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.
- DEBBARED and others vs INTIZAMUDDIN1986 MLD 985 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2806(1) · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
- DAVID VAUGHAN RACKLIN vs DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, KARACHI1986 MLD 1666 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- DARVESH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SHER KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside the appellant's election to the District Council, Mardan, on the ground that an agreement between candidates to exclude female voters rendered the election void. The core legal question was whether a candidate who voluntarily participated in an agreement to disenfranchise female voters could subsequently invoke the High Court's discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to challenge the election result based on that same disenfranchisement. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, having actively contributed to the situation by being a party to the agreement, was disentitled to seek equitable relief. The Court emphasized that a party cannot be allowed to "approbate and reprobate" or take advantage of their own wrong. Consequently, the High Court’s decision to set aside the election was overturned, and the writ was recalled. The principle established is that a petitioner who creates or participates in the illegality complained of is barred from invoking the extraordinary, discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the resulting outcome.
Questions settled- Can a candidate who is a party to an agreement to disenfranchise voters invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to challenge the election result?
- Does the principle of 'approbate and reprobate' apply to a petitioner seeking to challenge an election result based on an illegality they participated in?
- Is the grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari a matter of right or a matter of judicial discretion?
- DARSHAN DARVESH vs CULTURAL CENTRE OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN1986 PLC 484 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DARA SHIKOH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1053 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-07-19Read full judgment →
- DANISH MAND vs Syed RASHID AFZAL1986 MLD 141 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- DANA And 2 Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for murder and related offences. The core legal question was whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, who were involved in a prior criminal case against the petitioners, could be relied upon to sustain convictions, and whether the First Information Report was the result of deliberations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan refused leave to appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the credibility of the injured eye-witnesses were sound. The Court emphasized that the presence of injuries on the witnesses, combined with the circumstances of the occurrence, provided sufficient corroboration for their testimony. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the argument regarding delayed registration of the First Information Report, noting that the timely filing precluded the possibility of false implication through deliberation. The judgment affirms the principle that the testimony of injured witnesses, even if they have a prior conflict with the accused, carries significant weight and does not warrant re-appraisal by the Supreme Court when concurrent findings exist.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of injured eye-witnesses be relied upon if they are involved in a prior criminal case against the accused?
- Does the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence when two lower courts have already reached concurrent findings?
- Does the timely registration of a First Information Report negate claims of false implication due to deliberations?
- DALI And Others vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (REVENUE) PUNJAB, LAHORE And Other1986 SCMR 1269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, tenants who had successfully obtained a pre-emption decree for land, were ordered to deposit the purchase price within 45 days, specifically stipulated as "before 10-2-1984." The petitioners deposited the amount on 11 February 1984, arguing that 10 February was a Friday (a public holiday). The trial court, revisional authorities, and the High Court rejected the petitioners' request to correct the date or extend time, with the High Court emphasizing that "before 10 February" meant the deadline was 9 February 1984. The Supreme Court observed that the phrase "within 45 days" was inconsistent with "before 10 February," as "within" typically includes the final day. The Court noted that if the final day of a period is a holiday, the deposit can be made on the next working day. However, the Court ultimately dismissed the petition because the petitioners had failed to challenge a subsequent order dismissing the suit, which remained in force. Consequently, granting the petition would be futile as the dismissal order held the field.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'within 45 days' in a court decree include the final day of the period?
- Can a deposit of purchase money be validly made on the next working day if the last day of the prescribed period falls on a public holiday?
- Is the exercise of discretion under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 subject to interference if it has been exercised justly?
- DADA STEEL MILLS vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1986 SCMR 1602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed a review petition filed by the appellant solely on the ground of being time-barred. The appellant contended that the review petition was filed within the period of limitation, after excluding the time spent obtaining a certified copy of the judgment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the review petition as time-barred, particularly given the office's erroneous demand for a certified copy and an application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's dismissal was improper. It affirmed that a certified copy of the judgment is not a mandatory requirement for filing a review application in the same court. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the time spent obtaining a copy of the judgment is excludable in computing the limitation period, even if that copy is not filed with the review application. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Is a certified copy of the judgment required to be filed with a review application in the same court?
- Can the time spent obtaining a copy of a judgment be excluded in computing the limitation period for a review application even if the copy is not filed?
- Does an erroneous demand by a court office for a certified copy justify the dismissal of a review petition on the grounds of limitation?
- DAD MUHAMMAD And Others vs COMMISSIONER, QUETTA DIVISION And Other1986 SCMR 1625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition against revenue authorities' decisions concerning disputed land in District Loralai. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in holding the appellants guilty of laches for delaying the filing of the constitutional petition. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were actively pursuing alternative remedies through a revision application before the Commissioner and consequently were not guilty of laches. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether a party actively pursuing alternative statutory remedies can be held guilty of laches in filing a constitutional petition?
- Does the pendency of a revision application excuse a delay in invoking constitutional jurisdiction?
