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.
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ARTS vs MUHAMMAD AYUB MALIK1986 SCMR 1025 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld a decree for possession and mesne profits against the petitioner (a tenant). The core legal question was whether the lease agreement had been validly terminated by the respondent (landlord) through a notice preventing automatic renewal, or whether the lease continued by operation of law or by 'holding over'. The petitioner contended that the notice served did not explicitly refuse renewal, thus triggering automatic renewal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the contents of the notice, which was in his possession but withheld from evidence. The Court affirmed that the notice served was sufficient to terminate the lease upon the expiry of the initial term. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of 'holding over', noting that the essential condition of acceptance of rent by the lessor after the lease's determination was absent. The petition was dismissed, confirming the lower courts' findings.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a party to produce a document in their possession raise a presumption that the document would have been unfavorable to them?
- Is the acceptance of rent by a lessor after the determination of a lease a necessary condition for the doctrine of 'holding over' to apply?
- Can a lease be terminated by notice if the lease agreement stipulates automatic renewal unless notice is provided by either party?
- PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Petitioner vs PAKISTAN1986 PLD Quetta 181 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order issued by the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, switching the petitioner Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation from bulk electricity supply Tariff C-2 to industrial supply Tariff B-3, with retrospective effect. The core legal questions involved whether a state-owned mining company qualifies for bulk supply under Tariff C-2, whether mining operations fall within the definition of a 'factory' for industrial supply under Tariff B-3, and whether the retrospective correction of a billing tariff violates natural justice or requires prior notice. The Balochistan High Court held that the petitioner, being a registered company and an industrial organisation rather than a statutory body, does not qualify for Tariff C-2; that the term 'factory' in Tariff B-3 has a broad connotation encompassing mining operations; and that correcting a bona fide billing mistake to apply the correct tariff does not breach natural justice. Furthermore, the court held that tariff disputes are subject to arbitration clauses in the electricity agreement, making a constitutional petition inappropriate. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a state-owned limited company qualify for bulk electricity supply under Tariff C-2 as a semi-government institution?
- Do mining operations fall within the scope of industrial supply under Tariff B-3 as a factory?
- Can a utility provider correct a consumer's billing tariff retrospectively without prior notice to rectify a mistake?
- Is a dispute regarding electricity consumption charges subject to the dispute resolution and arbitration clause in the supply agreement?
- PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Appellant vs NIZAMUDDIN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Karachi 616 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT and INVESTMENT CORPORATION Ltd. vs Messrs1986 MLD 2983 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. and another vs Messrs DILSHAD HUSSAIN1986 MLD 823 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN CENTRAL HOMOEPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL BOARD, KARACHI vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE1986 MLD 1396 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-13Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN BATTERY MANUFACTURING CO. Ltd. vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR-I, COLLECTORATE OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS and 3 others1986 MLD 107 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN And Another vs SHAH BAHRAM IRANI1986 SCMR 1136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which had set aside federal notifications vesting the property share of an enemy in the Custodian of Enemy Property. The respondent, Shah Bahram Irani, had challenged the notifications on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to the deprivation of property rights. The High Court allowed the petition, declaring the notifications illegal. Before the Supreme Court, the Deputy Attorney-General contended that even if a pre-decisional hearing was required pursuant to precedent, a post facto opportunity of hearing ought to be granted, expressing willingness to provide the same. The Supreme Court found the point worthy of consideration, granted leave to appeal, and directed the joinder of subsequent purchasers of the property upon application.
Questions settled- Whether a notification vesting property in the Custodian of Enemy Property without a pre-decisional hearing is lawful?
- Can a post facto opportunity of hearing be granted where a pre-decisional hearing was omitted in property vesting matters?
- Whether subsequent purchasers of property subject to enemy property vesting notifications are necessary parties to the appeal?
- PAKISTAN And Another vs MUHAMMAD HAJI GANI Ltd.1986 SCMR 1075 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment directing the State Bank of Pakistan to pay compensation to the respondent for surrendered Bonus Vouchers. The respondent, an import-export business, claimed compensation following the abolition of the Bonus Vouchers Scheme via the Finance (Supplementary) Ordinance, 1972. The State Bank rejected the respondent's application for compensation because the respondent failed to produce the Exchange Control Copy of the relevant import licence, a requirement stipulated in Circular No. 49 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan. The High Court had allowed the respondent's constitutional petition, relying on a letter from a commercial bank certifying the licence remained unutilised. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the State Bank of Pakistan was legally obligated to pay compensation in the absence of the mandatory Exchange Control Copy of the import licence as required by the governing circular. The core legal question involves the strict adherence to procedural requirements set forth in administrative circulars issued under statutory authority for the settlement of financial claims.
Questions settled- Is the State Bank of Pakistan legally bound to pay compensation for Bonus Vouchers if the claimant fails to produce the Exchange Control Copy of the import licence as required by Circular No. 49?
- Does the failure to comply with procedural requirements stipulated in a circular issued under the Finance (Supplementary) Ordinance, 1972, invalidate a claim for compensation?
- PAINDA MUHAMMAD And Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIR And Other1986 SCMR 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, belonging to the Utmankhel tribe, challenged orders relating to immovable property disputes under the Settlement of Immovable Property Disputes (Dir & Swat) Regulation 1972, which wound through various administrative and tribunal forums before a review petition was ultimately dismissed as time-barred by the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes, Dir, Swat and Chitral. A subsequent writ petition before the Peshawar High Court was also dismissed. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court rightly refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the discretionary order of the Tribunal Chairman declining to condone delay for a review petition. The Supreme Court held that the matter of condoning delay lay entirely within the discretion of the Tribunal Chairman and, absent any illegal, capricious, or perverse exercise of discretion, it was not open to review. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that discretionary orders on limitation by specialized tribunals are immune from constitutional interference unless tainted by illegality or perversity.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction with an order of a tribunal declining to condone delay in filing a review petition?
- Does the entertaining or not entertaining of a time-barred review petition lie within the discretion of the Tribunal Land Disputes?
- Under what circumstances is the discretionary exercise of power regarding limitation open to judicial review?
- P.I.A. SHAVER EMPLOYEES UNION (C.B.A.) vs P.I.A. SHAVER POULTRY BREEDING1986 PLC 564 · Labour Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- OMER KATCHI And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 753 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
- OKARA TEXTILES Ltd. vs TAJ MUHAMMAD And 3 Others1986 PLC 707 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- OKARA TEXTILES LTD. vs MUHAMMAD YASIN1986 PLC 1093 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- OKARA TEXTILES Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1986 PLC 1068 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- OHN DIAS vs Mst. SURAYA BEGUM1986 MLD 845 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
- OBYAR AND ANOTHER vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANoTHER1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 27 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- OBAIDULLAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 150 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
- N/A vs THE PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES1986 PLC 360 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
- N_A vs N_A1986 PLD SC 192 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the confiscation of foreign currency by Customs authorities from an individual who entered Pakistan from Afghanistan. The core legal question was whether the possession of foreign currency imported via an unspecified route constitutes 'smuggling' under the Customs Act, 1969, and whether the failure to declare such currency justifies confiscation. The Court held the confiscation unlawful, ruling that in the absence of a specific prohibition on the import of foreign currency under the relevant State Bank of Pakistan notification, mere possession does not constitute smuggling. The Court clarified that the definition of 'smuggling' under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969, requires a breach of restriction or an intent to evade duties. Furthermore, the Court established that departmental confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecutions are independent, concurrent remedies, meaning a criminal conviction does not create res judicata for departmental proceedings. Finally, the Court held that the obligation to declare currency applies only at the time of arrival through authorized ports, not to subsequent possession.
Questions settled- Does the possession of foreign currency imported through an unspecified route constitute smuggling under the Customs Act 1969?
- Are departmental confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the Customs Act 1969 mutually exclusive?
- Does a criminal conviction for a customs offense constitute res judicata in departmental confiscation proceedings?
- Is the declaration of foreign currency mandatory for individuals entering Pakistan through unspecified routes?
- N/A vs In re: Saeedullah Khan, Managing Director, Paracha Textile Mills Ltd.PTCL 1986 CL. 366 · Monopoly Control Authority · 1976-06-22Read full judgment →
- NUSRAT HUSSAIN And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1218 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
- Nusrat Hasan, Member, Board of Revenue MUHAMMAD HASAN vs KHUDA1986 PLD Rev. 115 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-04-27Read full judgment →
- NUR MUHAMMAD And Another MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE HAKIM And Other1986 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- NOORUL ISLAM vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Noorul Islam against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court, which had upheld his conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possession of heroin. The core legal questions raised were whether police officers had the power to investigate and arrest under the Order given the Sind Prohibition Rules, and whether the trial court was bound to follow the procedure of Tazkiat-us-Shahud under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Supreme Court held that an illegality in investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the trial court, and further held that objections regarding Tazkiat-us-Shahud cannot be raised for the time in the absence of cross-examination or objection during the trial. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, establishing the principle that procedural flaws in police investigation do not vitiate a court's jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does an illegality committed in the course of a police investigation affect the competence and jurisdiction of the trial court?
- Can an objection regarding the procedure of Tazkiat-us-Shahud be raised for the first time when witnesses were not cross-examined on the issue at trial?
- NOOR ZAMAN vs Mst. ALLAH JAWAI And Other1986 SCMR 1729 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-07-28Read full judgment →
- NOOR SAMAD vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 16 others1986 MLD 431 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATEPLD 1986 Karachi 157(1) · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs The DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (PLOTS), LAHORE1986 MLD 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs RUKKAN DIN1986 MLD 559 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Other1986 SCMR 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal, challenging the decision of the High Court which held that a statement made by a counsel during an interlocutory matter disposing of the entire suit is binding on the represented party. The core legal question revolves around the extent of a counsel's authority to bind their client through statements made in interlocutory proceedings that ultimately dispose of the main suit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's view was correct in the facts and circumstances of the case, thereby affirming that a counsel can competently make such statements and bind the party represented. The key principle laid down is that a party is bound by the statements and concessions competently made by their counsel in judicial proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a statement made by a counsel in connection with an interlocutory matter bind the represented party where the entire suit is disposed of?
- Whether a party is bound by the statements made by their counsel during judicial proceedings?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL) BORAD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1986 PLD Lahore 237 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed to challenge an order of the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition as incompetent. The dispute arose when a landowner sought review of two mutations on the ground that they violated the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (M.L.R. 115). The District Collector granted permission for review, which the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged before the Additional Commissioner and subsequently the Board of Revenue, both authorities holding that no appeal or revision lies against a Collector's order granting permission to review. The High Court examined Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act 1967, focusing on the wide import of the terms 'any case', 'any proceedings', and 'order'. The Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue is sufficiently broad to encompass all kinds of proceedings and orders, including a Collector's sanction for review. Consequently, the High Court declared the impugned order unlawful and remanded the revision petition for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Whether an order of the District Collector granting sanction for review of a mutation under the Land Revenue Act is open to challenge in revision before higher revenue authorities?
- What is the legal scope and import of the terms 'any case', 'any proceedings', and 'order' as used in Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Is a second revision petition competent before the Board of Revenue under the Land Revenue Act 1967?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and 2 others1986 MLD 298 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs DIN MUHAMMAD And OTHER1986 CLC 2337 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-25Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs ALLAH DITTA And Other1986 SCMR 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition challenging an order of the High Court, which had accepted a second appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff was required to establish the existence of a custom of pre-emption in the town of Pasrur on the date of the promulgation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act I of 1913 under Section 7 thereof, and whether the absence of a specific date in the framed issue prejudiced the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had pleaded the custom, an issue was duly framed which was comprehensive enough to cover the pleadings, and the plaintiff failed to prove the custom based on the evidence evaluated by the High Court. The Court affirmed that a party must suffer for failing to prove its own pleadings, and no grounds existed to interfere with the High Court's analytical findings. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff is required to establish the existence of a custom of pre-emption on the date of the promulgation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Does the failure to mention a specific date in an issue vitiate trial proceedings when the issue is comprehensive enough to cover the pleadings?
- Can the High Court interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of subordinate courts tainted by misreading or omission of evidence?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD1986 PLD Rev. 133 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-03-30Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD MOTIWALA and another vs MUHAMMAD GHAUS1986 MLD 174 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs HABIBULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Other1986 SCMR 1818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three criminal petitions arising from a judgment of the High Court concerning a murder case. Criminal Petition No. 272 of 1983 was filed by the complainant challenging the alteration of the respondent Muhammad Iqbal's conviction from section 302 to section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code and the reduction of his sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment, as well as the dismissal of his criminal revision regarding the acquittal of other respondents. Criminal Petition No. 281 of 1983 was filed against the acquittal of six respondents, and Criminal Petition No. 282 of 1983 was filed by Muhammad Iqbal against his conviction. The Supreme Court heard the counsel for the parties in the first petition and examined the impugned judgment, finding the High Court's reasoning for altering the conviction and reducing the sentence to be sound and declining to interfere. Consequently, the first petition was dismissed. The remaining two petitions were dismissed as not pressed by the petitioners' counsel. The court thus upheld the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's alteration of a conviction from section 302 to section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code when the reasons recorded are found to be proper?
- Can a criminal petition against acquittal and conviction be dismissed as not pressed when the counsel chooses not to press the same?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD And Others vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, VEHARI And Other1986 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a second round of litigation concerning the allotment of evacuee land in Vehari. The petitioners, claiming to be locals and members of criminal tribes, challenged the allotments made to respondents in 1962, which had been upheld by a notified officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 and subsequently affirmed by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court addressed two primary issues: whether the significant delay in filing the petition (832 days) could be condoned due to the pendency of an incompetent intra-court appeal, and whether the land in question was validly treated as part of the evacuee pool. The Court held that the petition was time-barred and that the petitioners could not introduce new legal grounds not previously raised or argued before the High Court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the lower authorities' findings that the property was validly treated as evacuee property and that the petitioners' claims lacked merit. Leave to appeal was refused on both the grounds of limitation and the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise a new legal ground in the Supreme Court that was not argued or dealt with in the High Court?
- Does the pendency of an incompetent intra-court appeal constitute sufficient cause to condone a significant delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Whether land allotted to evacuee members of criminal tribes constitutes evacuee property subject to the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD And Others SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE NOOR1986 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
- NOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1958 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- NOOR HUSSAIN vs Haji PIR BAKHSH1986 MLD 869 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- NOOR HUSSAIN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and another1986 MLD 666 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- NOOR HUSSAIN vs ALI GOHAR AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Azad J & K 220 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
- NOOR HAMEED JAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2363 · Lahore High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
- NOOR ELAHI And Others vs MUHAMMAD SHAH And Other1986 SCMR 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition challenging an allotment order. The core legal questions involve whether the non-mentioning of a prior civil suit and compromise decree in a writ petition is fatal when parties are in pari delicto, whether the finding of unexplained delay and laches of nine years is erroneous, and whether the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction because the petitioners had suppressed material facts regarding a civil suit and a compromise decree concerning the same subject-matter, and the petition indeed suffered from unexplained delay and laches. The key principle laid down is that suppression of material facts, such as a prior compromise decree on the same subject-matter, disentitles a party to discretionary constitutional relief.
Questions settled- Is the non-mentioning of a civil suit and a resultant compromise decree in a writ petition fatal to the petition?
- Whether unexplained delay and laches of almost nine years from the date of the impugned allotment is fatal to a writ petition?
- Does suppression of material facts disentitle a party from invoking the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- NOOR DIN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT1986 CLC 2318 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
- NOOR DIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1986 MLD 596 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-04Read full judgment →
- NOOR BEGUM vs BARKAT ALI1986 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute regarding inheritance rights to the estate of the deceased, Ahmad Ali. The respondent claimed to be a distant kindred of the deceased, asserting his father was the brother of the deceased's maternal grandfather. While the trial and appellate courts concurrently held that the respondent failed to prove the relationship, the Lahore High Court, in revision, reviewed the evidence, including pedigree tables and admissions, and ruled in favor of the respondent. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed in revision. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts failed to give legal effect to the presumptions arising from the revenue record and established pedigree. Consequently, the High Court was competent to interfere with the findings of fact to correct the legal error. The Supreme Court affirmed that substantial justice had been done and refused to grant leave to appeal, establishing that a High Court may interfere in revision when lower courts fail to properly apply legal presumptions to established facts.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in civil revision proceedings if lower courts failed to give legal effect to established evidence?
- Is a High Court competent to unsettle a finding of fact in revision if the lower courts ignored legal presumptions arising from the revenue record?
- Does the failure of lower courts to apply legal presumptions to established facts justify interference by the High Court in revision?
- NOOR ALAM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) and others1986 MLD 800 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 672 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME1986 PLC (C.S.) 196 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-04Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1986 MLD 2065 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 703 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD alias SHISHOO vs STATION HOUSE' OFFICER AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Karachi 648 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- NOOK MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs MANSIB KHAN AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-23Read full judgment →
- NOOK HASSAN vs EID AKBAR AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
- NOOK AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1009 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
- NIZAMUDDIN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1986 MLD 1309 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-10Read full judgment →
- NIZAM SILK HOUSE, KARACHI vs THE COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND OTHERSs1986 PLD Rev. 97 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-06-20Read full judgment →
- NIZAM DIN vs FAQIR ELAHI AND ANOTHER.1986 PLD Peshawar 69 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
- Nishat Mills Limited. vs Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 39 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMED vs ASGHAR HUSSAIN And 5 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1803 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 PLD Rev. 31 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1985-07-22Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1613 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- NIMRO and 3 others vs THE STATE and another1986 MLD 1840 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
- NIAZ vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1574 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONS.) /SETTLEMENT1986 SCMR 1405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over land allotments and excess Produce Index Units in village Khairpur Sadat, Muzaffargarh District. The core legal question is whether the High Court exceeded its constitutional jurisdiction under writ jurisdiction by interfering with the concurrent exercise of discretion by the Settlement authorities, which had allowed the petitioner to retain a marginal excess of land up to 25 P.I. Units without finding any element of fraud or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the proper exercise of discretionary power by the Settlement authorities and the limits of High Court interference in writ jurisdiction requires examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings and discretion exercised by the lower settlement authorities.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion by Settlement authorities regarding the retention of excess land?
- Does the allotment of excess Produce Index Units up to a certain percentage fall within the exclusive discretion of Settlement authorities in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 811 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- NIAZ ALI vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 5 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
- NIAMATULLAH vs Messrs METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION1986 PLC 711 · Labour Court · 1986-01-24Read full judgment →
- NIAMATULLAH KHAN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 2013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Niamatullah Khan, seeking release on bail pending trial. The petitioner contended that he had been in continuous detention for a period exceeding two years since March 3, 1984, and argued that he was entitled to bail even after accounting for any delays in the trial process allegedly attributable to him. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prolonged period of incarceration, exceeding two years, warranted the grant of bail to the petitioner despite the circumstances surrounding the trial's delay. Upon consideration of the submissions, the Supreme Court found that the point raised by the petitioner regarding the duration of his detention and the resulting entitlement to bail deserved formal consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the merits of the bail application. The Court directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record at the Peshawar Registry, while granting the parties liberty to file additional documents if necessary.
Questions settled- Does a period of detention exceeding two years entitle an accused to be released on bail?
- Can the delay in trial proceedings be balanced against the duration of an accused's incarceration when considering a bail application?
- NIAMAT vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2820 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
- NIAMAT vs AFTAB1986 P Cr. L J 1379 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- NIAMAT ALI vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD YOUNIS And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 1811 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
- NIAMAT ALI vs ALLAH DITTA and another1986 MLD 2697 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
- NEMAT BHATTI MASIH vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HAFIZABAD1986 PLC 433 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
- NEK MUHAMMADAppallant vs RODA1986 PLD SC (A J & K) 23 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
- NEK MUHAMMAD vs A.C., JHELUM And Other1986 SCMR 1493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Mangla Dam oustee, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the pre-emption decree granted against him in favor of a tenant. The petitioner challenged the lower revenue authorities' decisions and the Board of Revenue's refusal to condone the delay in filing a revision petition based on wrong legal advice. The Supreme Court considered the contentions regarding the condonation of delay and jurisdictional defects. The Court held that a competent authority's refusal to condone delay cannot be challenged through a constitutional petition, and mistaken legal advice does not constitute a sufficient ground for condoning delay. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal while leaving open the question concerning the interaction between section 8 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation of 1972.
Questions settled- Whether refusal to condone delay by a competent authority can be challenged by way of a constitutional petition?
- Does mistaken advice given by counsel constitute a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing a revision petition?
- Can a wrong decision by a revenue authority on limitation be termed as an act without lawful authority?
- NEK MUHAMMAD alias NEKA vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2669 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-06Read full judgment →
- NAZIRUL HASNAIN vs DISTRICT MANAGER,COTTON TRADING CORPORATION OF1986 PLC 320(1) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
- NAZIRUD DIN KHAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And A OTHER1986 CLC 825 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- NAZIR vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- NAZIR PRINTING WORKS vs EBRAHIM and 3 others1986 MLD 2936 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-27Read full judgment →
- NAZIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 115 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- NAZIR HUSSAIN ANSARI And Others vs THE STATE and others1986 P Cr. L J 2097 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- NAZIR HUSSAIN And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions involved the reliability of incriminating recoveries when co-accused were acquitted, the absence of an explanation for injuries sustained by an accused, the effect of delay in lodging the First Information Report, and whether the prosecution version could be relied upon despite the false implication of some co-accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal while modifying the sentence, holding that the ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of a blood-stained weapon from the appellant, and the presence established by the accused's own statement sufficiently proved the guilt of the appellants. The Court laid down that minor discrepancies or partial false implication do not vitiate the entire prosecution case if core testimonies are corroborated by independent material circumstances, and clarified the application of sentencing terms regarding imprisonment for life versus transportation for life.
Questions settled- Whether the recovery of incriminating articles can be accepted against certain accused when the same witness has been disbelieved regarding other acquitted co-accused?
- Whether the prosecution version can be relied upon in the context of a definite finding that some of the acquitted accused had been falsely implicated?
- How does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report impact the credibility of the prosecution case?
- Whether the sentence of imprisonment for life should be altered to transportation for life when the offence occurred prior to the relevant statutory amendment?
- NAZIR ALAM vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED, FAISLABAD And Another1986 PLC 1084 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 464 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs THE STATE and others-1986 P Cr. L J 810 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs THE PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE And Other1986 SCMR 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal upholding the petitioner's second removal from service following a remand. The core legal questions involve the applicability of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and the entitlement of a civil servant to back-benefits and salary for the period between an initial unlawful removal and subsequent reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that no prejudice was shown regarding the choice of disciplinary rules, but found merit in the claim for salary for the intervening period of unemployment following an invalidated removal order, relying on established precedent. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted limited to the question of back salary.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant is entitled to salary for the period between an initial removal from service and subsequent reinstatement when the removal order is found invalid?
- Does the application of allegedly incorrect disciplinary rules vitiate departmental proceedings if no prejudice is shown?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, REVENUE1986 PLC (C.S.) 944 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-07-30Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs SARFRAZ And Other1986 SCMR 756 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against a High Court judgment that acquitted certain respondents and reduced the sentences of others in a murder and murderous assault case. The trial court had convicted the respondents under sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. On appeal, the High Court concluded the incident arose from a sudden fight, acquitted two respondents, and altered the convictions of the others to lesser offenses, significantly reducing their sentences. The complainant challenged these acquittals and sought enhancement of the sentences. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying that the primary legal questions requiring determination are whether the incident truly constituted a 'sudden fight' under the law and, if the incident does not fall within the scope of Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code, whether the sentences imposed by the High Court warrant enhancement under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court permitted the parties to proceed on the existing record with leave to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Whether an incident involving multiple injuries can be legally classified as a sudden fight under Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Under what circumstances is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal and sentence reduction in a murder case?
- Does the evidence in a case of murderous assault justify the application of Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs Mst. JANDO And Other1986 SCMR 528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was barred by 89 days. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner had the locus standi to file the review petition and whether the delay of 89 days in filing the same could be condoned, particularly when the petitioner had failed to refile a previous petition after it was returned for compliance, thereby allowing the impugned order to attain finality. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the review petition and that the delay could not be condoned as the petition constituted an impermissible attempt to reopen a matter that had already become final. The key principle laid down is that a party who fails to pursue prior proceedings diligently and allows an order to become final against them cannot subsequently invoke the jurisdiction of the court through a time-barred review petition.
Questions settled- Can a time-barred review petition be entertained when the petitioner allowed the underlying order to attain finality?
- Does a party who failed to refile a returned petition have the locus standi to file a subsequent review petition against the judgment?
- Will delay in filing a review petition be condoned where the explanation offered is lack of awareness of a judgment passed in proceedings where the party was originally involved?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs IFTIKHAR AHMAD1986 P Cr. L J 2171 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs FATEH MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 1495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the High Court regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal question for determination was whether the custom of pre-emption existed in the locality where the house in dispute was situated, specifically whether Taraf Mubarik Awal constituted a distinct locality from Taraf Mubarik, and whether a suit for pre-emption could be successfully brought in respect of a house situated in a newly developed residential area and outgrowth of the city. The Supreme Court considered the contentions regarding the recent conversion of the agricultural area into a residential abadi after the creation of Pakistan and noted supporting case law presented by the petitioner. The court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, stayed the execution of the decree, and restrained the ejectment of the petitioner in the meantime, thereby establishing that arguable questions of law regarding the existence of pre-emption customs in newly developed urban areas warrant a full hearing.
Questions settled- Whether the custom of pre-emption exists in Taraf Mubarik Awal as a part of Taraf Mubarik?
- Can a suit for pre-emption be successfully brought in respect of a house situated in a newly developed residential area which was under cultivation until the creation of Pakistan?
- Does the existence of pre-emption custom in an older locality extend to its subsequent residential outgrowths?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, GUJRANWALA And Another1986 PLC (C. S.) 918 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT1986 P Cr. L J 2882 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-05Read full judgment →