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.
- EMPLOYEES UNION P.T. CO. Ltd. vs PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY Ltd. Jhelum1986 PLC 466 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION OF TRUST CERAMIC INDUSTRIES vs TRUST CERAMIC1986 PLC 345 · Labour Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- EMANUAL vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1138 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
- EJAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1719 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
- EJAZ AHMAD vs FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1986 PLC 435 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- EJAZ AHMAD BUTT vs HABIB BANK LTD. And Other1986 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former bank clerk, challenged his dismissal from service after being found guilty of several charges by the competent authority. While the Labour Court upheld the dismissal, the Appellate Labour Court reinstated the petitioner without back benefits, finding him guilty of only two charges. The High Court subsequently set aside the reinstatement, remanding the matter for reconsideration of the punishment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal possesses the legal authority to substitute a penalty imposed by a competent authority with a more lenient punishment under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Appellate Labour Court lacks the power to substitute punishment. The Court clarified that while Labour Courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate and determine grievances—including examining the merits and legality of a dismissal—this power does not extend to substituting the penalty awarded by the employer. The principle established is that the scope of judicial review in such labour disputes is limited to determining the validity of the dismissal, not modifying the disciplinary sanctions imposed by the competent authority.
Questions settled- Does the Labour Appellate Tribunal have the power to substitute a penalty imposed by a competent authority?
- Can a Labour Court substitute a punishment for that awarded by the competent authority under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- What is the scope of the Labour Court's power when adjudicating and determining a grievance under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- EHSAN-UL-HAQUE vs UNITED BANK LIMITED1986 PLC 1122 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- ECKHARDT & COMPANY MARINE GMBH, WEST GERMANY AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1986 PLD Karachi 138 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
- E.M. OIL MILLS AND INDUSTRIES Ltd. vs BACHU1986 MLD 888 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- DUMMAR COAL COMPANY vs AKBAR KHAN1986 CLC 2458 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- DRILCO Ltd. vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others1986 MLD 2093 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-06Read full judgment →
- Dr. Syeda AZRA TASNEEM ZAIDI And Another vs SYED NAZAR HUSSAIN1986 P Cr. L J 2239 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dr. SHAUKAT BOKHARI vs S HABIB FATIMA1986 MLD 1803 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
- Dr. SHABBIR AHMED vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2190 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
- Dr. SADAQAT ULLAH vs ABDUL MAJID And Other1986 SCMR 437 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition and an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, regarding the transfer of a property unit in Hasilpur Mandi. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having already received a shop and a house, was entitled to the transfer of an additional house portion, and whether the transfer of said portion to the respondent without re-hearing the petitioner was unlawful. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's entitlement had been finalized in a previous order, which he failed to challenge, and that he was ineligible for a second house under the relevant settlement laws. The Court affirmed the transfer to the respondent, noting that the property was no longer available for transfer under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 once it had been validly transferred to another displaced person. The key principle laid down is that a claimant cannot re-litigate settled entitlements or claim additional property beyond the statutory limit of one house and one shop.
Questions settled- Can a claimant who has already received one house and one shop under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 claim an additional house?
- Is it necessary for settlement authorities to re-hear a claimant regarding property transfer when their entitlement has already been finalized in a previous order?
- Can property be transferred under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 if it has already been transferred to another displaced person?
- Dr. RIAZ MOHSIN BHATTI vs DIRECTOR, ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others1986 MLD 2906 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dr. Q.M. QARNI And Another vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EAST), KARACHI And Other1986 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment concerning a land allotment dispute in Housing Scheme No. 33, Karachi. The core legal question is whether the revision of a tentative land layout plan, which corrected an excess in the petitioner's allotted area and reallocated land to another allottee, was legally valid and whether the petitioner was denied due process. The Supreme Court held that the initial layout plan was explicitly tentative and subject to adjustment, rendering the revision permissible. The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had provided the petitioner with multiple opportunities to be heard and that the final demarcation was based on proper reasoning and official records. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the administrative authorities acted within their jurisdiction and that the petitioner's claims of procedural unfairness were unsubstantiated by the record. The principle laid down is that where a land layout plan is expressly designated as tentative and subject to adjustment, administrative authorities may revise it to ensure compliance with sanctioned allotment areas, provided due process and an opportunity for hearing are afforded to the affected parties.
Questions settled- Can a tentative land layout plan be revised by administrative authorities to correct discrepancies in allotted areas?
- Is a party entitled to challenge a land reallocation if the original layout plan was explicitly subject to adjustment?
- Does the correction of land demarcation based on sanctioned allotment limits constitute a violation of due process if the affected parties were heard?
- Dr. Q.M. QARNI and another vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EAST) and 6 others1986 MLD 191 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. NOOR MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1145 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-17Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2639 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ BOI KHAN vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD TAQI and 12 others1986 MLD 2220 (2) · Election Tribunal · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD MUNIR UL HAQ And Others vs Dr. MUHAMMAD LATIF CH. And Other1986 SCMR 1153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, directed against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. Respondent No.1, a government servant, had tendered his resignation upon selection as a professor at Fatima Jinnah Medical College, which resignation was accepted in May 1975. Years later, following a High Court judgment holding that Fatima Jinnah Medical College stood nationalized under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972, respondent No.1 sought to treat his resignation as null and void and claimed continuous service and seniority. The Service Tribunal overruled limitation objections on grounds of substantial justice and allowed the claim on merits, holding that the resignation was given under a mistaken belief of law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that substantial questions arose as to whether limitation bars could be bypassed through general observations and whether a person who voluntarily submitted a resignation could later repudiate their own act. The impugned order of the Service Tribunal was suspended.
Questions settled- Whether the question of the bar of limitation can be overcome by making general observations regarding substantial justice?
- Can a government servant who has voluntarily submitted a resignation that was accepted be allowed to subsequently repudiate their own act?
- Does a resignation tendered under a mistaken belief regarding the institutional status of a nationalized college become null and void?
- Dr. MUHAMMAD LATIF CHAUDHRY vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And 21986 PLC (C.S.) 602 · Service Tribunal · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs BANK OF OMAN Ltd.1986 MLD 110 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD HANIF ARIF vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 451 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD ASIF BHATTI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ISLAMABAD And Another1986 PLC (C. S.) 568 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD ANWAR CHAUDHRY vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SARGODHA1986 MLD 2788 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-31Read full judgment →
- DR. M. MURTAZA HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA1986 PLD Karachi 199 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller granting eviction of the tenant from a shop used as a homeopathic clinic on the ground of personal need under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. During the appeal, the tenant filed applications under section 21(3) of the said Ordinance seeking to bring on record additional evidence regarding subsequent events to prove the alleged mala fides of the landlord. The core legal questions involved whether additional evidence relating to events occurring after the passing of the impugned order can be allowed under section 21(3), and whether the landlord established bona fide personal need. The High Court held that additional evidence cannot be permitted under section 21(3) if the documents or events did not exist at the time the impugned order of ejectment was passed, as the appellate record is confined to the record of the trial court. The Court further held that the landlord successfully proved bona fide personal need for expansion of his hotel business, while the tenant failed to prove mala fides. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether additional evidence regarding events occurring after the passing of the impugned eviction order can be allowed under section 21(3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- What is the scope of 'further enquiry' by an Appellate Authority under section 21(3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- On whom lies the burden of proof when a tenant alleges mala fides against a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal need?
- Can subsequent events arising after the filing of an appeal be taken into consideration to judge the validity of an impugned eviction order?
- Dr. ILLAHI BAKHSH vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 74 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- DR. GHULAM RASUL vs CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB And 5 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 485 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-10Read full judgment →
- Dr. GHULAM BHEEK And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 1275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where the primary respondent passed away on August 10, 1975. The core legal question was whether the appeal could proceed despite the appellant's failure to bring the deceased respondent's legal representatives on record within the prescribed limitation period, and whether the delay in doing so should be condoned. The Court observed that under Order XV, Rule 7 of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, 1956, the appellant was required to file an application for substitution within ninety days of the death. Despite multiple notices from the Court office and the appellant's own counsel, the appellant failed to provide the names and addresses of the legal representatives for years. Even when the matter was finally heard, the appellant failed to provide the necessary details or show sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the Court held that there was no justification to condone the delay, and as the appeal was improperly constituted, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Questions settled- What is the consequence of failing to bring legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record within the time prescribed by the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules 1956?
- Can an appeal proceed if the appellant fails to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased respondent despite receiving multiple notices from the Court?
- Is the Court justified in refusing to condone a delay in substituting legal representatives when the appellant has been aware of the death for several years?
- DR. BEHRAM KHAN. vs NASIR AHMED BACHA AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave was filed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which affirmed the Sessions Court's order granting post-arrest bail to respondent No. 1 in a murder case under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the respondent was present in a car along with his co-accused brother who shot the deceased, and that he uttered a lalkara (instigation). The Supreme Court examined whether the facts justified granting bail as of right under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and addressed concerns regarding elaborate judicial observations at the bail stage. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that once a court tentatively finds that no reasonable grounds exist for believing an accused committed a non-bailable offence, release on bail under Section 497(2) is mandatory. The Court further clarified that trial courts must remain uninfluenced by tentative factual observations made in bail orders and emphasized keeping bail decisions concise.
Questions settled- Does Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 leave judicial discretion to withhold bail once the court finds no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence?
- Should trial courts be influenced by tentative factual observations made by higher courts while granting or refusing bail?
- Is deep factual analysis and an elaborate judgment necessary for deciding a bail application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Dr. BEHRAM KHAN vs NASIR AHMAD BACHA And Other1986 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Baluchistan High Court, which had dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under subsection (5) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail previously granted by the Sessions Judge, Quetta, to the respondent, who was facing trial for offences under section 302 and section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the facts and circumstances of the case warranted the cancellation of bail in light of established precedents regarding the evaluation of prosecution evidence, specifically eye-witness accounts and circumstantial evidence. Upon consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the case required further examination of the principles governing bail cancellation as articulated in prior Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the transfer of the case file to Lahore for an expedited hearing, acknowledging the legitimacy of the request for an early resolution of the matter.
Questions settled- Does the presence of eye-witnesses and circumstantial evidence necessitate the cancellation of bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the Supreme Court transfer the venue of a pending appeal for an expedited hearing upon the request of counsel?
- DR. BEHRAM KHAN vs NASEER AHMAD alias BACHA KHAN1986 PLD Quetta 72 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-18Read full judgment →
- DR. ABDUL WARIS vs JAVED HANIF. AND 6 OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 381 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. ABDUL REHMAN GORA vs Mst. ASYA SULTANA1986 MLD 1638 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
- Dr. ABDUL MALIK vs Raja KHURSHID ALI And Other1986 SCMR 1606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a pre-emption claim involving a tenant. The core legal question presented was whether the requirement of 'Talab' (the formal demand for pre-emption) is applicable when a tenant seeks to pre-empt property under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 115. During the proceedings, the parties reached a consensus to remand the case to the High Court for a comprehensive decision on the merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court. The High Court was directed to adjudicate the case on its merits, specifically determining whether the performance of 'Talab' is a necessary legal prerequisite for a tenant exercising pre-emption rights under Martial Law Regulation 115.
Questions settled- Is the performance of 'Talab' a necessary requirement for a tenant seeking to pre-empt property under Martial Law Regulation 115?
- Dr. ABDUL GHAFOOR RAZA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HEALTH DEPARTMENT And Another1986 PLC (S.C.) 270 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1986 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant Dost Muhammad appealed by leave of the Supreme Court against his conviction under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 for possessing an unlicensed .12 bore gun and two cartridges, which had been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the lower courts properly appreciated the evidence in a criminal trial where the prosecution relied exclusively on police witnesses despite available public witnesses, and where issues arose regarding the production and identification of case property. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the courts below, holding that the lower courts failed to observe established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. The key principle laid down is that criminal convictions cannot rest on uncorroborated police testimony when independent public witnesses are available but withheld, and that case property must be satisfactorily identified and produced in accordance with evidentiary standards.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for possessing unlicensed arms can be sustained solely on the testimony of police witnesses when independent public witnesses were available but not examined?
- Is the production and satisfactory identification of case property mandatory in criminal trials involving the recovery of weapons?
- Whether the failure of courts below to properly evaluate evidence in a criminal case warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, REVENUE1986 PLC (C.S.) 279 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and others1986 MLD 469 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs Mst. ALAM KHATOON and 2 others1986 MLD 2583 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN vs Mst. BIBI RUKIA AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit regarding a house in Bannu, originally dismissed by the trial Court but decreed on first appeal and second appeal based on a Full Bench judgment of the Peshawar High Court in Majid Khan's case concerning the interpretation of section 5(c) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950. During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, the pre-emptor respondent died, and an objection was raised that the appeal had abated due to the appellant's delay in bringing legal representatives on record. The core legal questions involved whether an appeal automatically abates under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 upon the death of a party, and the correct interpretation of the exemption provision under section 5(c) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 regarding houses measuring less than one Kanal. The Supreme Court held that the Supreme Court Rules do not provide for automatic abatement and that procedural delays can be condoned in the interest of justice, and further held on merits, following its earlier precedents, that the ownership of a share measuring one Kanal or less in a house does not destroy the exemption from pre-emption under section 5(c). The appeal was accordingly allowed and the trial Court's dismissal of the pre-emption suit restored.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Supreme Court automatically abates upon the failure to bring the legal representatives of a deceased party on record within the prescribed period?
- Does the exemption from pre-emption under section 5(c) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 apply to a house measuring one Kanal or less?
- Does the ownership of a fractional share measuring one Marla in a jointly held house defeat the right of pre-emption under the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
- DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN vs FATEH KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves cross-appeals arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a violent incident resulting in six deaths and multiple injuries due to a land dispute. The core legal questions examined the validity of convictions under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the application of the right of private defence of property, and the sustainability of certain acquittals and death sentences. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the accused party had exceeded any available right of private defence, given that the complainant party was unarmed and merely attempting to assert possessory rights, thereby negating any reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The Court maintained the conviction of the principal offenders but commuted the death sentences of the co-accused to life imprisonment, except for the accused whose unjustified firing at an uninvolved bystander warranted capital punishment. The principle laid down is that the right of private defence of property is strictly subject to statutory restrictions, and the infliction of disproportionate, wanton harm completely vitiates the plea of self-defence.
Questions settled- Does the mere ploughing of land by an unarmed party give rise to a right of private defence of property resulting in fatal force?
- Can an accused person claim the right of private defence when the harm caused is completely disproportionate to the apprehended threat?
- Whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence leading to the acquittal of certain co-accused warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Is a death sentence justified for an accused whose firing targeted an uninvolved bystander during a factional clash?
- DOSA vs The STATE1986 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case relied on ocular testimony, motive arising from a dispute over cattle trespassing, and the recovery of a weapon. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the Wajtakkar evidence lacked corroborative value, and highlighted a potential contradiction between the medical evidence regarding the direction of the gunshot and the complainant's testimony. Furthermore, the petitioner raised a significant contention regarding the Inquest Report, which noted the deceased was found naked and without shoes, suggesting this discrepancy cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative of the occurrence and the motive. The Supreme Court, finding these contentions regarding the motive and the manner of the commission of the crime to be substantial, granted leave to appeal to examine the evidence and the connected features of the case, thereby allowing for a deeper scrutiny of the prosecution's claims.
Questions settled- Does the presence of discrepancies in the Inquest Report regarding the physical state of the deceased cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution's version of the occurrence?
- Can Wajtakkar evidence be considered reliable when it fails to corroborate the primary ocular account provided by the complainant?
- Does a contradiction between medical evidence regarding the direction of a gunshot and the complainant's testimony warrant a re-examination of the conviction?
- DODO AND OTHERS vs BOOTA KHAN1986 PLD Rev. 36 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-12-03Read full judgment →
- Doctor AKHLAQ AHMAD vs Mst. KISHWAR SULTANA and another1986 MLD 464 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKAR vs MUHAMMAD1986 PLC 623 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI_ vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM And 25 Other1986 SCMR 1607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a High Court judgment under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 that had set aside a decision of the Labour Court. The respondents (Railway employees) obtained an order from the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 awarding arrears of overtime wages and compensation. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. The requisite deposit certificate under Section 17(1)(a) was submitted slightly after the memorandum of appeal was lodged because the Authority was on leave when cash payment was tendered. The Labour Court entertained the appeal and remanded the case due to statutory limitation under Section 15. However, the High Court held the appeal incompetent on the ground that the deposit certificate did not accompany the memorandum of appeal at the time of filing.
The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 regulates the time within which the amount must be deposited rather than strictly requiring deposit prior to filing, and depositing the certificate before the decision constituted substantial compliance.
Questions settled- Does Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 require the deposit of the decretal amount to be completed prior to filing an appeal, or is submission of the deposit certificate before decision sufficient compliance?
- Whether filing a deposit certificate shortly after lodging an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 constitutes substantial legal compliance when delay in deposit is caused by the Authority's absence?
- Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be entertained against a Labour Court's remand order where adequate legal remedy remains available before the lower tribunal?
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI, vs NAZIR1986 PLC 615 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI vs MUHAMMAD YASEEN1986 PLC 501 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI vs IQBAL ALI1986 PLC 272 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-10Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI And Another1986 PLC 636 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs ZUMURAD1986 PLC 1148 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs MUNIR AHMAD1986 PLC 659 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs Mst. LEELA1986 PLC 639 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-27Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs HAMID ALI And Another1986 PLC 696 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs ABDUL QADIR1986 PLC 680 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN And Another vs MANZOOR AHMAD1986 PLC 657 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN And Another vs FAZAL KARIM CHATTA1986 PLC 505 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN And 2 Other vs ALI1986 PLC 1123 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN And 2 Other vs ABDUL WAHID1986 PLC 1109 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE. vs AHMAD ALI1986 PLC 631 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD1986 PLC 775 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs FALAK SHER1986 PLC 313 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs EHSANUL HAQ1986 PLC 304 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-10Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs ABDUL SATTAR1986 PLC 653 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs ABDUL1986 PLC 651 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE And Another vs NIAZ AHMAD1986 PLC 1119 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND1986 SCMR 1972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions concerning claims made and paid to private respondents for mileage allowance and recreation allowance as part of their pay. The core legal questions involve whether the respondents' claim is covered by the terms delayed wages or deducted wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and whether recreation allowance forms part of their monthly salary or pay in their particular grades. The Supreme Court noted that the questions raised are likely to govern a large number of cases and rendered an authoritative decision by granting leave, allowing the petitions, and directing that status quo be maintained regarding payments until the appeals are decided. The key principle established is that matters involving recurring wage disputes of this nature merit an authoritative pronouncement by the Court to govern pending and future cases.
Questions settled- Whether respondents' claim is covered by the terms delayed wages or deducted wages as defined in sub-section (3) of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Whether recreation allowance is a part of monthly salary or pay given to respondents in their particular grades of pay?
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS RAWALPINDI vs MUHAMMAD LATIF1986 PLC 670 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAY, KARACHI vs PRESIDING1986 PLC 413 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs SAEED HUSSAIN1986 PLC 494 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs RASOOL SHAH1986 PLC 1121 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs IQBAL1986 PLC 475 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, P. R. T. C. (INTERCITY), GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LAHORE vs MEHTAB DIN, DRIVER And Another1986 PLC 1076 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, FAISALABAD vs REHMAT KHAN1986 PLC 1096 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, G.T.S., SARGODHA vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ1986 PLC 288 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-27Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (Women) GUJRANWALA vs MUHAMMAD ASIF1986 PLC 425 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-16Read full judgment →
- DIRECTOR, HOUSING A PHYSICAL PLANNING CI RCLE, MULTAN vs MULAZIM1986 PLC 1078 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1973 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs SHAKARGANJ MILLS LIMITED And Another1986 PLC 1131 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-07Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 2075 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs SAFDAR ALI And Other1986 CLC 1045 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs MIRZA And Another1986 SCMR 1711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition seeking leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the resumption of land allotted to the petitioner under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. The petitioner was initially allotted land in 1952, which was exchanged for the disputed land in 1961. The Collector subsequently resumed this land, citing its location within a ten-mile radius of a First Class Municipality, a decision upheld through various appellate and revisional forums, including the Board of Revenue and civil courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief based on subsequent government policy letters from 1970 and 1972, which expressed an intention to provide alternative accommodation to persons uprooted from land in exemption belts. The Supreme Court held that while the humanitarian aspect regarding the petitioner's displacement deserved consideration, such relief could only be granted by the Provincial Government authorities, not the Court. Finding no legal error in the High Court's dismissal, the Court dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to seek administrative redress.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant relief based on government policy letters regarding alternative accommodation when no legal error exists in the lower court's order?
- Does the reduction of an exemption belt in a First Class Municipality create a justiciable right for an allottee to claim alternative land?
- Is a writ petition the appropriate forum to challenge the resumption of land by revenue authorities after the exhaustion of statutory remedies?
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE, DERA GHAZI KHAN And OTHER1986 CLC 2363 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD JAFFARY vs MANAGING DIRECTOR1986 PLC 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-04Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD and another vs HAMZA and another1986 MLD 293 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
- DILSHAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN And Other1986 SCMR 1396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition against the revisional order of the Additional District Judge, which had set aside the trial court's order allowing the amendment of a plaint. The petitioner had filed a civil suit for a declaration and injunction regarding land allotted under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme, and later sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to implead subsequent vendees and bring on record subsequent payments. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere under writ jurisdiction with the revisional order denying the amendment, particularly in light of the doctrine of lis pendens. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the revisional order warranted no interference in writ jurisdiction, the trial court could still dispose of the case without prejudice, permit evidence regarding the allegations, and protect the petitioner's interests. The key principle laid down is that where an amendment application is refused due to the doctrine of lis pendens, a party may still be permitted by the trial court to lead evidence on those matters to prevent prejudice.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction with a revisional order setting aside the amendment of a plaint?
- Does the doctrine of lis pendens render the amendment of a plaint to implead subsequent purchasers unnecessary?
- Can a trial court permit a party to lead evidence on matters sought to be introduced via a refused amendment application?
- DILSHAD ALI vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1986 PLC 300 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-20Read full judgment →
- DILLAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs Mst. RAZIA SULTANA1986 SCMR 1655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had upheld a Rent Controller's order directing the petitioner's eviction from the demised premises. The Rent Controller had ordered eviction based on findings that the respondent-landlady required the premises for her personal use and that the petitioner was a defaulter in the payment of rent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's findings, which were based on the evidence recorded in the case, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the arguments presented by the petitioner essentially amounted to a request for the re-appraisal of evidence, which is not permissible in such proceedings. Furthermore, the Court determined that the findings of the High Court were firmly rooted in the evidence on record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on evidence unless a misreading or non-reading of evidence is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order?
- Does a finding of fact by the High Court based on evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- DILBAR vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 385 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges an order rejecting an application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought to recall prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination in a murder trial. The core legal question is whether an accused is entitled to recall witnesses under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely because a newly engaged counsel wishes to pursue a different line of defense, after the witnesses were already cross-examined by previous counsel. The Court held that the trial court correctly rejected the application and dismissed the revision. The ratio establishes that the power under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is discretionary, and its mandatory component only applies when the court is satisfied that the evidence is essential for a just decision. The principle laid down is that Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be invoked merely to facilitate a new counsel's strategy or to repeat cross-examination where a full opportunity was previously afforded, as this would set a dangerous precedent and impede the finality of proceedings.
Questions settled- Can an accused recall prosecution witnesses under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely because a newly engaged counsel wishes to pursue a different line of defense?
- Is the power to recall witnesses under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory or discretionary?
- Does the mandatory provision of Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when the evidence is not essential for the just decision of the case?
- DILBAR HUSSAIN vs MUHMOODUL HASSAN AND 3 OTHERS1986 PLD Quetta 198 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals arising from a suit for possession of property and a suit for declaration and injunction. The core legal questions were whether the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies to Quetta, whether a registered sale deed is mandatory for property transfer in that jurisdiction, and whether a licensee can claim adverse possession against the licensor. The Court held that the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not extend to Quetta, and therefore, a registered sale deed is not strictly required for a valid transfer. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 regarding registration only apply to documents that exist; they do not mandate that all transactions must be in writing. Regarding the appellant's claim of adverse possession, the Court held that a licensee, having entered the property under an employment arrangement, cannot claim adverse possession against the licensor. The appellant’s status was that of a licensee, and upon the termination of the license, he became a trespasser. The Court affirmed the decree for possession, emphasizing that equity does not assist those who enter property as licensees and later attempt to deny the owner's title.
Questions settled- Does the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 apply to Quetta?
- Can a licensee claim adverse possession against the licensor?
- Do the registration requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 apply to a transaction where no written document was executed?
- Does a mutation entry in revenue records create title to property?
- DILAWAR KHAN vs COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR1986 PLC (C.S.) 400 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- DILAWAR HUSSAIN vs BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for enhancement of sentences filed by Dilawar Hussain against the respondents, who were originally tried for murder and allied offences. The prosecution alleged that the respondents attacked Dilawar Hussain over a land dispute, and when his father, Hassan Muhammad, intervened to save him, the respondents inflicted fatal injuries upon him. The trial court acquitted some accused, while convicting Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ilyas under section 304 instead of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing them to imprisonment for life, and convicting Ghulam Mustafa under section 323. Upon appeal, the High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences of Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ilyas to eight years' rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had misjudged the nature of the offence as culpable homicide rather than murder, but noted that due to the absence of an appeal against acquittal under section 302, it could only address the petition for sentence enhancement. Finding the High Court's reduction of sentences based on extraneous cases untenable, the Supreme Court granted leave to consider the enhancement of sentences for Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ilyas, while dismissing the petition regarding Ghulam Mustafa.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with an acquittal under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code when no appeal against acquittal has been filed by the petitioner?
- Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of imprisonment for life to eight years' rigorous imprisonment under section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code based on sentences awarded in dissimilar cases?
- Whether the circumstances of the case warrant the grant of leave to consider the enhancement of sentences reduced by the High Court?
- DILAWAR ALI KHAN And Another vs THE STATE and 4 others-1986 P Cr. L J 298 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-22Read full judgment →
- DIL MURAD And Others vs AKBAR SHAH1986 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of agricultural land. The plaintiff asserted that the deceased predecessor of the petitioners had executed the agreement, received an advance payment, and delivered possession, but his heirs subsequently repudiated the contract. The defendants claimed the agreement was forged. The trial court decreed specific performance to the extent of the deceased's actual two-thirds share, which was upheld by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the plaintiff failed to prove execution because no expert evidence was produced to verify the deceased's thumb-impression. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under the relevant rules of evidence, execution of a document can be proved by calling the attesting witnesses in whose presence it was signed, and expert evidence is not mandatory where sufficient direct oral evidence exists. The Court affirmed that once the plaintiff discharged the initial burden of proof, the onus shifted to the defendants to rebut it.
Questions settled- Is the production of handwriting or fingerprint expert evidence mandatory to prove the execution of a disputed document when direct evidence of attesting witnesses is available?
- What are the legally recognized modes of proving the execution of a document under the law of evidence?
- Can a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement be granted to the extent of a vendor's actual share if they contracted to sell the entire property but only owned a partial share?
- DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE1986 CLC 2055 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THARPARKAR And Others vs LACHMANDAS And Other1986 SCMR 1842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had restored a trial court decree in favor of the respondents. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration challenging the legality of a demand for construction charges related to a watercourse, which the petitioners argued were to be shared equally between the Government and beneficiary landlords. The petitioners contended that the civil suit was barred by jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as an appeal was competent under Section 203 of the Sind Land Revenue Code, 1879. Furthermore, the petitioners argued that the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties and was premature, as the respondents had only received a notice and could have pursued departmental remedies. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the civil court had jurisdiction to grant a declaration in light of the available departmental remedies and the statutory bars raised by the petitioners.
Questions settled- Does Section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act 1876 bar a civil suit when an appeal is competent under the Sind Land Revenue Code 1879?
- Is a civil suit for declaration premature when the plaintiff has only received a notice and has not exhausted departmental remedies?
- Does the failure to join the Government and the Irrigation Department as parties render a suit bad for non-joinder?
- Department vs AssesseePTCL 1986 CL. 105 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-08Read full judgment →