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.
- AHMED FAHIM. TARIQ vs THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KARACHI and others1987 MLD 3006 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- AHMED and another vs GUL MUHAMMAD and 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Quetta 177 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- AHMED And Another vs GUL MUHAMMAD And 3 Other1987 PLD Quetta 177 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- AHMED and 2 others vs PAKISTAH through the Secretary, Ministry of Production, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others1987 MLD 572 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
- AHMED ALI vs NOOR MUHAMMAD and 8 others1987 CLC 1575 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-23Read full judgment →
- AHMED ALI And Another vs Mst. ALLAH DAEE And 27 Other1987 SCMR 756 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 10-11-1985, which had refused to grant leave to appeal regarding concurrent findings of fact. The core legal question before the Court was whether a review petition could be entertained based on the discovery of allegedly new evidence—specifically, a certificate from India purportedly proving that Mst. Rabia died on 21-4-1907, contradicting previous evidence (Exh. D/2) accepted by all lower courts, which established her death date as 27-12-1949. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that this evidence could not have been procured earlier through the exercise of due diligence, given that the litigation had been pending since 1976. The Court affirmed that discovery of new evidence as a ground for review requires proof that such evidence was not available or discoverable despite due diligence during the original proceedings. Finding no substance in the petitioners' contentions regarding the new evidence, the Court refused to interfere with the established concurrent findings of fact.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be entertained based on evidence that could have been procured earlier through due diligence?
- Does the discovery of new evidence justify reviewing a judgment based on concurrent findings of fact?
- Is a party entitled to reopen a case on the basis of new evidence if the litigation has been pending for a significant period?
- AHMADULHAQ SIDDIQUI vs BASHIR AHMED1987 CLC 2536 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-28Read full judgment →
- AHMAD YAR KHAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1987 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- AHMAD YAR and others vs THE STATE and another1987 MLD 2308 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- AHMAD YAR and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3173 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-29Read full judgment →
- AHMAD vs The STATE1987 SCMR 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are two petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a murder trial where Ahmad and four others were prosecuted for the killing of Shera. The trial court convicted Ahmad and Mehmoora under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death, while acquitting the remaining three co-accused. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Mehmoora but upheld Ahmad's conviction, reducing his death sentence to imprisonment for life. Ahmad sought leave to challenge his conviction, while the deceased's brother sought Mehmoora's acquittal's reversal and enhancement of Ahmad's sentence. The Supreme Court evaluated the evidence, noting that while ocular testimony required corroboration due to prior enmity, the recovery of a blood-stained hatchet at Ahmad's instance was supported by the unimpeachable testimony of the Investigating Officer, providing sufficient independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the recovery proved by an honest investigating officer can corroborate tainted ocular evidence, and declined to interfere with the High Court's discretion regarding sentencing. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of an investigating officer regarding the recovery of a weapon provide sufficient independent corroboration to sustain a murder conviction when ocular witnesses are interested and inimical?
- Whether tainted ocular evidence can be corroborated by recovery evidence witnessed by a police officer even if private recovery witnesses are interested?
- Does previous enmity between parties necessitate the rejection of an accused's conviction where independent corroboration in the form of a blood-stained weapon exists?
- AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 414 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
- AHMAD SHER vs S.H.O. MITTHA TIWANA-1987 P Cr. L J 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- AHMAD SHAH vs I.-G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB And Another1987 PLC (C. S.) 752 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- AHMAD NAWAZ And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the convictions of the petitioners for offences under sections 302 and 323, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of injured witnesses, who were related to the deceased, was sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of prior enmity. The Supreme Court held that the presence of the witnesses at the scene was established as they were injured during the occurrence and lived nearby. Despite their relationship to the deceased, the lack of enmity rendered their testimony credible. The Court further addressed the contention regarding the alleged change of the place of occurrence by the investigating officer, ruling that even if true, it did not compromise the credibility of the ocular evidence. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the trial court and High Court were justified in their findings. The judgment reinforces the principle that the testimony of injured witnesses, even if related to the deceased, is reliable when no enmity exists.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of injured witnesses related to the deceased sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of enmity?
- Does an alleged discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence by the investigating officer automatically invalidate ocular testimony?
- Are the trial and appellate courts justified in relying on the testimony of injured witnesses who reside near the scene of the crime?