- Da. MUNIR AHMADConvict vs THE STATE1986 PLD Quetta 26 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
- D.A. GILL and 3 others vs LAHORE DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION and 391986 MLD 942 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
- D. A. GILL And Others vs LAHORE DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION And Other1986 SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a suit filed in the District Court, Karachi, under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking various reliefs, including a declaration that a sale deed regarding trust property was illegal and the appointment of a new trustee. The respondents challenged the suit on grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction and res judicata. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction as the property value exceeded the court's limit of Rs. 25,000, and also noted the suit was barred by res judicata. The High Court upheld the dismissal, affirming the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper forum. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners did not challenge the findings on jurisdiction but requested leave to appeal to amend the plaint by deleting the prayer regarding the sale deed's invalidity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that as the petitioners failed to seek amendment before the lower courts and did not challenge the High Court's findings, no grounds existed to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a District Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the valuation of the subject matter exceeds its pecuniary limits?
- Can a party seek leave to amend a plaint before the Supreme Court when such a request was not made before the trial or appellate courts?
- Is a suit barred by res judicata if the same reliefs were claimed in an earlier dismissed suit?
- CSM MONIC MERKARTIKELEN B.V. vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS1986 MLD 2966 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another1986 MLD 2124 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT CARRIERS vs GULZAR AHMAD BROTHERS1986 MLD 813 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-20Read full judgment →
- COMPAGNIE CONTINENTALE (FRANCE) S. A. vs PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING1986 PLD Karachi 447 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application by defendant No. 1 for the return of a plaint, arguing that the claims against it cannot be entertained under the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The plaintiff, as charterer and owner exercising a lien, sought to recover sub-freight and damages for the illegal arrest of a vessel. The core legal question was whether a claim under section 3(2)(h) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court Ordinance 1980 requires the underlying agreement to be strictly between the parties to the suit, and whether a claim in tort for damages for detention of a ship falls within such admiralty jurisdiction. The court held that the words 'any agreement' in section 3(2)(h) should be given a wide meaning and do not require the agreement to be between the parties to the action, but concluded that a claim for damages for illegal detention of a vessel is a claim in tort with no nexus to the contract and therefore cannot be entertained under the admiralty jurisdiction, while the claim for sub-freight arises out of the contract for use and hire of the ship. The application was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether section 3(2)(h) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court Ordinance 1980 requires the agreement relating to the carriage of goods or hire of a ship to be made directly between the parties to the action?
- Does a claim for damages for the illegal detention or arrest of a ship arise out of an agreement relating to the use or hire of a ship under admiralty jurisdiction?
- COMMITTEE OF ADMINISTRATION vs COMMISSIONER OF FAISALABAD O1VISION1986 CLC 834 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Cen-Tral Zone, Karachi. vs Shahab IndustriesPTCL 1986 CL. 331 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Another vs Lt. Col. FATEH KHAN1986 SCMR 808 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Federation of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the service and retirement benefits of a retired Army officer re-employed in a civilian capacity within the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The core legal questions examined whether the respondent was on contract re-employment, the effect of the definition of a 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and whether the Service Tribunal was competent to reopen or review its earlier final order. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal possessed no power of review to substantially alter or reverse its earlier unappealed decision which had conclusively established the respondent's status as a contract employee governed by specific contractual terms. The Court laid down the principle that a Service Tribunal cannot review and reverse its prior final adjudication, and that contractual employment terms which exclude pensionary rights govern unless specifically authorized otherwise by the competent authority.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is competent to review and reverse its earlier final order?
- Does service rendered under a contract of employment qualify for pension without an express stipulation or authorization?
- Whether a person employed on contract qualifies as a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax Lahore. vs Climax Engineering Co. Ltd.PTCL 1986 CL. 306 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/SALES TAX vs O.K. MOTORS COMPANY1986 SCMR 1664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter involves petitions for leave to appeal arising from identical questions of law previously considered in related proceedings. The core legal question concerns the grant of leave to appeal where identical legal issues have already been admitted for consideration by the court. The court's decision is to grant leave to appeal in these petitions as well, directing that the resulting appeals be heard on the same record alongside the connected appeals, with liberty granted to the parties to file additional documents if necessary. The key principle laid down is that where identical questions of law are raised in multiple petitions and leave has already been granted in precedent matters, leave to appeal should similarly be granted to ensure consistent adjudication on the same record.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the questions of law raised are identical to those in a matter where leave has already been granted?
- Can parties file additional documents in appeals that are ordered to be heard along with connected appeals?
- Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Sales Tax, Central Zone. vs Messrs LeverPTCL 1986 St. 142 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Lahore. vs M_S. Noon Sugar Mills Limited, LahorePTCL 1986 CL. 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karachi. vs West Pakistan ManagementPTCL 1986 CL. 174 · Sindh and Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI vs PRINTERS COMBINE Ltd.1986 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Commissioner of Income-Tax sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, which had answered two referred questions in the negative and decided the tax reference in favour of the respondent-assessee. The respondent, a private limited company, had filed income returns for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, wherein the Income-Tax Officer rejected the book version of accounts and enhanced the gross profit rate, a decision upheld by the Income-Tax Tribunal. The High Court, upon a reference under section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, ruled in favour of the assessee. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the questions decided by the High Court were purely questions of fact and that interference with concurrent factual findings was unwarranted. The Supreme Court found the contentions worthy of consideration and granted leave to appeal to examine whether a question of law arose from the matter.
Questions settled- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act could be invoked?
- Whether there was any material on record for the basis adopted by the learned Tribunal for computing the income of the applicant?
- Whether the questions referred to the High Court were purely questions of fact barring interference against concurrent findings?
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Seth Dhanrajmal Mammal.PTCL 1986 CL. 129 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs R. G. Chapman.PTCL 1986 CL. 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses civil appeals arising from a common decision of the High Court of Sind regarding whether a non-resident assessee is entitled to earn relief under section 15-A of the Income-tax Act in spite of the provisions of section 17(1) of the Act. The core legal question examined was whether section 17(1), acting as a charging section, permits the deduction of earned income allowance under section 15-A. The Supreme Court held that the High Court and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal correctly interpreted the statutory provisions, concluding that the earned income allowance under section 15-A is admissible to non-resident assessees as part of the composite scheme of computation of 'total income' under sections 2(15) and 16(1)(a) of the Act, prior to the specific restrictive amendment introduced by the Finance Act of 1965. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a non-resident assessee is entitled to earned income relief under section 15-A of the Income-tax Act notwithstanding section 17(1) of the Act?
- Does the expression 'total income' under the Income-tax Act include deductions and allowances such as earned income relief before applying tax rates?
- Can section 17(1) of the Income-tax Act be construed as impliedly repealing the earned income relief provided under section 15-A?
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs AssesseePTCL 1986 CL. 315 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-10Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax Lahore Zone, Lahore. vs Choudhri BrotherPTCL 1986 CL. 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which answered a reference question in the negative concerning the rejection of account books under the Income Tax Act. The respondent, a registered firm dealing in machine-tools, had its returned income modified by the Income Tax Officer after rejection of its book version due to the absence of a stock register and unverifiable sales lists. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner scaled down the addition, and the Income Tax Tribunal upheld it. Upon an application under section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, the High Court decided the question itself and answered it in the negative. The Supreme Court evaluated the findings of the lower forums, noting inconsistencies in the Tribunal's reasoning regarding the non-maintenance of a stock register and cash sales. Holding that the High Court rightly answered the question based on the relevant circumstances and that no question of public importance was involved, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the non-maintenance of a stock register alone is a sufficient ground for the Income Tax Officer to reject the assessee's accounts?
- Can the High Court proceed to decide a reference question itself upon an application under section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act following a change in law?
- Whether there was sufficient evidence or material before the Appellate Tribunal to justify the rejection of account books under section 13 of the Income Tax Act?
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE vs CHOUDHRI Brother1986 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the rejection of an assessee's account books by income tax authorities. The core legal question was whether, given the facts and circumstances, there was sufficient evidence or material for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to conclude that the respondent's account books were liable to be rejected under the proviso of Section 13 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer had rejected the books due to the lack of a stock register and unverifiable sales lists. The High Court, however, answered the question in the negative, finding that the Tribunal's conclusions were inconsistent with its own factual findings regarding the bona fides of the assessee and the nature of the trade practices. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that the Tribunal's reasoning was inconsistent and that the mere absence of a stock register did not justify the rejection of accounts where the profit rate was not unreasonably low. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as no question of public importance arose.
Questions settled- Does the mere non-maintenance of a stock register justify the rejection of an assessee's account books under the Income-tax Act?
- Can an Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision be upheld if its findings are inconsistent with the evidence on record?
- Is the subjective opinion of an Income-tax Officer regarding the rejection of accounts final if it is not supported by sufficient material?
- Commissioner Of Income Tax East Zone. vs Muhammad SadiqPTCL 1986 CL. 135 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-20Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (WEST) K ARACHI vs HAJI GULZAR And Sons1986 SCMR 1315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind answering a reference in the affirmative in favor of the assessee. The core legal question was whether a net loss suffered by a registered firm in a speculative business should be distributed among its partners or carried forward to be set off against income from the same business in subsequent years under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court held that losses sustained by a registered firm in a speculative business cannot be apportioned among its partners under the second proviso to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, but must instead be carried forward by the firm itself under section 24(2) to be set off against future profits from speculative business. The court laid down the principle that the first proviso to section 24(1)—dealing with speculative business losses—operates as an independent provision and is not controlled by the second proviso, meaning speculative losses are excluded from apportionment among partners and remain with the firm for carry forward.
Questions settled- Whether the loss suffered in a speculative business by a registered firm should be distributed among its partners or carried forward by the firm?
- Does the second proviso to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, control the first proviso regarding speculative business losses?
- Can a loss sustained in a speculative business by a registered firm be apportioned between the partners of the firm under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Zone). vs Messrs MonotypePTCL 1986 CL. 137 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Zone), Karachi. vs M/S. Esso EasternPTCL 1986 CL. 140 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COLONY TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. Through Its Manager vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1986 PLC 1146 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
- COLONY TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. And Another vs MANZOOR AHMAD KHALID1986 PLC 461 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- Col. (Retd.) Syed MUKHTR HUSSAIN SHAH vs WASIM SAJJAD And 30 Other1986 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal filed under the Senate (Elections) Act, 1975, challenging an Election Tribunal's decision that invalidated certain votes and declared respondent No. 1 as the successful candidate for a special Senate seat. The appellant sought interim relief, including the suspension of the Tribunal's orders, an injunction against the Chief Election Commissioner from notifying the respondent, and an order preventing the respondent from taking the oath of office. The Supreme Court noted that the notification of the respondent had already occurred, rendering the request for an injunction against the Election Commission infructuous. Regarding the remaining prayers, the Court declined to intervene on the merits at the interim stage, emphasizing the importance of ensuring the electorate's right to representation in the Senate. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for interim relief, save for a limited order preserving the appellant's right to maintain his appeals despite the adverse adjudications against him, ensuring the impugned orders would not prejudice that specific right.
Questions settled- Whether an interim order should be granted to suspend an Election Tribunal's declaration of a successful candidate pending appeal?
- Does the notification of a candidate as a successful member of the Senate render a prayer for an injunction against such notification infructuous?
- To what extent can the Supreme Court intervene in election matters at an interim stage before deciding the merits of an appeal?
- CLIMAX ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., GUJRANWALA vs SHABIB AHMAD KHAN1986 PLC 1081 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
- CHITTAGONG STEAMSHIP CORPORATION Ltd. vs CENTRAL INSURANCE1986 MLD 59 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH DIN vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PASRUR And Other1986 SCMR 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition concerning a dispute over cattle market leases granted by two adjacent local councils, namely Zila Council Sialkot and Municipal Committee Pasrur, within close proximity of each other. The core legal question involved the extent of the powers of the Government or its delegatee under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, to interfere with the affairs of local councils, specifically regarding the reduction of lease periods and directives on the day of holding the market. The Supreme Court noted that during the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioners did not press the grievances regarding commission rates or the reduction of the lease period, and that the issue concerning the specific market day had become moot or remediable through the appropriate District Co-ordination Committee under the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, recording the statement of the petitioner's counsel to approach the relevant Co-ordination Committee for resolution.
Questions settled- Whether the Government or its delegatee can interfere with the lease period granted by a local council under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Can disputes involving the operational days of cattle markets between adjacent local councils be resolved by the District Co-ordination Committee?
- CHIRAGH DIN vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE And OTHER1986 CLC 2392 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-13Read full judgment →
- CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Others vs SIRAJ AHMAD1986 SCMR 1336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Sind against the judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of the respondent, an Apprenticeship Officer, and ordered his re-instatement with a directive for a fresh enquiry. The core legal question was whether the Authorised Officer could lawfully adopt the summary procedure under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, in the face of a specific appellate directive ordering a fresh enquiry. The Supreme Court held that the Authorised Officer was bound to follow the full-fledged inquiry procedure mandated by the appellate authority rather than resorting to a summary procedure. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, establishing that authorities must strictly comply with specific procedural directives given by appellate bodies regarding departmental enquiries.
Questions settled- Whether an Authorised Officer can adopt a summary procedure under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, when an appellate authority directs a fresh enquiry?
- Does a failure to follow the specific inquiry procedure ordered by an appellate authority render a subsequent dismissal order without lawful authority?
- CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS And Another vs BASHIR1986 PLC 609 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER PUNJAB, LAHORE And Others vs GHULAM MEHR1986 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from appeals against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the interpretation and application of paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (Land Reforms Regulation, 1959), which prohibited alienations of land that reduced a holding below the subsistence holding. The core legal questions examined were whether an alienation violating the subsistence holding limit is void in its entirety or only to the extent of the excess, whether paragraph 25 applies to court decrees, and the divisibility of such a transaction. The Supreme Court held that the statutory prohibition renders an offending alienation void only to the extent that it reduces the holding below the subsistence holding, preserving the remaining valid portion through the application of the doctrine of severability. The Court concluded that the Chief Land Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside the entire transaction rather than restricting the invalidation strictly to the 8 Kanals and 15 Marlas that violated the statutory threshold. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an alienation that reduces a landholding below the subsistence holding is void in its entirety or only to the extent of the excess?
- Does paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 apply to decrees passed by courts of competent jurisdiction?
- Can the doctrine of severability be applied to a court decree or transaction that partially violates land reform restrictions?
- CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ANOTHER1986 PLD SC (A J & K) 120 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER vs MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD And Other1986 SCMR 1499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent employee's appeal and granted him seniority in the grade of Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) from an earlier date. The core legal questions involved were whether the respondent's service appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation after the Tribunal had previously dismissed that part of the claim as time-barred, and whether an employee who voluntarily transferred on a written undertaking waiving seniority could claim continuous seniority from his parent department. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction by reopening and reversing its own earlier finding that the claim regarding ante-dating promotion was time-barred. The Court further held that the respondent was bound by his written undertaking given upon transfer, wherein he explicitly relinquished any claim to seniority in the new department and agreed to be treated as a deputationist. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the Tribunal's order set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a Service Tribunal can reopen and reverse its own earlier finding on the question of limitation?
- Can an employee claim seniority contrary to a written undertaking given at the time of transfer waiving such seniority?
- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is competent when the underlying departmental claim is barred by time?
- CHAWA And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-14Read full judgment →
- CHAUDHRY SADIQ ALI vs CHIEF SECRETARY AZAD GOVERNMENT OF J & K1986 PLC (C.S.) 437 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-09-23Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry PHOOL MUHAMMAD And Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT1986 SCMR 1476(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court partly accepting a writ petition and remanding a property dispute case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, for fresh disposal. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter when an earlier petition and a civil petition for special leave to appeal concerning the same land had been dismissed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the previous writ petition was dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party rather than on merits, and given the large extent of the property involving a bungalow and open land, further scrutiny was warranted in the interests of justice. The Court declined to interfere with the remand order, noting that the petitioners could raise all available legal defenses before the competent authority. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a case can be remanded for fresh decision when an earlier writ petition was dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party?
- Does the dismissal of a petition for non-joinder constitute a final determination on the merits to bar subsequent proceedings?
- Is an appellate court inclined to interfere with a High Court's remand order when further scrutiny of a large property dispute is required in the interests of justice?
- CHANDOO Alias CHAND MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1986 SCMR 720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the court challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of his wife and another person. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the appellant's plea of grave and sudden provocation was possibly true in the circumstances of the case, thereby attracting the benefit of Exception I to section 300. The Supreme Court held that intrinsic evidence in the prosecution case—including the bolted entrance, the manner of entry by scaling the wall, the immediate infliction of numerous knife injuries in a confined basement space, and the state of the evidence—rendered the defence version plausible and created a reasonable doubt regarding premeditation. The ratio laid down is that where surrounding circumstances and physical features of the crime corroborate the accused's version of discovering his wife in a compromising position, the benefit of doubt regarding grave and sudden provocation must be extended, converting the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Whether a plea of grave and sudden provocation can be accepted when supported by the physical circumstances and intrinsic evidence of the prosecution case?
- Does the infliction of numerous injuries in a confined space preclude the possibility of sudden provocation?
- When is an accused entitled to the benefit of Exception I to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- CHANAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1120 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
- CHAMBA vs REHMAT ALI And OTHER1986 CLC 2791 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, WAPDA vs HABIB AHMAD HASHMI1986 MLD 978 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, WAPDA And ANOTHER vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD And ANOTHER1986 CLC 192 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, TOBA TEK SINGH vs Mst. MUKHTARAN1986 PLC 283 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COUNCIL, HYDERABAD and another vs Haji FASIHUDDIN1986 MLD 209 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-12Read full judgment →
- Ch. SHAUKAT ALI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, Department Of Local Government1986 PLC (C.S.) 773 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
- Ch. SHARIF AHMAD vs CHIRAGH DIN And Other1986 SCMR 1181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute concerning a shop located in Surjit Building, McLeod Road, Lahore, which was auctioned as a big mansion. The petitioner claimed partnership with the second respondent regarding business in the shop, alleging that the second respondent forcibly occupied the shop after breaking its lock. Earlier, the petitioner had initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 which reached the High Court. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that he was a statutory tenant of the shop and that the auction purchasers had rented it out to the first respondent unlawfully. The core legal question involved the determination of whether the petitioner held a valid statutory tenancy or right to occupy the shop against the findings of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner lacked force and found no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner claiming partnership can establish statutory tenancy over a disputed shop after alleged forcible occupation?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere under leave to petition with concurrent factual findings of the High Court regarding property possession?
- Whether a third party can be granted tenancy rights by auction purchasers over a disputed premises?
- Ch. SARDAR AHMAD ZIA vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 31 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-19Read full judgment →
- Ch. SAEED AHMAD vs ZIA SHAHID and 2 others1986 MLD 2467 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
- Ch. RAMZAN MASIH vs SHER MASIH and 2 others1986 MLD 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Through The Secretary, Irrigation And Power Department, Lahore And 11 Other1986 SCMR 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a review petition seeking review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dismissing his appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the dismissal of the appeal would deprive the petitioner of service benefits flowing from the interpretation of Service Rules given by the Court in connected matters. The Court held that the review petition constituted an impermissible attempt at a rehearing of the matter; however, it clarified that in implementing the rules in accordance with the Court's interpretation, any benefit accruing to the petitioner or similarly situated persons cannot ordinarily be denied unless barred by express provision or principle of law. The petition for review was accordingly rejected with the aforesaid observations.
Questions settled- Is a rehearing of a matter permissible in review proceedings?
- Can an employee be denied benefits flowing from the interpretation of Service Rules given by the Court?
- Does the dismissal of an appeal prevent a civil servant from receiving benefits that accrue under the correct interpretation of service rules?
- Ch. NAZAR MUHAMMAD And Another vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And 381986 SCMR 68 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal concerning pre-integration officers of the Bahawalpur State Service of Engineers who sought specific seniority and promotion benefits following the establishment of the Province of West Pakistan. The core legal questions involved the continuous force of pre-integration service rules under section 10 and the protective scope of section 8(3) of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955, alongside the validity of the Integration Circular dated 25-11-1955 and subsequent seniority lists. The Supreme Court held that pre-integration rules yielded to the Integration Circular, that section 8(3) of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955 provides no vested right in promotions or promotion rules, that the appellants failed to establish the existence of substantive vacancies for promotion on the crucial date, and that previous judicial decisions against the appellants operated as a bar. The Court laid down the principle that civil servants possess no vested right in future promotions or mere prospects of promotion, and that pre-integration rules are superseded by integration measures lawfully promulgated under statutory authority.
Questions settled- Whether the pre-integration service rules remained in force in view of section 10 of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955 after the issuance of the Integration Circular?
- Does section 8(3) of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955 create any vested right in the prospects of promotion or the rules governing promotion?
- Are seniority lists subject to change on account of new inductions into services and various grades thereof?
- Whether the integration circular of 25-11-1955 is intra vires and capable of superseding previous service rules?
- Ch. MUNIR AHMED vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 756 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, S.&.G.A. DEPARTMENT And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 789 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FORESTRY DEPTT And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 296 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD IQBAL AHMAD vs Mst. SHAHIDA HAMID And Other1986 SCMR 455(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a civil dispute involving a challenge to an order passed by a Civil Judge on 31-7-1975. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether an appeal filed against the Civil Judge's order, which was legally incompetent, could be treated as a revision application. The Supreme Court, by consent of the parties, set aside the prior judgments of the District Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 29-1-1977, and the High Court, dated 28-5-1979. The Court held that the case should be remanded to the District Judge, Sheikhupura, with the specific direction to consider whether the incompetent appeal could be treated as a revision application under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. This decision establishes the principle that appellate courts possess the discretion to convert an incompetent appeal into a revision application where the interests of justice so require, provided the statutory criteria for revision are met, thereby preventing the dismissal of a case solely on technical grounds of misdescription of the remedy sought.
Questions settled- Can an incompetent appeal be treated as a revision application under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a District Judge have the authority to convert an appeal into a revision application to ensure the ends of justice?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE and 7 others-1986 P Cr. L J 78 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM, ADVOCATE vs Maj. MIRZA HASSAB BAIG, ADVOCATE1986 MLD 2538 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs Ch. ABDUL WAK1L AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an Election Tribunal's order regarding the validity of ballot papers in a Provincial Assembly election. The core legal question was whether ballot papers lacking an official mark but bearing the Presiding Officer's signature are invalid under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976, and whether the election should be declared void due to this irregularity. The Supreme Court held that the ballot papers were valid, interpreting the statutory requirement for exclusion as necessitating the absence of both the official mark and the signature. The Court found that the Tribunal erred in invalidating the votes and ordering a repoll, as the irregularity did not materially affect the election result under Section 70 of the Act. The key principle laid down is that statutory provisions for rejecting ballot papers must be construed conjunctively; thus, a ballot paper is only invalid if it lacks both the official mark and the Presiding Officer's signature, and an election is only voidable if the irregularity materially affects the result.
Questions settled- Are ballot papers lacking an official mark but bearing the Presiding Officer's signature invalid under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976?
- Does the statutory requirement for excluding ballot papers require the absence of both the official mark and the Presiding Officer's signature?
- Under what circumstances can an election be declared void under Section 70 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976?
- Ch. MIAN KHAN vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONES, ISLAMABAD1986 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal challenging his compulsory retirement resulting from disciplinary action. The core legal question raised before the court is whether the failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report to a civil servant before taking adverse disciplinary action vitiates the penalty of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention regarding the non-supply of the inquiry report raises a substantial question requiring consideration and granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that an employee facing disciplinary proceedings must be provided with the inquiry report prior to the imposition of a penalty, failing which the matter warrants a detailed examination by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Does the non-supply of an inquiry report to a civil servant before taking adverse disciplinary action vitiate the penalty of compulsory retirement?
- Is a civil servant entitled to receive a copy of the inquiry report prior to the final orders in disciplinary proceedings?
- Ch. MERAJ DIN And Others vs LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST1986 SCMR 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the actions of the Lahore Improvement Trust regarding a private development scheme. The core legal question presented for examination is whether the Lahore Improvement Trust, having previously sanctioned a private scheme submitted by the petitioner, is legally estopped from subsequently pleading a lack of authority to sanction such a scheme or a lack of duty to obtain provincial government approval. Furthermore, the Court is tasked with determining whether the Trust can lawfully ignore its prior sanction when framing future development schemes. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Court granted interim relief, ordering that the land owned by the petitioner at the time of the relevant notification be excluded from the implementation of the impugned scheme. The petitioner was directed to coordinate with the respondent to determine the precise area for exclusion. The Court granted leave to appeal to address these issues of administrative consistency and the binding nature of prior regulatory approvals.
Questions settled- Can a statutory body, having sanctioned a private scheme, subsequently plead lack of authority to sanction it?
- Is a statutory body bound by its prior sanction when framing future development schemes?
- Can a statutory body ignore its own prior approval regarding a private scheme submitted by a petitioner?
- Ch. MEHRAJ DIN AND 01HERSs vs bn LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LAHORE THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN1986 PLD Supreme Court 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the validity of a private housing scheme and the authority of the Lahore Improvement Trust (LIT) to include the subject land in a larger development scheme. The appellants contended that their private scheme, having received technical approval from the LIT, was immutable and could not be superseded. The core legal question was whether the LIT was legally debarred from incorporating land covered by a prior private scheme into its own development scheme framed under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' scheme lacked the requisite government sanction to be considered final. Furthermore, the Court ruled that even a duly sanctioned scheme is not immutable or perpetual. The Court affirmed that the LIT possesses the statutory authority to frame development schemes and incorporate land covered by prior schemes, provided that affected parties are afforded a fair opportunity to represent their case and raise objections. Consequently, the power to execute a scheme inherently includes the power to amend, vary, or rescind prior arrangements, subject to due process.
Questions settled- Can a development scheme framed by the Lahore Improvement Trust include land already covered by a private housing scheme?
- Is a private housing scheme approved by a municipal authority immutable and perpetual?
- Does the power to execute a development scheme include the authority to amend or rescind prior schemes?
- Is government sanction required for a private housing scheme to be considered final under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960?
- Ch. MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL POLICE, PUNJAB And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 236 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
- Ch. KHALID RASHID AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 286 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Ch. KABIR AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, SGA &I DEPTT. And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 204 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
- Ch. IMDAD ALI vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1986 SCMR 1445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition against the cancellation of transfer orders for forty-four evacuee properties. The appellant, having acquired these properties under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, faced cancellation following allegations of procedural irregularities and underpricing. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court erred in upholding the cancellation without addressing the rights of subsequent transferees, failing to consider prior adjudications regarding specific properties, and ignoring the possibility of rectifying price deficiencies rather than cancelling transfers. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s disposal was insufficient. It ruled that the High Court must re-examine the case, specifically addressing the status of alienated properties, the finality of previous decisions, and the appropriateness of cancellation versus requiring payment of price deficiencies. The Court established that where procedural irregularities in auction committees occur, the burden of justification should not rest solely on the purchaser, and that cancellation is not the automatic remedy for unauthorized price reductions where the auction itself was valid.
Questions settled- Whether a court can cancel property transfers without impleading subsequent transferees who have acquired interest in the properties?
- Is cancellation of a property transfer the appropriate remedy when the only irregularity is an unauthorized reduction in the bid price below the reserve price?
- Does a prior judicial decision regarding the legality of a property transfer bar subsequent revisional proceedings by a Settlement Commissioner?
- Can a purchaser be held solely accountable for procedural irregularities in the constitution of an auction committee?
- Ch. GHULAM HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB FORESTRY1986 PLC (S.C.) 293 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ch. FAROOQ AKRAM vs BOARD OF REVENUE1986 MLD 919 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. BARKAT ALI AKHTAR vs Mien MUHAMMAD HANIF1986 P Cr. L J 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- Ch. AURANGZEB AND OTHERS vs Ch. ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERS1986 PLD Azad J & K 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-11-20Read full judgment →
- Ch. ALTAF HUSSAIN And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-14Read full judgment →
- CH. ABDUL WAHEED KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH And OTHER1986 CLC 2052 · Election Tribunal · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL MAJEED vs ELECTION AUTHORITY and others1986 MLD 745(2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL LATIF and others vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD1986 MLD 514 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL AZIZ vs M. K. ABBASI1986 PLD Supreme Court 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller. The petitioner, a landlord, had two concurrent applications against the respondent/tenant: one under Section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for eviction due to default, and another under Section 14 of the same Ordinance for ejectment following the petitioner's retirement. The Section 14 application succeeded, and the tenant vacated the premises. However, the Rent Controller proceeded to determine the quantum of rent in the pending Section 13 application, despite the petitioner's objection that the application had become infructuous upon the vacation of the premises. The High Court upheld the Rent Controller's decision. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller retains jurisdiction to determine ancillary matters, such as the quantum of rent, in an eviction application under Section 13 after the premises have already been vacated by the tenant. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether such an application becomes infructuous upon the vacation of the premises, necessitating a civil suit for rent recovery instead.
Questions settled- Does an eviction application under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 become infructuous once the tenant vacates the premises?
- Does a Rent Controller have jurisdiction to determine the quantum of rent in an eviction application after the tenant has already vacated the premises?
- Must a landlord file a civil suit for recovery of rent if the eviction application becomes infructuous due to the tenant vacating the premises?
- CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs Sardar FAKHR E ALAM And Another1986 SCMR 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Central Government of Pakistan sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed its Regular First Appeal regarding land acquisition compensation. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts erred in determining the market value of the acquired land by treating it as a potential building site rather than agricultural 'Maira' land. The Collector had initially awarded compensation at a lower rate, disregarding the land's potential as a building site despite acknowledging surrounding commercial and residential development. The Senior Civil Judge, upon reference, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000 per Kanal based on evidence, including a local commissioner's report and testimony. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly examined the evidence, noting that the Collector failed to provide cogent reasons for excluding the land's potential as a building site. The Court affirmed that the factual determination of market value, supported by the record and evidence of comparable sales, did not warrant interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, upholding the enhanced compensation awarded to the respondent.
Questions settled- Can land acquired for public purposes be valued as a building site if its location and surrounding development indicate such potential?
- Does the failure of a Land Acquisition Collector to provide cogent reasons for rejecting a specific valuation method justify judicial intervention?
- Is a factual determination of market value by lower courts, based on evidence and local commissioner reports, subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Central Board Of Revenue And Another vs Khan MuhammadPTCL 1986 CL. 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which accepted a constitutional petition and set aside the confiscation of foreign currency belonging to the respondent, an Afghan citizen in transit. The core legal question was whether the respondent's acts constituted an attempt to smuggle foreign currency out of Pakistan or amounted merely to preparation, and whether the constitutional petition was competent. The Supreme Court held that the respondent's act of boarding a domestic flight from Peshawar to Karachi was not an act sufficiently proximate to constitute an attempt to smuggle, but was at best mere preparation, which is not punishable as smuggling. The Court affirmed that there was no legal restriction on importing foreign currency into Pakistan and that departmental confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecutions are independent, concurrent remedies. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- What is the distinction between preparation and an attempt to commit the offence of smuggling under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Does the definition of smuggling under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 include an attempt to bring in or take out goods?
- Are departmental confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecution under the Customs Act mutually exclusive or independent concurrent remedies?
- Does the possession of foreign currency imported into Pakistan without statutory restriction constitute the possession of smuggled goods?
- CEMENTATION INTRAFOR LIMITED And Another vs INDUS VALLEY1986 SCMR 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 18-5-1982, which had allowed an appeal against a High Court order. The original dispute involved an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the respondent to compel the filing of arbitration agreements in court. The High Court had initially accepted the petitioners' appeal solely on the ground that the arbitration agreement was not binding on one of the petitioners, without addressing other legal objections raised by the petitioners. The Supreme Court, in its 1982 judgment, reversed the High Court's finding on the arbitration agreement but failed to address the remaining unresolved legal contentions. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that it committed an error apparent on the face of the record by deciding the appeal in its entirety instead of remanding the case. The Court ruled that when an appellate court reverses a finding on a preliminary issue that led to the dismissal of an appeal, it must remand the case to the lower court to decide the remaining undecided questions of law and fact.
Questions settled- When an appellate court reverses a finding on a preliminary issue that disposed of an appeal, is it required to remand the case for the determination of remaining undecided issues?
- Does a failure by the Supreme Court to remand a case for the determination of outstanding legal questions constitute an error apparent on the face of the record?
- Cdr. ANISUR REHMAN and 5 others vs BAKHSH ILLAHI1986 MLD 310 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
- Captain HABIB FADOO vs S. OIMUDDIN through his Legal Heirs and 3 others1986 MLD 95 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
- CAPT. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ZAPAR vs MULTAN CENTRAL COOPERATIVE DANK1986 PLD Lahore 131 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Capt. Dr. ABDUL WAHAB vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another1986 MLD 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
- CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER And Another vs BURSHANE (PAKISTAN)1986 SCMR 1308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard an appeal concerning whether octroi duty was validly chargeable under a notification dated 31 May 1979 on empty liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders brought repeatedly into the Cantonment Board area for refilling. The respondent company challenged the levy, arguing that octroi duty was payable only once upon initial import, that the notification unlawfully enhanced octroi rates without complying with statutory procedures under Sections 61 and 62 of the Cantonment Boards Act 1924, and that temporary entry for refilling did not constitute 'use'. The High Court had invalidated the notification on the basis of an unprocedural rate enhancement. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's judgment, finding that the revision from Rs. 0.68 per maund to Rs. 0.02 per Kilo was merely a metric conversion pursuant to statutory conversion laws, not an enhancement requiring procedural compliance under Sections 61 and 62. The Court further held that 'use' denotes utilization for a purpose without requiring total consumption, making the cylinders subject to octroi duty each time they were brought into the cantonment limits for refilling.
Questions settled- Does the conversion of an octroi tax rate from imperial weight to metric units constitute a rate enhancement requiring statutory procedural compliance under the Cantonment Boards Act 1924?
- Does bringing empty containers into a cantonment area repeatedly for the purpose of refilling constitute 'use' within the meaning of an octroi duty notification?
- Is octroi duty payable repeatedly each time goods enter a cantonment area for utilization, or is it restricted to a single initial import?
- CAJETAN PINTO vs Dr. (Mrs.) SHIRIN1986 SCMR 1967 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent against a third party, wherein the petitioner sought to be impleaded as a necessary party, claiming to be the actual tenant of the premises and asserting regular payment of rent to the respondent. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application for impleadment, finding that the petitioner failed to establish the status of a tenant and lacked locus standi to participate in the proceedings. Subsequently, an ejectment order was issued against the original respondent. The petitioner challenged both the dismissal of the impleadment application and the ejectment order before the High Court, which dismissed the appeal due to a lack of cogent or satisfactory evidence proving the petitioner's tenancy. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether there were grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the determination of tenancy status is a question of fact, and finding no error in the concurrent decisions of the courts below, it dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the lower courts' findings.
Questions settled- Can a third party be impleaded in ejectment proceedings without establishing a valid tenancy relationship?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding tenancy status?
- Is a person who fails to prove tenancy entitled to join ejectment proceedings as a necessary party?
- C GHULAM NABI vs S.T.A .QADRI1986 MLD 2523 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
- C ALLAH BUKHSH vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2485 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- BUNYAD ALI And 5 Other vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 937 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →