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.
- NAEEM UR REHMAN And Others vs ABDUL AZIZ And Other1986 SCMR 1961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
- NAEEM OIL MILLS vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others1986 MLD 680 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
- NAEEM KHAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2703 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-26Read full judgment →
- NAEEM ENGINEERING CORPORATION And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1986 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their civil revision petitions. The petitioners had filed suits for recovery against the respondent, which were contested. During the proceedings, the relevant departmental record was taken over by the Anti-Corruption Department. The trial court refused the petitioners' application to issue process to official witnesses on the ground that the list of witnesses was filed beyond the stipulated period of seven days after the framing of issues, subsequently closing the petitioners' evidence and dismissing the suits, which decisions were upheld in revision. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had previously been summoning the witnesses and that the departmental record was in official custody, rendering the complete transfer of the burden of producing official witnesses to the plaintiffs unjustified. Consequently, the Court converted the petitions into appeals and granted leave to examine the matter further on the legal plane.
Questions settled- Whether a suit can be dismissed solely because the list of witnesses was filed beyond seven days of the framing of issues when official witnesses are involved?
- Is it the responsibility of the court to assist in summoning official witnesses whose records are held by another government department?
- Does the refusal to issue process for official witnesses under the circumstances warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction?
- NADEEM SHAHID AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOHER1986 PLD Lahore 373 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-22Read full judgment →
- NADEEM MASIH Alias LUDHAR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2742 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- NADEEM AKRAM vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2428 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
- NADEEM AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 629 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-03Read full judgment →
- NADAR KHAN vs IFTEKHAR AHMAD KHAN and others1986 MLD 2781 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-22Read full judgment →
- NABIQASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE) C.D.A. OFFICE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others1986 MLD 63 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
- NABI BUX vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 202 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
- NABI BAKHSH vs EHSANUL HAQUE And Other1986 SCMR 370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a pre-emptor, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the trial court's decision allowing the respondents to amend their written statement in a pre-emption suit. The respondents had previously failed in attempts to amend their written statement to introduce a claim of a superior right of pre-emption based on a gift. Following these failed attempts, the respondents obtained a consent decree regarding the same gift and subsequently filed a new application to amend their written statement, asserting the gift and the decree as a superior right, alongside a challenge to the repugnancy of pre-emption law to the Quran and Sunnah. The petitioner contended that the amendment was inordinately delayed, barred by the principle of constructive res judicata, and constituted an abuse of the court's process. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the legal points raised regarding the propriety of allowing such amendments after previous failed attempts and the application of constructive res judicata required further examination by the Court.
Questions settled- Can a defendant amend a written statement to introduce a plea that was previously rejected by the court?
- Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar an application for amendment of a written statement if a similar request was previously denied?
- Does the obtaining of a consent decree on a matter previously rejected in a pending suit justify a subsequent amendment to the written statement?
- N.W.F.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, MARDAN AND ANOTHER vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD1986 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
- N. W.F.P. (WEST PAKISTAN) GOVERNMENT Through Its Secretary To Government (N. W.F.P.) Forest Department, Peshawar And 4 Others vs Firm RAJAMUHAMMAD FEROZ UD DIN SONS1986 CLC 566 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
- N USRA T vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, VEHARI And OTHER1986 CLC 2347 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
- M/S. Sterling Plywood Industries. , M/S. Pakistan Wood Crafts. vs CentralPTCL 1986 CL. 84 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/S. Premier Tobacco Industries Limited. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,PTCL 1986 CL. 96 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/S. Kausar Trading Co. vs Government Of Pakistan, Central Board OfPTCL 1986 CL. 300 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/S. Electric Lamp Manufacturers Of Pakistan Limited, Karachi. vs ThePTCL 1986 CL. 79 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a company manufacturing electric bulbs, challenged a demand notice issued by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise for the recovery of sales tax on glass shells consumed during the period from October 1977 to March 1981. The petitioner contended that glass shells were raw materials exempt from sales tax and that the Deputy Collector lacked the legal authority to issue the demand or recover tax for the period preceding July 1, 1981, as the powers of Sales Tax Officers were only conferred upon Customs/Central Excise officers effective from that date via a Central Board of Revenue notification. The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that tax recovery machinery provisions should be construed liberally and that the demand arose upon the adjudication order passed in 1983. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave, noting the significant legal question regarding whether the notification conferring sales tax powers on Customs/Central Excise officers could operate retrospectively to cover assessments for periods prior to its issuance, especially given the savings clause in the notification regarding pending assessments.
Questions settled- Can a notification conferring powers under the Sales Tax Act 1951 be construed to have retrospective effect in the absence of express language?
- Does a Deputy Collector of Central Excise have the authority to recover sales tax for a period prior to the date they were conferred the powers of a Sales Tax Officer?
- Do the savings provisions in Sales Tax Circular No. 7 of 1981 restrict the jurisdiction of newly appointed officers regarding tax assessments pending before the previous authorities?
- M/S. Burque Corporation Kara-Chi And Another vs Collector Central ExcisePTCL 1986 CL. 263 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four civil appeals challenging a High Court judgment regarding the imposition of sales tax on imported NIDO powdered milk. The appellants contended that NIDO, being an infant food, fell under an exemption notification issued under the Sales Tax Act, 1951, which exempted "milk food for infants and invalid foods" from sales tax. The core legal question was whether NIDO powdered milk qualified as food exclusively for the use of infants, thereby satisfying the criteria for tax exemption under the relevant notification. The Supreme Court examined the product's marketing materials, noting that while the appellants argued it was an infant feeding formula, the product packaging explicitly stated it was for the "whole family." The Court held that because the product was not meant for the "exclusive use by infants," it did not qualify for the exemption. The Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, establishing the principle that for a product to qualify for a specific tax exemption based on its intended use, it must be demonstrably and exclusively marketed for that specific purpose.
Questions settled- Whether NIDO powdered milk qualifies for sales tax exemption as food exclusively for infants?
- Does the intended use of a product, as indicated by its packaging, determine its classification for tax exemption purposes?
- Can a product marketed for general family consumption qualify for a tax exemption granted exclusively for infant food?
- M/s. Abdul Razzak & Company vs Assistant Collector of CustomsPTCL 1986 CL. 369 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- M/S United Distributors Ltd. vs Monopoly Control Authority And Two OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 419 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
- MUZAMMAL PASHA vs DIRECTOR, LABOUR WELFARE, PUNJAB And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 150 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
- MUZAMMAL HAYAT vs D.I.-G. OF POLICE, MULTAN And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 145 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN vs DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1986 PLC 328 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- MUTWALLI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 24 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-19Read full judgment →
- MUSTANSAR ALI vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, WAZIRABAD And ANOTHER1986 CLC 417 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- MUSTAFA RAZA KHAN vs ANWARUR REHMAN and 5 others1986 MLD 123 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
- MUSSARAT ZAMAN BEGUM vs ALI HASSAN1986 CLC 2265 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs NASEEM KHAN SHERWANI1986 PLC 769 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs FAROOQ AHMAD MALIK1986 PLC 434 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED vs GHULAM NABI1986 PLC 1141 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUSIITAQAHMAD vs THE COLLECTOR/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1986 CLC 2312(2) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUSHTAQUE vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-23Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 477(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of an appeal arising from a show-cause notice issued to the appellant for failing to deposit security and engaging an Advocate-on-Record. When the case was called for hearing, no representative appeared on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the court inferred a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. The Supreme Court held that where an appellant fails to appear and prosecute the appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed. The key principle laid down is that an appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution in the absence of the appellant or their legal representative.
Questions settled- What is the consequence of the appellant's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal?
- Can an appeal be dismissed when no one is present on behalf of the appellant?
- MUSHTAQ BHUTTA And Another vs SPENCER & Co. PAKISTAN Ltd.1986 PLC 98 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court dated 23-9-1985, which had dismissed their application for bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel and examined the impugned order of the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had properly exercised its judicial discretion in refusing to grant bail to the petitioners. Upon consideration, the Supreme Court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any valid grounds to warrant interference with the judicial discretion exercised by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretionary orders of the High Court regarding bail unless a compelling case for such interference is established by the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the judicial discretion of the High Court in bail matters absent strong grounds?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing bail maintainable if no error in discretion is shown?
- MUSHTAQ ALI JUMMANI AND ANOTHER vs Mst. AMINA KHATOON1986 PLD Karachi 94 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMED vs The STATE1986 SCMR 626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by the petitioner, a Patwari, who was apprehended during a raid while accepting illegal gratification and subsequently convicted under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, with his appeal dismissed by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question raised was whether the criminal proceedings were void ab initio because the Federal Investigation Agency Inspector lacked jurisdiction to arrange the raid concerning a provincial public servant. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, noting that the cited precedent was distinguishable and that the petitioner was properly tried and convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether criminal proceedings initiated by an Inspector of the Federal Investigation Agency against a provincial public servant are void ab initio?
- Does an Inspector of the Federal Investigation Agency have jurisdiction to arrange a raid for offences concerning provincial public servants?
- Does the lack of jurisdiction of an investigating officer vitiate a trial conducted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner was tried under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, but the trial court convicted him under Section 304, Part II, sentencing him to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The complainant filed a revision petition in the High Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking conversion of the conviction to Section 304, Part I. The High Court altered the conviction to Section 304, Part I, and enhanced the sentence to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that an accused convicted under Section 304, Part II, is impliedly acquitted of Part I as they contemplate distinct offences, and the High Court could not alter the conviction in exercise of its revisional powers. Furthermore, since the petitioner had already served his original sentence and been released, re-arresting him was undesirable. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's order was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can alter a conviction under Section 304 Part II to Section 304 Part I in exercise of its revisional powers?
- Does conviction under Part II of Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code operate as an implied acquittal from an offence under Part I?
- Can a sentence be enhanced in revision when the accused has already served the substantive sentence originally awarded?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE-.1986 P Cr. L J 741 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2685 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-18Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and 4 others1986 MLD 435 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1986 MLD 547 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-22Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1986 MLD 428 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-19Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD and 4 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2875 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1753(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
- MUSADDAQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 185 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
- MURTAZA SHAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-13Read full judgment →
- MURTAZA ALl KHAN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 121 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- MUREED And 3 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
- MURAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- MURAD vs NABU (Represented by Legal Heirs) and others1986 MLD 439 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-29Read full judgment →
- MURAD KHAN Arfi vs SHAUKAT BEGUM1986 CLC 1004 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- MUR1D HUSSAIN SHAH vs .TUFAIL HUSSAIN SHAH1986 PLD Lahore 70 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- MUNSIF KHAN vs Sardar HAIDER ZAMAN And OTHER1986 CLC 1257 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
- MUNSHI vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 CLC 2111 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
- Munshi MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2678 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
- MUNSHI KHAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 3032 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-03Read full judgment →
- MUNSHI KHAN vs MAZHAR HUSSAIN And Another1986 P Cr. L J 2850 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUNIR KHAN And 2 Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 8 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-09-14Read full judgment →
- MUNIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 957 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-03Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ1986 CLC 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-17Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD vs Mst. SALMA BEGUM1986 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the respondent landlady had established a bona fide personal requirement for the demised premises to justify the eviction of the tenant. The Supreme Court examined the evidence regarding the respondent's family composition, noting that she had four growing children and required additional space for their proper accommodation and education. The Court found that the respondent's existing accommodation was insufficient for her family's needs and that the disputed premises could be combined with her current residence to form a composite unit. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts. The key principle laid down is that where concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal requirement of a landlord are supported by evidence, the appellate court will not interfere with such findings.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement when supported by evidence?
- Does the growing age and educational needs of a landlord's children constitute a valid ground for establishing a bona fide personal requirement for eviction?
- MUNIR AHMAD vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL OPERATION DIVISION, SHEIKHUPURA1986 PLC 423 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-16Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD KHAN vs SAMIULLAH KHAN And 7 OTHER1986 CLC 2652 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD KHAN vs SAMEEULLAH KHAN And 7 OTHER1986 CLC 2655 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected civil revisions arising from orders passed by the trial court in proceedings under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether advocates who filed written statements admitting plaintiffs' claims in original suits—subsequently challenged for fraud and collusion—could be properly impleaded as respondents in applications filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that proceedings under section 12(2) are independent of the original suits, and the strict principles regarding necessary and proper parties in regular suits do not restrict who may be joined. The court ruled that since the advocates were alleged to have colluded in obtaining the fraudulent decrees, they were rightly impleaded as respondents. The key principle laid down is that any person allegedly involved in fraud or collusion regarding a challenged decree can be made a respondent in an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether advocates who filed written statements admitting claims can be impleaded as respondents in an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are the principles regarding necessary and proper parties in a suit strictly applicable to independent proceedings under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the term 'person' in section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 restrict respondents only to judgment-debtors or decree-holders?
- MUNIR AHMAD And Others vs THE STATE1986 P C r. L J 2414 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPALCORPORATION, SARGODHA vs AMLA SAFAI LABOUR UNION1986 PLC 293 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-27Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ And Others1986 PLC 509 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD vs IRSHAD BIBI1986 PLC 676 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, TOBA TEK SINGH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER1986 PLC (C.S.) 634 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JALALPUR JATTAN vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And 5 OTHER1986 CLC 984 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HAFIZABAD vs NAEEM AKHTAR And 6 Others1986 PLC 485 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, FAISLABAD vs BURMA SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY Ltd1986 SCMR 1475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, concerning the interpretation of octroi or municipal tax laws regarding goods imported within the territorial limits of the Municipal Committee. The core legal question is whether goods unloaded and stored within the municipal limits of Lyallpur, and subsequently loaded and delivered to the importer's agents outside those limits for further transportation, can be legally construed as having been 'imported for sale therein'. The Court granted leave to examine the facts, circumstances, and relevant law governing the transaction. The holding establishes that the matter requires detailed examination as to the precise nature of the movement and storage of goods in relation to municipal taxation limits. The key principle laid down involves the determination of territorial nexus and the exact statutory interpretation of 'imported for sale' under municipal fiscal enactments.
Questions settled- Whether goods unloaded and stored within municipal limits before being transported outside are imported for sale therein?
- What constitutes the taxable import of goods within the territorial limits of a municipal committee?
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE vs GHULAM DASTIGIR1986 CLC 602 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
- MUNEER vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 948 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- MUNEER AHMAD vs NAZIR AHMAD And Others1986 P Cr. L J 409 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR SHAH and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1087 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR HUSSAIN vs A. C. /COLLECTOR, FAISALABAD And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 18 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1052 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ KHANUM and 6 others vs MEHR DIN and 3 others1986 MLD 566 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ KHAN And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2267(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ KHAN And 6 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 670 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ ALI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And OTHER1986 CLC 812 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ ALI And Others vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 1467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application seeking correction and clarification of a High Court order, which had been passed based on a compromise between the parties. The petitioners, whose predecessors-in-interest had pending land allotment units, challenged an allotment made to respondent No. 3, who allegedly held land in excess of his entitlement. A compromise was reached in the High Court, allocating specific land to the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners sought to reopen the matter, arguing that some of their units remained unsatisfied and that respondent No. 3 still held excess land. The core legal question was whether a decision settled by compromise could be reopened or clarified on these grounds. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a matter settled by compromise, where parties were aware that some units would remain unsatisfied, cannot be reopened merely to satisfy further claims or correct perceived imbalances. The principle established is that compromise decrees, once entered into with full knowledge of the facts, are binding and should not be disturbed.
Questions settled- Can a decision based on a compromise between parties be reopened if some claims remain unsatisfied?
- Can a compromise decree be clarified or corrected under Sections 151, 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the parties were aware of the facts at the time of the compromise?
- Does the existence of excess land held by one party justify reopening a matter already settled by compromise?
- Are parties bound by a compromise decree even if they later discover that some of their entitlements remain unfulfilled?
- MUMREZ KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And OTHER1986 CLC 2387 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-29Read full judgment →
- MULLAH AHMED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, Sibi And 7 Other1986 SCMR 1624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against two judgments of the Baluchistan High Court whereby a constitution petition and a subsequent review petition filed by the appellant were dismissed. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal against the primary judgment dismissing the constitution petition was time-barred. The appellant's counsel conceded this position and sought condonation of delay, but the oral submissions failed to establish valid justification, leading the Supreme Court to treat the appeal as time-barred regarding that order. Concerning the second impugned order which dismissed the review application, the Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning legally sound and unexceptionable. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Questions settled- Whether oral submissions for the condonation of delay constitute sufficient justification when an appeal is time-barred?
- Can an appeal be maintained against a judgment when it is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
- Whether a High Court's dismissal of a review application warrants interference by the Supreme Court when based on sound legal reasoning?
- MULLA BAZ MUHAMMAD And ANOTHER vs Mst.BAKHT BIBI And 31 OTHER1986 CLC 22 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- MULAZIM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 249 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2337 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR vs MEHR DIL1986 P Cr. L J 1977 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 781 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR ALI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1809 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 CLC 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2407 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-17Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT1986 PLC (C.S.) 870 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS And Another1986 SCMR 634 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal against acquittal through leave of the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the conviction of the respondents from section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to section 304-II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, setting aside their death sentences and sentencing them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the murder of Fayyaz Ahmad. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly held that the intention to kill was lacking because the accused, as laymen, could not be expected to know the precise locale of the femoral artery. The Supreme Court held that the nature of the injuries, plunged deep down into the body in a classical killing style and found sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, clearly attracted clause thirdly of section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, constituting murder under section 302. The Supreme Court laid down that where cumulative injuries caused by lethal weapons to vital parts are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requisite intention to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause death is established, and the High Court erred in converting the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the ground that laymen could not know the locale of the femoral artery?
- Does the infliction of multiple deep incised wounds on vital parts of the body with lethal weapons establish the intention to cause death under section 300 clause thirdly of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- When can an appellate court interfere with the conversion of a conviction under section 302 to section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?