- AHMAD NASIR KHAN vs Khalifa FATEH MUHAMMAD1987 MLD 244 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2494 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-06Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs Messrs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY Ltd.1987 PLC 595 · Labour Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs Messrs NATIONAL MOTORS Ltd., KARACHI1987 PLC 838 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-29Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs MALLA And Other1987 SCMR 1393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a pre-emption suit filed by respondents claiming a preferential right to purchase agricultural land based on their status as tenants. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the plaint due to the respondents' failure to deposit the requisite court fee, a decision upheld by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. However, the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction and relying on the precedent set in Shana Khan v. Aulia Khan, set aside these orders and remanded the case, granting the respondents time to rectify the court fee deficiency. The petitioner, the vendee of the land, sought leave to appeal against this High Court order. The petitioner contended that, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah, the respondents, as mere tenants, no longer possessed the right of pre-emption under the injunctions of Islam, rendering their suit abated. The Supreme Court admitted the petition, stayed further proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, and ordered the appeal to be fixed for hearing alongside similar pending cases.
Questions settled- Does the status of a tenant confer a right of pre-emption under the injunctions of Islam?
- Can a pre-emption suit proceed if the plaintiff does not fall within the categories of persons possessing the right of pre-emption under Islamic law?
- Does the failure to pay court fees justify the rejection of a plaint in a pre-emption suit?
- AHMAD KHAN vs KARAM ELAHI And 2 Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order granting bail to three respondents convicted under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who had been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion to suspend sentences and grant bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the sole ground that the sentences were 'short'. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on the 'short sentence' doctrine was legally flawed, as the legislature had specifically amended Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by adding subsection (1-A) to standardize the criteria for bail pending appeal based on sentence duration and the time elapsed since conviction. The Court affirmed that bail should be granted in accordance with the statutory timelines prescribed in Section 426(1-A), rather than subjective interpretations of what constitutes a 'short' sentence. However, because the respondents would imminently satisfy the statutory requirements for bail, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court grant bail to a convict solely on the ground that the sentence is 'short' without regard to the statutory criteria in Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the amendment to Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically subsection (1-A), supersede the previous judicial practice of granting bail based on the subjective 'short sentence' doctrine?
- AHMAD KHAN vs GHULAM ABBAS and others1987 MLD 1664 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN LANGHAH and another vs Mst. HUFZA BEGUM by L.Rs.1987 MLD 259 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN And Other vs Pir JAMIL AHMAD And Others1987 PLC 865 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
- AHMAD HUSSAIN vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER,1987 PLC 58 · Labour Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
- AHMAD HUSSAIN And OTHERS vs PUNJAB PROVINCE And Other1987 SCMR 769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, co-sharers of canal water, challenged the Irrigation Department's decision to sanction additional water to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, fearing a reduction in their own water supply. They sought an interim injunction, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, the Additional District Judge, and subsequently by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the failure to serve notice under the Canal and Drainage Act of 1873 rendered the sanction of additional water invalid. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless because the Irrigation Department provided an assurance that the outlet capacity would be increased to accommodate the additional supply, thereby negating the petitioners' apprehension of irreparable loss. Furthermore, the Court clarified that when extra supply is provided from the existing outlet capacity, notice to co-sharers is not mandatory. The petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the Canal authorities to ensure that the Warabandi remains unaltered to the detriment of the petitioners' water supply during the pendency of the civil suit.
Questions settled- Is notice to co-sharers mandatory under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 when additional water is sanctioned from an existing outlet?
- Does the provision of additional water from an existing outlet capacity constitute a valid ground for an interim injunction by co-sharers?
- AHMAD HASSAN KHAN And Others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Other1987 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging the validity of the Punjab Act XXV of 1975. The dispute relates to evacuee lands allotted to a female refugee in lieu of property abandoned in India, which she subsequently transferred to the petitioners before her death. After her death, private claimants sought the lands as collaterals of the last male holder, invoking the principle that refugee females held only limited estates under customary law. The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity and vires of the Punjab Act XXV of 1975, arguing it repugnant to federal legislation, violative of Article 143 of the Constitution, and an encroachment upon judicial functions and past closed transactions. The Supreme Court found that the case involved substantial questions of general importance concerning the interpretation of constitutional provisions and granted leave to appeal to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Act XXV of 1975 is ultra vires the Constitution by purporting to reopen rehabilitation orders that had attained finality under central laws?
- Does the Punjab Act XXV of 1975 conflict with Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether the adjudication of private rights permitted by the Punjab Act constitutes an unauthorized encroachment upon the judicial field?
- AHMAD DIN vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1987 SCMR 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an application for the readmission of a regular second appeal that had been previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question raised was whether the repeal of the Letters Patent appeal remedy by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, implicitly stripped the High Court of its power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or in default under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the closing of a right of appeal by the legislature does not impose any fetters on or restrict the inherent power of the High Court to act under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The key principle laid down is that the removal of a collateral appellate remedy does not invalidate or restrict procedural powers of a court regarding the dismissal or restoration of default matters.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of the Letters Patent appeal by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, remove the power of the High Court to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution?
- Can the closing of an appellate remedy by the legislature impose fetters on the High Court's power under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- AHMAD DIN BUTT vs EHSANUL HAQ And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of a house in Lahore, involving a long-standing litigation history between the appellant and respondent No. 1. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, correctly decided the merits of the case after identifying that the Settlement Commissioner who passed the impugned order lacked the requisite jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 27-12-1971 was indeed without jurisdiction, as the authority had been divested of his powers to hear such revisions prior to that date. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred by proceeding to decide the disputed questions of fact regarding the parties' comparative entitlement on the merits. The Court established the principle that when a lower authority's decision is found to be void for lack of jurisdiction, the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, should not adjudicate the merits of the underlying dispute but should instead remand the matter to the competent authority for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Can a High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, decide the merits of a case after determining that the impugned order was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction?
- Is an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner who has been divested of his powers to hear such matters considered void for lack of jurisdiction?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a High Court when it finds that the order under challenge was passed by an authority without jurisdiction?
- AHMAD BAKHSHAND 2 Other vs THB STATEP.L.D 1987 Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
- AHMAD BAKHSH AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
- AHMAD AZEEZ ZIA vs Messrs BISVIL SPINNERS Ltd. And Other1987 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside an ejectment order passed against a tenant. The appellant-landlord sought the ejectment of respondent No.1 under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, during the course of which the Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit monthly rent before a specified date. The tenant defaulted by depositing the rent for July 1980 four days late, leading the Rent Controller to dismiss the ejectment application on merits but the Additional District Judge to reverse the finding, strike off the defence, and order ejectment on the ground of unexcused default. The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, declared the ejectment order without lawful authority by relying on precedents regarding court vacations and section 9 of the Punjab General Clauses Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing a pure finding of fact without considering the specific distinguishing circumstances of the case and wrongly applied section 9 of the Punjab General Clauses Act where payments were to be made in the treasury rather than a closed court or office. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the ejectment order, laying down that whether a delay in depositing rent constitutes a bona fide mistake or a default is a question of fact dependent on the unique circumstances of each case, and precedents regarding court vacations do not establish a rigid rule of law applicable universally regardless of factual distinctions.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's failure to deposit monthly rent within the prescribed time invariably constitute a default regardless of surrounding facts?
- Can the High Court interfere with a concurrent or factual finding regarding a bona fide mistake in rent deposit under its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Does section 9 of the Punjab General Clauses Act apply to excuse a delay in depositing rent into the treasury during civil court vacations?
- AHMAD and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
- AHMAD And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 884 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-23Read full judgment →
- AHMAD And Another vs THE STATE And Another1987 SCMR 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the conviction and life sentences of the appellants for the murder of the deceased under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case rested on the testimony of two alleged eye-witnesses, one of whom was declared hostile, leaving the conviction solely dependent on the testimony of the second witness, corroborated by firearm recoveries. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found the sole remaining eye-witness's presence at the scene highly doubtful. His stated reason for being at the location—assisting with threshing wheat—was directly contradicted by the Investigating Officer, who testified that no threshing floor existed near the scene of the occurrence. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence to support the conviction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants, noting that the prosecution's case lacked credible evidentiary support.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of an eye-witness whose presence at the scene of the crime is contradicted by the investigating officer?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the presence of an eye-witness at the scene of the occurrence necessitate the acquittal of the accused?
- AHMAD And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from the conviction of the appellants, Ahmad and Nasir, for the murder of one Kamir, under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court and the High Court had convicted the appellants based primarily on the testimony of a single eye-witness, Yousaf (P.W.10), corroborated by the recovery of firearms. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness whose presence at the crime scene was disputed and contradicted by the Investigating Officer. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the witness's explanation for his presence at the scene was belied by the Investigating Officer's findings regarding the absence of a threshing floor nearby. Consequently, the Court held that the witness's testimony was unreliable and could not support a conviction. The appeal was accepted, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The judgment reinforces the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on the testimony of a witness whose presence at the scene is proven to be doubtful.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of an eye-witness whose presence at the scene is contradicted by the investigating officer?
- Does the failure of a witness to provide a credible explanation for their presence at the scene of the crime render their testimony unreliable?
- Is a conviction based on disputed eye-witness testimony and firearm recovery sustainable when the primary eye-witness's presence is not established?
- AHMAD And Another vs THE STATE1987 SCMR 2019 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, while altering the death sentence of the first petitioner to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerns the reliance upon the solitary statement of a related eye-witness, the sufficiency of corroboration through circumstantial, medical, and recovery evidence, and whether the case warrants a re-appraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the solitary statement of the eye-witness was sufficiently corroborated by recovery evidence, medical evidence, and the established motive. The key principle laid down is that a conviction can safely rest on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness if it is supported by reliable corroborative evidence such as recoveries, medical reports, and motive, and minor circumstantial inconsistencies do not warrant a re-appraisal of evidence by this Court.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be based on the solitary statement of a related eye-witness?
- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise the evidence concurrently evaluated by the lower courts without strong justification?
- Does the absence of a direct forensic link for circumstantial evidence vitiate the ocular testimony when otherwise corroborated?
- AHMAD And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 953 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- AHMAD and 3 others vs Messrs NATIONAL SILK AND RAYON MILLS Ltd., LYALLPUR and another1987 CLC 486 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 975 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 6 others1987 MLD 3143 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-04Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Ltd., SUKKUR1987 PLC 895 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ABDUL RAHEEM vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Other1987 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which had partially accepted the petitioner's appeal regarding service-related grievances. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter and determined that the Tribunal's judgment did not warrant interference, as the petitioner's core grievances had been substantially addressed. However, the petitioner contended that the Provincial Government had failed to implement the relief granted by the Tribunal. Expressing regret over the potential non-compliance, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with a specific directive to the Provincial Government. The Court held that orders passed by a Service Tribunal must be implemented by the relevant government authorities in their true letter and spirit without delay. The principle established is that administrative authorities are legally obligated to execute the directions of a Service Tribunal promptly, and failure to do so constitutes a valid ground for judicial intervention to ensure compliance with the Tribunal's adjudication.
Questions settled- Is a Provincial Government legally obligated to implement the judgment of a Service Tribunal?
- Can the Supreme Court issue a directive to the Provincial Government to implement a Service Tribunal's decision if it has not yet been executed?
- AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER.SUKKUR SINDHYDERABAD And Another vs MEHBOOB1987 PLC 528 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- Agha GHULAM HUSSAIN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR1987 PLC (C. S.) 450 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
- AGHA GHULAM HUSSAIN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &K.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 127 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Agha ALLA-UD-DIN And 2 Other vs ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, AZAD JAMMU1987 PLC (C.S.) 508 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
- AFZAL KHAN and 6 others vs UNITED BANK LIMITED1987 CLC 2114 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
- AFTAB HUSSAIN vs COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, QUETTA And 2Others1987 P Cr. L J 1413 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by customs authorities regarding the confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal questions involved whether non-service of notice under section 171 of the Act vitiated proceedings, the competency of customs officers to assess and re-examine misdeclared goods, the constitutional validity of discretionary powers under section 181, and whether the petitioner knowingly attempted to smuggle un-declared goods. The Balochistan High Court held that the petitioner was consciously involved in the smuggling attempt through misdeclaration of goods, that concurrent factual findings by departmental forums cannot be re-opened in constitutional jurisdiction, and that procedural irregularities at the investigation stage do not vitiate departmental proceedings where no prejudice is shown. The court laid down that high courts will not interfere with factual determinations of competent tribunals under writ jurisdiction merely because an alternative view is possible, and that discretionary imposition of penalties proportionate to the value of smuggled goods under the Customs Act, 1969 is valid when mala fides or arbitrariness is absent.
Questions settled- Whether non-service of notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969 at the time of seizure vitiates subsequent departmental proceedings?
- Can the High Court re-open disputed questions of fact regarding the valuation and contents of imported goods in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Whether section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 is ultra vires for conferring unfettered discretion without providing guidelines on giving an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation?
- Whether confiscation of entire packages and mixed contents is lawful under section 157 of the Customs Act, 1969 when goods are found not to correspond with declarations?
- AFTAB ALAM vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE And Another1987 SCMR 1823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal, Quetta, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his discharge from service as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner was found guilty of gross misconduct and corruption following a departmental enquiry and had explicitly admitted his guilt during the personal hearing granted by the competent authority before the final discharge order was passed. His departmental appeal to the Inspector-General of Police was dismissed as time-barred, and the Service Tribunal subsequently upheld the discharge. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an employee can challenge the legality of a departmental enquiry after having expressly admitted his guilt during the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that where an employee admits his guilt upon being granted an opportunity to show cause, he cannot subsequently turn around and claim that the departmental enquiry was defective. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an employee who has admitted his guilt during a departmental enquiry can subsequently challenge the legality of the enquiry proceedings?
- Can a service tribunal dismiss an appeal on the ground of limitation when departmental remedies were pursued out of time?
- Does an admission of guilt during a personal hearing cure alleged procedural defects in a departmental enquiry?
- AFTAB AHMED SIDDIQUI vs The DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT,1987 PLC 31 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
- AFTAB AHMAD vs HASSAN ARSHAD AND 10 Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order granting bail to the respondents, who were facing trial for offences under sections 307, 364, 365, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality of conducting a subsequent police investigation and submitting a second report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the trial court had already taken cognizance, and the propriety of granting bail under section 498 read with section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the number of police investigations into a crime is not limited by law, and a subsequent report under section 173 can be submitted even after cognizance has been taken by the court. The Court affirmed the High Court's order granting bail on merits and dismissed the petition, establishing that subsequent police investigations remain permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite earlier challans.
Questions settled- Is a subsequent police investigation and submission of a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permissible after the trial court has taken cognizance of a case?
- Does a subsequent negative police report debar the trial court from proceeding with the trial based on the original charge-sheet?
- Can bail be granted under section 498 read with section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on general considerations of merits?
- AFTAB AHMAD SHAIKH, ADVOCATE vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA and 2 others1987 CLC 643 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
- AEJAZ ALI MEMON, INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES And LABOUR OFFICER1987 PLC 215 · Labour Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
- ADMINISTRATOR THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BHAKKAR vs MUHAMMAD1987 MLD 210 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ADIL MUHAMMAD KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 3 others1987 MLD 483 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-07Read full judgment →
- ADEEB JAWEDANI, CORRESPONDENT DAILY 'WAFAQ', FAISALABAD vs CHIEF1987 PLD Lahore 286 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
- ADEEB JAWEDANI, CORRESPONDENT DAILY 'WAFAQ', FA ISALABAD vs CHIEF1987 PLD Lahore 286 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
- ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER etc. vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE BHATTI1987 MLD 2883 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
- ADAMJEE PAPER AND BOARD MILLS Ltd. vs SHAD MUHAMMAD1987 PLC 877 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-22Read full judgment →
- ADAMJEE INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD.: IN RE vs NOT1987 MLD 2907 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
- ADAM LIMITED vs Messrs GULF TRADING CO.1987 MLD 2096 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- ADAM And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 422 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
- ACHAR vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT,1987 PLC 104 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
- ABUL KALAM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1637 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- ABUBAKAR SALEY MAYET vs ABBOT LABORATORIES and another1987 CLC 367 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, which decreed a recovery suit in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was validly instituted by a competent person on behalf of the corporate plaintiff under Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, whether a company can orally authorize a person to institute a suit, and whether the plaintiff successfully established the delivery of goods and liability against the appellant. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was instituted by a person lacking valid authorization, as Order XXIX only governs the signing and verification of pleadings rather than the institution of suits, verbal authorization by directors is insufficient without backing from the Articles of Association, and subsequent ratification cannot cure an initial lack of authority or revive a time-barred action. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove on merits that goods were delivered to the appellant or that any business relationship existed between the defendants. The court laid down the principle that a suit instituted by an unauthorized person is a nullity, and an agent must possess valid, formally conferred authority in accordance with the company's constitutional documents at the time of institution.
Questions settled- Does Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empower a person to institute a suit on behalf of a corporation or is it strictly limited to signing and verifying pleadings?
- Can a company validly authorize a person orally or through verbal instructions of directors to institute legal proceedings?
- Does a subsequent ratification by a company cure the initial illegality of a suit instituted by an unauthorized person?
- Is a suit instituted by a person lacking proper legal authority considered a nullity in the eye of the law?
- ABU BAKAR vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 674 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
- ABU BAK AR vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 674 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
- ABRAR HUSSAIN QURESHI vs Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM1987 MLD 3014 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- ABRAR AHMAD vs Mst. SHAH JEHAN BEGUM and 4 others1987 MLD 262 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- ABM and others vs HEER BAI1987 CLC 692 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- ABID RAHI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 808 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- ABID RAHI vs THE STATE-1987 MLD 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- ABID HASAN MINTO, ADVOCATE vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1987 CLC 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SHAKOOR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 785 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SATTAR And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 695 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SAMAD and another vs COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, and others1987 MLD 858 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs THE STATE-1987 PCr. L J 682(2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN and others vs FATEH KHAN1987 MLD 2647 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs SULTAN AHMED And 5 Other1987 SCMR 660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the lower courts' interpretation of an agreement between the parties. The core legal question involves the true construction of an agreement where the terms were allegedly camouflaged or incorrect, specifically whether the transaction constituted a genuine sale of property or a security arrangement disguised as a sale to secure the repayment of a past loan arising from a partnership account. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the lower courts applied correct legal principles in treating the sale as the primary object of the deal rather than as a penalty clause for the non-payment of a loan, particularly considering the debtor-creditor relationship and the disparity in literacy and influence between the parties. The Court held that these aspects required thorough examination and ordered the continuation of the status quo.
Questions settled- What is the correct construction of an agreement where the terms are alleged to be camouflaged or incorrect?
- Whether a transaction should be treated as a primary contract of sale or as a penalty clause for the non-payment of a loan?
- How does a disparity in literacy and influence between contracting parties affect the interpretation of an agreement?
- ABDUR RASHID KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others1987 MLD 2520 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHMAN alias MANA and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1790 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs HIGHWAY GOODS TRANSPORT1987 CLC 144 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs ABDUR RAZAK1987 MLD 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH SAEED vs CANNO N RUBBER LIMITED and another1987 MLD 2583(2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN through his L.Rs. vs MEMBER JUDICIAL, BOARD OF REVENUE1987 CLC 994 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN (Deceased) Through His L. Rs. vs Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM And Other1987 SCMR 1652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a suit challenging the cancellation of a land grant. The predecessor of the petitioners, Ismail Khan, held land on a 'Full Grant' basis, which was cancelled for non-payment. Although an Additional Commissioner initially restored the grant, citing a lack of notice and failure to comply with mandatory Standing Orders 10-A and 11, the Board of Revenue subsequently cancelled the grant. The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the cancellation was illegal, which was dismissed by both the trial court and the High Court. The core legal questions involve whether the cancellation of the grant violated principles of natural justice due to lack of notice, whether the mandatory procedures under Standing Orders 10-A and 11 were followed, and whether a prior suit between the parties operated as res judicata. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding procedural irregularities and the applicability of res judicata, and ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding the land.
Questions settled- Does the cancellation of a land grant without issuing notice to the grantee violate the principles of natural justice?
- Does a failure to comply with the mandatory procedures prescribed under Standing Orders 10-A and 11 render the cancellation of a land grant illegal?
- Can a judgment in a previous suit act as res judicata if the reliefs claimed in the subsequent suit are different and distinct?
- ABDULLAH And 2 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had previously dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their conviction and sentence for murder. The petitioners were originally charged and convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Rehmat A.I., occurring in March 1976 in the District of Sahiwal. The trial court had sentenced each petitioner to imprisonment for life and imposed a fine. Upon reviewing the arguments presented by the counsel for the petitioners and the caveator, the Supreme Court found no material evidence or legal grounds to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the conviction and sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the lower court's decision. The judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts will not disturb concurrent findings of fact in criminal cases absent compelling material demonstrating error or injustice.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of conviction and sentence in a criminal case where no material error is shown?
- Is a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the appellate court finds no grounds to interfere with the trial court's judgment?
- ABDULLAH And 2 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for murder and attempted murder. The petitioners were convicted under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the killing of two individuals and injuring another. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a dying declaration, specifically whether the deceased was in a fit mental state to make the statement, and whether the ocular testimony was reliable given alleged conflicts with medical evidence regarding the distance of firing. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the lower courts, which had accepted the prosecution's case. The Court held that the dying declaration was credible, noting that the medical officer had stabilized the patient before recording the statement and that there was no evidence of tutoring. Furthermore, the Court found that the lower courts had sufficiently addressed the alleged discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the convictions.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration be considered reliable if the deceased was initially in a serious condition but was treated and stabilized before the statement was recorded?
- Does the absence of burning or charring on wounds necessarily invalidate ocular testimony claiming firing from close range?
- Is a dying declaration rendered inadmissible if the relatives of the deceased were present at the hospital during the time the statement was recorded?
- ABDULLAH alias HAJI ISHAQUE vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1232 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
- ABDULHAMEED vs The STATE1987 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a bail matter where the petitioner was charged with fraud, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and using forged documents as genuine under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether a petitioner who has been granted interim bail on medical grounds, but is actively avoiding appearance before the High Court after the genuineness of his medical certificate was doubted, is entitled to be admitted to bail by the Supreme Court on the basis of a private medical certificate. The Supreme Court declined to grant bail, noting that the petitioner was evading arrest and failing to appear before the High Court despite orders to be taken into custody. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner who is avoiding the process of the court and evading arrest after his interim bail conditions are questioned is not entitled to discretionary relief of bail from the apex court.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner who is actively evading appearance before the High Court seek discretionary bail from the Supreme Court?
- Whether a private medical certificate advising bed rest is sufficient to grant bail when the genuineness of previous medical grounds is under doubt by the High Court?
- What is the effect of a petitioner avoiding arrest and court appearance on his petition for leave to appeal in a bail matter?
- ABDUL- NASIR LATIF vs ASSISTANT POLITICAL AGENT, NORTH WAZIRISTAN, MIRAN SHAH and others1987 MLD 1746 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAKEEL KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), LAHORE And Other1987 SCMR 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the cancellation of a land allotment. The allotment, originally made to one Muhammad Aslam and later sold to a third-party purchaser, was previously investigated and found genuine by the relevant authority in 1969. Subsequently, on 29-6-1974, the petitioners filed a second application under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, leading to an ex parte cancellation. The High Court restored the allotment, relying on a circular dated 2-7-1977 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which directed that no proceedings be initiated on suspect applications filed in the last week of June 1974. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the circular was intra vires as it aimed to prevent fraud and abuse of process. The Court ruled that an allottee cannot be vexed twice on the same grounds once the allotment's genuineness has already been established.
Questions settled- Can an allotment of land be re-examined and cancelled on the same grounds after its genuineness has already been verified and cleared in a prior inquiry?
- Is an administrative circular issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to prevent fraudulent proceedings on belated applications legally valid and binding?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner decline to recall an ex parte cancellation order passed by their predecessor if the affected purchaser was condemned unheard?
- ABDUL WAHID vs ABDUR RAllAQ and others1987 MLD 383 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHAB KHAN vs The STATE1987 SCMR 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which had reduced the sentences of the petitioner in corruption cases following a concession made by his counsel. The petitioner's counsel before the High Court had explicitly abandoned arguments on the merits of the cases, focusing solely on the reduction of sentences, a position the High Court accepted while noting that the merits of the cases did not favor the convict. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's new counsel attempted to challenge the validity of the concession made by the previous counsel, claiming it was unauthorized. The Supreme Court held that a mere verbal assertion challenging the conduct of a lawyer is insufficient to invalidate a concession made in court. The Court established the principle that to challenge a concession made by counsel as being without instructions, the party must provide a formal affidavit. As the petitioner failed to provide such an affidavit, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a concession made by their counsel in court through a mere verbal statement?
- Is an affidavit required to substantiate a claim that a counsel's concession was made without instructions?
- Does a court have the authority to dismiss a petition when the counsel fails to provide evidence of unauthorized conduct by previous counsel?
- ABDUL WAHAB KHAN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1987 PLC 491 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SUBHAN and 3 others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1987 MLD 2736 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →