his case improbable. The Court affirmed that where the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established, the Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction, and the parties must seek redress in a civil court.
Questions settled- Does the mere ownership of premises by a landlord ipso facto create a relationship of landlord and tenant with the occupant?
- Can a Rent Controller exercise jurisdiction if the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant when no written agreement exists?
- Does the failure to prove a landlord-tenant relationship necessitate the dismissal of an eviction application?
- BEECHAM GROUP and another vs AHMAD ISMAIL and another1987 PLD Karachi 356 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arose from an application under Section 46 and Section 72 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 and Chapter 7-E, Volume V of the High Court Rules, seeking the removal of respondent No. 1's registered trade mark 'MAC-LEANS' in Class 21 for toothbrushes, other brushes, and combs. The applicants, registered proprietors of the internationally renowned trade mark 'MAC-LEANS' for toothpaste and dental hygiene preparations, argued that toothbrushes were goods of the same description as toothpaste, causing likelihood of deception and confusion among the public. Respondent No. 1 contended that toothbrushes were distinct goods from toothpaste and that registration was bona fide. The legal issue was whether toothbrushes and toothpaste constitute goods of the same description under Section 10(1) of the Act. The High Court held that toothpaste and toothbrushes belong to the same description of dental hygiene products, making public confusion highly probable, and found respondent No. 1's appropriation improper. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application in part, directing rectification of the register by expunging respondent No. 1's trade mark in respect of toothbrushes.
Questions settled- Are toothbrushes and toothpaste considered goods of the same description under Section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1940?
- Can a High Court order the removal or rectification of a trade mark entry under Section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 where a mark causes likelihood of deception or confusion?
- Does foreign registration and international reputation of a trade mark constitute a relevant factor when evaluating likelihood of confusion in domestic trade mark registration?
- BATA (PAKISTAN) Ltd vs AHMAD DIN And Others1987 PLC 646 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- BASHIRULLAH KHAN vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), PESHAWAR1987 PLC (C.S.) 933 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1987-09-29Read full judgment →
- BASHIRAN BIBI vs BASHIR AHMAD and 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 376 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
- BASHIRAN BIBI vs BASHIR AHMAD And 2 Other1987 PLD Lahore 376 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
- BASHIRAN BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others1987 MLD 349 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- BASHIR vs WAZIR ALI1987 SCMR 978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Lahore High Court regarding the transfer of a regular first appeal (R.F.A.) to a District Judge following an amendment to the law governing pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioner initially filed the appeal directly in the High Court as the suit's original valuation exceeded fifty thousand rupees. Subsequently, the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 was amended by Act V of 1986, raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judges up to two hundred thousand rupees. Pursuant to executive directions, the High Court transferred pending R.F.As within that valuation range, including the petitioner's appeal, to the respective District Judges. The petitioner challenged the transfer, arguing that the 1986 amendment was prospective and did not affect pending appeals. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that statutory amendments altering the forum of appeal without impairing the underlying right of appeal are purely procedural in nature and thus apply retrospectively to pending proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an amendment raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of a forum applies retrospectively to pending appeals?
- Does a statutory change in the appellate forum impair a litigant's vested right of appeal?
- Can pending first appeals be transferred to a subordinate court upon an enhancement of that court's pecuniary jurisdiction?
- BASHIR vs WA ZIR ALI1987 MLD 4 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
- BASHIR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- BASHIR MAHMOOD BHATTI vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB LIVESTOCK AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAHORE And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 559 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-05-14Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AKMAL MALIK vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF PRISONS, PUNJAB And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 880 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1521 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs Syed MUHAMMAD IQBAL1987 MLD 3274 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs NAZIR AHMAD and others1987 MLD 2879 · Board of Revenue · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD HASSAN1987 MLD 2993 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs ISLAM AND 3 others1987 CLC 1976 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- BASHIR Ahmadand Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal and a jail petition filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal and confirmed the conviction and death sentence of one petitioner under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with sentences under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding a fatal assault arising from a dispute over land possession. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts based on eye-witness testimony and recoveries did not warrant a reappraisal of evidence by this Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that the Supreme Court will generally decline to re-examine concurrent findings of fact in criminal matters where ocular and corroborative evidence is consistent and reliable.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts in a criminal case?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be sustained solely on the ground of seeking a re-evaluation of witness testimony already considered by the High Court?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 781 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 353 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE--Complainant1987 P Cr. L J 322 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BHAKKAR1987 MLD 332 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1987 CLC 858 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and 2 others1987 CLC 1862 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-07Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs ASHFAQ AHMAD1987 MLD 223(2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD KHAN vs Malik MEHDI KHAN and another1987 CLC 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD And ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 750 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-07Read full judgment →
- BARKAT BHATTI And 5 Others vs THE STATE and 4 others1987 P C r. L J 281 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-12Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another1987 CLC 323 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-04Read full judgment →
- BAQAR ALI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2188 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
- BANQU E INDOSUEZ vs MANNO 0 and MOTI Ltd. and 5 others1987 MLD 228 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
- BANNU SUGAR MILLS Ltd. vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT1987 MLD 1359 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-05Read full judgment →
- BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) Ltd. and 21987 MLD 669 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-14Read full judgment →
- BANK OF CREDIT & COMMERCE, INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) LIMITED vs PERMANENT TRADING COMPANY LIMITED and others1987 MLD 50 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- BANISON INDUSTRIES vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others1987 MLD 2337 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- BANI Son INDUSTRIES vs CBR & OtherKLR 1987 Tax and Customs 22 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- BANHOON And 3 Others vs THE STATE1987 P Cr. L J 419 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
- BALAKAMOON KHAN vs Syed GULREHMAN SHAH AND 2 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
- BALAKAMOON KHAN vs Sayed GUL REHMAN SHAH AND 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
- BAKHT ALI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAWABSHAH And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 741 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-03-05Read full judgment →
- BAKHT ALI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAWABSHAH, And Another1987 KLR Labour and Sen ice Cases 224 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
- BAKHSHA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1934 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- BAKAR HUSSAIN vs THE DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT (NAVY), MINISTRY OF DEFENCE and others1987 MLD 1363 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
- BAHEEDULLAH vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →