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.
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD ALAM1986 PLC 471 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL1986 PLC 478 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs KHALID JAVED1986 PLC 497 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs IHSAN-UL-HAQ1986 PLC 1082 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs DAVID ASGHAR1986 PLC 490 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION And Another vs ILYAS MASIH1986 PLC 491 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB SEED CORPORATION, LAHORE And Another vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ1986 PLC 697 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT Tribunal vs SARDAR ALI1986 PLC 1097 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs RASHEED AHMAD1986 PLC 624 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-17Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs NAZEER AHMAD1986 PLC 496 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MAZDOOR UNION G.T.S., SAHIWAL1986 PLC 688 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs KAMAL DIN1986 PLC 1092 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE vs JALAL DIN1986 PLC 473 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE vs BASHIR AHMAD1986 PLC 1142 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs SHAHBAZ KHAN1986 PLC 1075 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD BILAL1986 PLC 305 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD AYAZ1986 PLC 456 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUBARIK ALI1986 PLC 455 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs IRSHAD BEGUM And 2 Others1986 PLC 487 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs HABIB AHMAD1986 PLC 666 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs GHULAM YASIN1986 PLC 338 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD1986 PLC 627 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs FAIZULLAH1986 PLC 445 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs AZMAT ALI1986 PLC 453 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ASGHAR ALI1986 PLC 654 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL REHMAN1986 PLC 1069 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL AZIZ1986 PLC 307 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB PROVINCE vs ABAD HUSSAIN1986 CLC 1804 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-20Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ORBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs Syed MUSHTAQ AHMAD1986 PLC 290 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-27Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB NATIONAL SILK MILLS Ltd. vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN And Another1986 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from consolidated appeals against a High Court judgment directing the winding up of the appellant private limited company under sections 162 and 163 of the Companies Act, 1913, upon applications filed by secured and unsecured creditors due to prolonged suspension of business, failure to pay debts, and insurmountable liabilities. The core legal questions examined the locus standi of secured creditors to petition for winding up, the effect of a pending civil suit on such proceedings, and whether adequate opportunity to produce evidence was denied to the appellant. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that secured creditors are not barred by law from seeking winding up when security is shown to be insufficient, that winding up proceedings can be instituted independently of prior or simultaneous civil recovery suits, and that the appellant's own dilatory conduct and failure to produce evidence precluded any claim of denial of a fair hearing. The Court established that a company's chronic closure, mounting liabilities, and failure to satisfy undisputed or inadequately secured debts justify a winding up order under the just and equitable clause.
Questions settled- Whether a secured creditor has the locus standi to file an application for the winding up of a company under the Companies Act, 1913?
- Does the prior or simultaneous institution of a civil recovery suit bar a creditor from initiating company winding up proceedings?
- Whether winding up proceedings can be maintained against a company that has suspended its business for a prolonged period and is unable to pay its debts?
- Does the failure of a company to substantiate its solvency and cooperate with the provisional liquidator justify a winding up order?
- PUNHOON Alias RAHIM BUX JATOI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1454 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
- PUN00 KHAN vs SECRETARY AUKAF, MUZAFFARABAD And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 982 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1986-07-22Read full judgment →
- PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK vs SHAH MUHAMMAD1986 PLC 506 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN and another vs BABOO KHAN1986 MLD 387 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another vs Messrs INDUSTRIAL MACHINES1986 MLD 501 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several first appeals arising from arbitration proceedings where awards were made rules of the court prior to the enactment of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981. The core legal question is whether the appellate court possesses the jurisdiction to remit an award to an arbitrator for the recording of reasons under Section 3 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, even after the award has been made a rule of the court and a decree passed. The Court held that the appellate court, as a continuation of the trial court, retains the power to remit awards for the provision of reasons under Section 3 of the Ordinance. The Court established that the term 'Court' in Section 3 of the Ordinance includes the appellate court, and that an appeal against an order making an award a rule of the court constitutes a proceeding in relation to that award. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned decrees and remitted the awards to the arbitrators with directions to provide detailed reasons for their findings.
Questions settled- Does the term 'Court' in Section 3 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 include an appellate court?
- Can an appellate court remit an arbitration award to an arbitrator for the recording of reasons under Section 3 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981?
- Does the filing of an appeal against an order making an award a rule of the court constitute a proceeding in relation to an award?
- Does the merger of an arbitration award into a decree prevent an appellate court from remitting the award for reconsideration?
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And 4 ,Others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD AKHTAR1986 PLC (C.S.) 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF SIND through Secretary, Ministry of Works and Communications vs Messrs UMAR KHAN and 3 others1986 MLD 1421 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF SIND Through Chief Secretary And Another vs ALI ANWAR1986 SCMR 1854 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind Service Tribunal, which had ruled in favor of civil servants regarding the effective date of their promotion to Grade-17. The core legal question was whether the Sind Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, could be applied retrospectively to regularize promotions that had already been processed under prior arrangements, and whether the government's subsequent notifications attempting to alter the effective date of promotion were valid. The Supreme Court upheld the Service Tribunal's decision, finding that the 1975 Rules did not possess retrospective effect. The Court affirmed that the government could not rely on these rules to invalidate or supersede earlier, validly issued notifications regarding the respondents' promotions. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the government's attempt to apply the 1975 Rules to the respondents' cases was legally flawed and that the respondents were entitled to the benefits of their earlier, properly regularized promotion dates. The principle established is that new service rules cannot be applied retrospectively to adversely affect vested rights unless explicitly provided.
Questions settled- Can the Sind Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 be applied retrospectively to regularize promotions?
- Does a new notification superseding an earlier one automatically invalidate the previous one if the new notification is legally flawed?
- Is a government notification that relies on a misstatement of law regarding the applicability of service rules valid?
- PROVINCE OF SIND And Others vs Syed SAIFUR RAHMAN And Other1986 SCMR 1332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had declared an order of requisitioning issued by the Deputy Commissioner under section 3 of the Sind Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 to be without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the government could lawfully requisition a property already in its own occupation to frustrate an executed ejectment order arising from default in rent payments. The Supreme Court held that property already in possession of the government cannot be requisitioned, and that using requisitioning powers to bypass a final ejectment order confirmed by superior courts constitutes a mala fide, colourable, and invalid exercise of statutory power. The Court affirmed that administrative convenience, such as the education of students, does not justify unlawful government retention of premises following valid rent default orders. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can property already in the possession of the Government be legally requisitioned under the Sind Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956?
- Whether an order of requisitioning issued to avoid executing a final ejectment order confirmed by superior courts constitutes a mala fide and colourable action?
- Does potential inconvenience to students studying in a school situated on demised premises justify the government's failure to comply with rent deposit orders and lawful ejectment?
- PROVINCE OF SIND and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and another1986 MLD 125 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF SIND and 2 others vs HAJJAN SHAH1986 MLD 1275 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs MEHR KHAN & Co.1986 CLC 2215 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-27Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs IKRAMUL HAQ And Another1986 SCMR 1994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the premature retirement of a civil servant who, while holding a substantive post in the Punjab provincial service, was inducted into the Federal Government via lateral entry without being confirmed in the new post. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government acted as the competent authority to retire the respondent under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and whether the Punjab Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to set aside that order. The Supreme Court held that the respondent remained a deputationist because he retained a lien on his provincial post. Consequently, the Federal Government lacked the competency to retire him under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Court ruled that the ouster clause in Article 13 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, does not protect orders passed by an incompetent authority. The key principle laid down is that an order of retirement by a competent authority is a prerequisite for statutory immunity; where the authority lacks jurisdiction, the order is void ab initio and subject to judicial review, regardless of ouster clauses.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant who retains a lien on a provincial post while serving in the Federal Government qualify as a deputationist?
- Can the Federal Government exercise the power of premature retirement under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, against a provincial civil servant on deputation?
- Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 13 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, protect an order of retirement passed by an authority that is not competent?
- Can the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, be invoked to condone delay in filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs ASGH AR ALI and others1986 MLD 422 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Secretary, Education And Others vs ABDUL1986 SCMR 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions filed by the Province of Punjab through the Secretary, Education, and others against Abdul and others, challenging an order dated 16-8-1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal. During the proceedings, the Assistant Advocate General for the Government of Punjab stated that the government had finally decided the respondents' cases on 1-8-1985, and this subsequent order had been challenged by the respondents in appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petitions. The court found this request reasonable and granted it, dismissing the petitions as withdrawn while safeguarding the government's right to contest the pending appeals before the Service Tribunal on all available legal and factual pleas.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner withdraw a civil petition when the underlying grievance has been addressed by a subsequent government decision?
- Whether withdrawal of a petition can be permitted without prejudice to the rights of parties to raise contentions before the appropriate tribunal?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Secretary To Government Of Punjab, Communication And Works Department And 4 Others vs EHSAN FAZAL & COMPANY, LAHORE1986 CLC 2800 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 39(1)(v) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenges the order of the Civil Judge dismissing the appellants' application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for staying proceedings in a recovery suit. The core legal question was whether the appellants had taken steps in the proceedings before filing the stay application, or had waived their right to arbitration, and whether the failure to explicitly detail the dispute in the stay application was fatal. The Lahore High Court held that neither seeking to set aside ex parte proceedings nor a routine court adjournment for filing a written statement constituted a 'step in the proceedings' under section 34, and that the omission of specific dispute details in the application was not fatal where the existence of the arbitration agreement and its applicability to the claim were undisputed. The court laid down the principle that an act constitutes a step in the proceedings only if it displays an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and give up the right to arbitration, accepting the appeal and staying the suit proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether filing an application to set aside ex parte proceedings constitutes a step in the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Does obtaining an adjournment for filing a written statement amount to taking a step in the proceedings precluding a party from seeking a stay under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Is the omission to explicitly detail the dispute in an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 fatal to the request for staying a suit?
- What is the true test for determining whether a defendant's act constitutes a step in the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Land Acquisition Collector, Faisalabad and others- vs Ch.UMAR DRAZ KHAN and another1986 MLD 2732 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Sialkot vs NASEER KHAN and 31986 MLD 2273 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Rahim Yar Khan and 3 others vs DECENT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY1986 MLD 1649 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-03Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Chief Secretary Lahore vs M. IKRAM UL HAQ And Other1986 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Province of Punjab sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had declared an order of the President of Pakistan retiring the respondent from service to be void ab initio. The respondent, initially a Punjab Government employee, had joined the Federal Government's Foreign Affairs Group via competitive examination. Following his retirement under section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the respondent unsuccessfully approached the Federal Service Tribunal before succeeding in the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the respondent remained a Punjab Government employee and was not a civil servant under the Federal Act, thus rendering the President's order invalid. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the bar under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, and that the appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court found that the petition raised substantial legal questions regarding the respondent's status, the applicability of the bar on jurisdiction, and the issue of limitation. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative pronouncement on these matters.
Questions settled- Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to set aside an order passed by the President of Pakistan under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Can a service appeal be considered within time if the appellant was pursuing remedies in forums lacking technical jurisdiction?
- Does an employee who secures lateral entry into a Federal Government group remain a civil servant of the provincial government?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Others vs MUHAMMAD JALIL UR REHMAN1986 SCMR 1705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 14-10-1979, which dismissed a constitutional petition arising from the striking off of a tenant's defence for non-deposit of rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions involve whether the Collector was a necessary party in an ejectment application against a provincial educational institution, and whether departmental delay constitutes sufficient ground for the Rent Controller to extend the time for depositing rent. The Supreme Court held that contentions not raised before the High Court cannot be entertained for the first time, that the Province of Punjab was properly impleaded through the Education Officer without need for the Collector, and that departmental procedures do not amount to objective unavoidability justifying an extension of time for rent deposit under section 13(6). The key principle laid down is that delay in depositing rent can only be excused upon a showing of objective unavoidability.
Questions settled- Can a legal contention not raised before the High Court be entertained for the first time by the Supreme Court?
- Whether failure to implead the Collector results in a miscarriage of justice in an ejectment application against a provincial educational institution?
- Does departmental delay in making rent deposits constitute objective unavoidability empowering the Rent Controller to extend the time under section 13(6)?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Others vs Mirza RIAZ AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a judgment of the High Court, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the District Judge on the grounds of limitation. The respondent, a dispenser previously employed by the Health Department and later placed at the disposal of the Town Committee Samma Satta, had filed a civil suit seeking payment of salary and allowances from the Health Department after the Town Committee terminated his services and the Health Department refused his reinstatement. The civil court decreed the suit in the respondent's favor. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the civil court possessed the jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's suit, given that the dispute pertains to a service matter, which may fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine this jurisdictional issue, questioning whether the provisions of the Service Tribunal Act, 1974, bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in such service-related disputes.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding the pay and allowances of a government employee in a service matter?
- Does the Service Tribunal Act 1974 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes concerning service matters of government employees?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Others vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB And Other1986 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from leave granted to the Province of Punjab to examine whether the Lahore High Court was justified in dismissing in limine a constitutional petition on the ground of indolence and laches. The dispute centered around the allotment of land in the border area to an army officer under the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959, which allotment was initially cancelled by the Board of Revenue and later restored upon a review petition. The core legal question examined was the jurisdictional competence of the Board of Revenue to interfere with and cancel allotments made by the Border Allotment Committee under the said Regulation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Board of Revenue lacked jurisdiction under the Regulation to interfere with such allotments, as the Regulation provided a specific framework and excluded the jurisdiction of outside authorities. The Court laid down the principle that an order passed wholly without jurisdiction is a nullity, and any subsequent corrective action removing such an illegal order from the scene cannot be legally objected to.
Questions settled- Does the Board of Revenue have the jurisdiction to cancel or interfere with allotments made by the Border Allotment Committee under the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959?
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the ground of indolence and laches when the history of the case shows deliberate delay by state authorities?
- Is an order passed without jurisdiction by an authority subject to legal correction, and can its removal be legally challenged?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS MUHAMMAD SAEED MALIK, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS1986 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another vs AKHTAR SALEEM1986 MLD 1980 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And 2 Others vs MUHAMMAD HAZIQ And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 530 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Sialkot, which decreed the respondents' suit for a permanent injunction restraining the Province of Punjab from taking over possession of their land. The core legal question concerned whether the Government had validly withdrawn from the land acquisition proceedings and whether fresh acquisition proceedings were necessary if the land was required for a different purpose subsequently. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence showing the Government's withdrawal from the acquisition pursuant to competent directives and agreements, and that once withdrawn, previous notifications stood rescinded. The ratio laid down is that if the Government decides to acquire land anew for a different purpose after withdrawing from previous acquisition proceedings, it must initiate fresh proceedings under the relevant provisions of the law, including issuing a new notification.
Questions settled- Can the Government withdraw from land acquisition proceedings once initiated?
- Does a change in the purpose of land acquisition require fresh proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act?
- Whether previous notifications stand rescinded upon the Government's withdrawal from acquisition?
- Is a civil suit for permanent injunction maintainable against unlawful dispossession following withdrawal from acquisition?
- PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN vs Sardar MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN JOGEZAI1986 SCMR 2010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for review of a Supreme Court judgment that had previously dismissed the petitioner's civil petition for leave to appeal. The petitioner sought review on the basis that they had erroneously filed a petition for leave to appeal when an appeal as of right was competent under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition on multiple grounds. First, the court noted that the review petition itself was time-barred by 35 days, with no cogent grounds provided for condonation. Second, the court held that the petitioner could not use the review jurisdiction to correct an omission by counsel who failed to raise the argument regarding the competency of an appeal as of right during the original hearing. Finally, the court observed that even if the review were entertained, the underlying appeal as of right had already become time-barred by 27 days before the initial petition was filed, meaning valuable rights had accrued to the opposite party, precluding any relief.
Questions settled- Can a party seek review of a judgment on the ground that they erroneously filed a petition for leave to appeal instead of an appeal as of right?
- Is a review petition maintainable when the underlying appeal as of right is already time-barred?
- Can a party rely on the omission of their counsel to raise a specific legal argument as a ground for review?
- PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN vs MESSRS TRIBAL FRIENDS COMPANY, LORALAI1986 PLD Quetta 321 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal and revision against a trial court's judgment and decree making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of simultaneous appeal and revision proceedings, the applicable court fees, the validity of arbitration proceedings initiated without a written arbitration clause, and the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The court held that while an appeal lies against an order refusing to set aside an award under Section 39(iv) of the Arbitration Act 1940, a revision petition is the appropriate remedy to challenge the resulting decree where an appeal is barred under Section 17. The court ruled that the proceedings were void (coram non judice) because the underlying contract lacked an arbitration clause and the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court established that Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act cannot be invoked simultaneously, and that an award lacking reasoning and appearing to be a stereotype copy of other awards is invalid. The proceedings were set aside for lack of jurisdiction and material irregularity.
Questions settled- Can an appeal and a revision petition be filed simultaneously against a judgment and decree based on an arbitration award?
- Are Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 mutually exclusive, or can they be invoked simultaneously?
- Does a court have jurisdiction to pass a decree based on an arbitration award if the underlying contract lacks an arbitration clause?
- Is a decree based on an arbitration award appealable under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LIMITED vs Ch. FAKHAR-UD-DIN And Another1986 PLC 1073 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
- PROF. ZULFIQAR ALI SHAH vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT LAHORE And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 274 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
- PRINCIPAL, PINE HILLS COLLEGE And Others vs MOHARRAM ALI And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Principal, Pine Hills College sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a judgment of the Service Tribunal which declared respondent No.1 to be in service after his termination. The core legal question concerned the validity of the termination of a civil servant serving under the West Pakistan Government Educational and Training Institution Ordinance, 1960, by an authority other than the competent appointing authority. The Supreme Court held that the termination order amounted to removal from service with a stigma, which could only be passed by the competent authority, and that an order of termination of deputation could not take effect unilaterally without government agreement. Since the respondent had passed away during the proceedings and only the right to emoluments remained, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant governed by the Ordinance cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the competent government authority, and unilateral reversion or termination of deputation without government consent is legally untenable.
Questions settled- Whether an order terminating the service of a civil servant on grounds of unsuitability amounts to removal from service requiring action by the competent authority?
- Can an institution unilaterally terminate the deputation of a government employee without the agreement of the Provincial Government?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the primary respondent has died and only the claim for past emoluments remains?
- PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR1986 SCMR 1357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition by the Government challenges an order of the High Court dismissing its civil revision in a service matter. The respondent, a Senior Chargeman, was issued a notice of discharge from service by the Works Manager following an inquiry into allegations of illegal gratification. The respondent challenged the discharge through a civil suit, which was initially dismissed by the trial court, but his appeal was accepted by the Additional District Judge. The High Court subsequently dismissed the Government's civil revision. Both appellate forums held the notice of discharge to be invalid on the ground that it was not issued by the appointing authority, namely the Superintendent (Mechanical) Workshop, rather than on the plaintiff's original pleading regarding non-application of mind. The Government urged before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred in deciding the matter on an extraneous ground not raised in the pleadings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the lower appellate forums and the High Court were justified in invalidating the discharge notice on a ground not put in issue.
Questions settled- Whether a court or appellate forum is justified in deciding a case on a ground not raised in the pleadings or put in issue?
- Does a notice of discharge issued by an authority other than the appointing authority render the discharge invalid?
- Can the High Court sustain a judgment on an extraneous ground not taken up by the party in the trial court?
- PREM .KEWAL SHAHANI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1200 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- PLAYBOY ENTERPRISE INC. vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another1986 M L D1312 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
- PIRZADA vs Mst. ABDUL MARJAN And Another1986 SCMR 1052 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a consolidated judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing state acquittal appeals concerning a murder charge. The core legal question involves determining whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence and in upholding the acquittal of the respondents for murder. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's appraisal of the evidence was based on valid and tenable grounds, noting material contradictions and improvements in the ocular testimony, inconsistencies with medical evidence, and a disproved motive, and found no justification to interfere with the acquittal orders. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal judgment that rests on a reasonable and tenable view of the evidence taken by the trial and high courts unless a legal defect or perverse appreciation is established.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court should interfere with a concurrent order of acquittal based on a plausible view of the evidence?
- Can minor contradictions and improvements in ocular testimony justify the rejection of witness accounts in a murder trial?
- Does the abscondence of an accused serve as sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction when the ocular testimony is found untrustworthy?
- PIRU AND OTHERS vs IAVAID HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 154 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1976-07-22Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUMTAZ ALI1986 PLC 308 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- PIR SAJJAD GHOUS vs ANWAR AL! SHAH1986 PLD Rev. 110 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-10-17Read full judgment →
- PIR MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD FARID And Other1986 SCMR 1260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed their civil revision petition and affirmed concurrent findings by the trial court and the first appellate court. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claimed right of easement (right of passage) over the defendants' land to access their cattle-sheds and houses. The trial court, relying on a local commission report and evidence of continuous usage for over twenty years, held that the plaintiff had established a prescriptive right of way. The appellate courts affirmed these findings, noting that long user raised a strong presumption of a right of way and that there was no evidence of permissive use. The Supreme Court examined the petitioners' contention that the evidence was insufficient and that the plaintiff had alternative access to a public path. Finding that the lower courts had correctly determined the controverted questions of fact regarding the immemorial and uninterrupted user of the path, the Supreme Court held that no substantial question of law existed to warrant interference. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does long-term usage of a path over another's land raise a presumption of a right of way?
- Can a court in revisional jurisdiction interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding an easement?
- Is a right of easement established if the claimant has alternative access to a public path?
- PIR MAHMOOD SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, Local Government And Rural Development, Punjab, Lahore And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 666 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-09Read full judgment →
- PIARA vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN And OTHER1986 CLC 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
- PIAR MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL KHALIQ And 5 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1825 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- PHULAN KHAN vs AMiR SHAH AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Rev. 43 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-12-28Read full judgment →
- PHOTO And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1543 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-14Read full judgment →
- PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED vs LAKSON TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Karachi 482 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-29Read full judgment →
- PETER JOHN and others vs Syed ALI IMAM and others1986 MLD 1008 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
- PERWAIZ IQBAL vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 835 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
- PERVEZ AKHTAR And Another vs Messrs QUALITY STEEL WORKS Ltd.1986 PLC 601 · Labour Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
- PERVEZ AHMAD And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2737 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ KHAN And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 877 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 935 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ AKHTAR vs ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 848 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
- PERV EEN vs ABDUL SATTAR1986 CLC 2518 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-10Read full judgment →
- PERSONNEL MANAGER, P.I.A., KARACHI vs TASNEEM JALAL1986 PLC 294 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-21Read full judgment →
- PEHLWAN vs ABDUL SAT,TAR and others1986 MLD 606 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
- PECO Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1986 PLC 298 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-21Read full judgment →
- PATTAY KHAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1520 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- PARTAB RAI and another vs KABIR KHAN1986 MLD 2743 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
- PAM JAN vs Messrs THE GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER Co. OF PAKISTAN Ltd., KARACHI1986 PLC 10 · Labour Court · 1985-07-12Read full judgment →
- PAKISTANRAILWAY Through General Manager And ANOTHER vs FAQIR1986 CLC 1419 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE And Others1986 SCMR 199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the Federal Service Tribunal correctly declared certain WAPDA service rules to be ultra vires the terms and conditions of the respondents. The respondents, who held posts as Junior Officers and were later designated as Assistant Directors in grade-17, challenged subsequent rule amendments requiring them to pass a departmental promotion examination, prescribing a minimum graduation qualification for promotion to grade-18, and stopping increments upon failure. The Federal Service Tribunal partly held the rules to be ultra vires. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that terms and conditions of service do not include the prospect of promotion or the terms and conditions relating to a higher grade, and that conditions for promotion to a higher grade are not controlled by the terms enjoyed in a lower grade. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and dismissed the respondents' service appeals.
Questions settled- Whether the terms and conditions of service of an employee include the prospect of promotion or conditions relating to a higher grade?
- Does the prescription of a minimum graduation qualification for promotion to a higher grade violate the existing terms and conditions of lower-grade employees?
- Whether the WAPDA has the competence to frame and amend service rules under the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958?
- PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Malik AHMAD1986 SCMR 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the removal of a WAPDA employee under Section 17(1-A) of the Water & Power Development Act. The Service Tribunal had set aside the removal, reasoning that because disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the authority could not circumvent them by invoking Section 17(1-A) without assigning reasons or proving charges. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment. The Court held that Section 17(1-A) confers a distinct power on the Authority, which constitutes a term and condition of employment rather than a punitive measure. Consequently, such removal does not require a show-cause notice, assignment of reasons, or conclusive proof of guilt. The Court further clarified that the existence of concurrent disciplinary proceedings does not bar the exercise of power under Section 17(1-A). The key principle established is that while the power is broad, it must be exercised bona fide for the purposes of the Act. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to determine the bona fide nature of the removal and to resolve the outstanding issue of limitation.
Questions settled- Does the initiation of disciplinary proceedings preclude the Authority from exercising its power of removal under Section 17(1-A) of the Water & Power Development Act?
- Is an order of removal passed under Section 17(1-A) of the Water & Power Development Act considered a punishment requiring the assignment of reasons?
- Must the Authority provide a show-cause notice or establish conclusive proof of guilt before removing an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the Water & Power Development Act?
- PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs AFTAB AHMAD1986 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the premature retirement of the respondents under section 17(1A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal questions related to the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal to entertain appeals against orders passed under section 17(1A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, and whether the termination of the respondents' services was mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate questions concerning the terms and conditions of WAPDA employees, and further upheld the Tribunal's finding that the retirement orders were mala fide, as they were issued merely to avoid the administrative trouble of adjusting the officers upon their repatriation from a subsidiary company. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed under section 17(1A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
- Whether the termination of service or retirement of WAPDA employees under section 17(1A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 can be set aside on the grounds of mala fides?
- PAKISTAN vs STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd.1986 MLD 2762 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
- Pakistan vs Messrs Zeal Pak Cement Factory Limited_PTCL 1986 CL. 25 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals filed by the Central Board of Revenue against High Court judgments regarding tax exemptions for industrial expansions under Section 15-BB(4) of the Income Tax Act. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue could lawfully deny tax exemptions by interpreting the statutory requirement of an "identifiable industrial unit" or "identifiable industrial process" to also necessitate that such units or processes be "independent" and self-contained. The Supreme Court held that the Board of Revenue’s interpretation was erroneous, as the statute contained no such requirement of independence. The Court affirmed that administrative authorities cannot impose extraneous conditions not found in the legislation to deny statutory benefits. By injecting the word "independent" into the statutory language, the Board of Revenue engaged in impermissible inter-meddling with legislative intent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the assessees had satisfied the actual jurisdictional requirements of the law, and the refusal of exemptions based on the added, non-statutory criteria was unlawful and discriminatory.
Questions settled- Can an administrative authority add conditions to a statute that are not explicitly provided by the legislature?
- Does the term 'identifiable industrial unit' under Section 15-BB(4) of the Income Tax Act imply that the unit must be 'independent' and self-contained?
- Is the refusal of a tax exemption based on an extraneous, non-statutory requirement legally sustainable?
- PAKISTAN vs ALI MUZAFFAR1986 CLC 2362 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (POPULATION1986 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN STEEL AL-FATEH WORKERS' UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, EAST DIVISION; KARACHI1986 PLC 228 · Labour Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE And Other vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT, LAHORE-1986 PLC 973 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN POLYPROPOLENE PACKAGES LIMITED vs LABOUR UNION1986 PLC 1107 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →