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.

• UNITED BANK LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN1985 PLC 864 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-07Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK Ltd., FAISALABAD vs MAHMOOD-UL-HASSAN1985 PLC 165 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK Ltd. vs SIKANDAR HAYAT CHAUDHRY1985 PLC 159 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR1985 PLC 566 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD MANSHA AND 11 MIMS1985 PLC 843 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD AZIM AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Karachi 215 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-18
  commercial plot allotmentcooperative housing societydouble allotmentcancellation of allotmentpart performancedamages for breach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from five consolidated High Court Appeals involving disputes over the allotment of a commercial plot known as the Nursery Plot by the Pakistan Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The core legal questions concerned whether the Society had the authority to allot the plot without prior approval from the Karachi Development Authority (K.D.A.), whether the initial allotment was provisional or created a permanent right in rem, and whether the subsequent cancellation of the first allottee's plot and resale to a bank constituted a valid transaction or a breach of contract. The Sindh High Court held that the Society possessed full competence to allot the plot under its licence agreement with the government, that the allotment transferred a permanent interest making the doctrine of part performance applicable, and that the Society unlawfully cancelled the valid subsisting allotment in favor of the first allottee under a pre-arranged deal with the bank. The court ruled that the first allottee remained the lawful owner and was entitled to possession and protection, while the bank was entitled to a refund of its deposit, and damages awarded to the first allottee were modified to nominal damages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a cooperative housing society has the power to allot a commercial plot without obtaining prior no-objection clearance from the Karachi Development Authority?
  • Whether an allotment of land by a housing society holding land as a licensee constitutes a mere licence or passes a permanent right in rem to the allottee?
  • Whether a housing society can lawfully cancel a valid subsisting allotment and make a second allotment of the same plot to a third party?
  • Whether interest by way of damages is payable under section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 for merely withholding moneys due without proof of actual loss?
  Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LTD. vs JAFFAR FLOUR & OIL MILLS LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 541 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK Ltd. vs A. HAFEEZ SONS LTD. and 15 others1985 MLD 480 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER vs Syed MUMTAZ HUSSAIN SHAH1985 PLC 630 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-28Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD MARGHOOB USMANI1985 PLC 603 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LIMITED vs INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN and 51985 MLD 1147 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LIMITED through Vice-President vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM BHATTI1985 PLC 442 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-04Read full judgment →
• UNION COUNCIL NO. 16, TEHSIL KHUSHAB vs HABIB TEXTILE MILLS and others1985 CLC 1930 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-04Read full judgment →
• UNION COLD STORAGE WORKERS UNION vs MESSRS UNION COLD STORAGE1985 PLC 1000 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
• UMER SONS LABORATORIES WORKERS UNION through its General Secretary1985 PLC 98 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• UMER DIN vs GHAZANFAR ALl AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 498 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• UMAR HAYAT vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 4 others1985 P Cr. L J 1741 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• UMAR HAYAT KHAN And Others vs GUL KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28
  pre-emptionexemption certificateAdditional CommissionerCommissionerGeneral Clauses Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the validity of a pre-emption exemption certificate issued by an Additional Commissioner rather than the Commissioner himself. The core legal question is whether a certificate issued by an Additional Commissioner regarding the exemption of property sale from the law of pre-emption can be legally deemed as a certificate issued by the Commissioner under the applicable statutory definitions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the view taken by the High Court, based on the statutory definition, is correct and that the Additional Commissioner is included within the definition of Commissioner. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that an Additional Commissioner is empowered to issue a pre-emption exemption certificate as the statutory definition of Commissioner expressly includes an Additional Commissioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of Commissioner under the General Clauses Act 1956 include an Additional Commissioner?
  • Can an Additional Commissioner validly issue a certificate exempting a property sale from the law of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• UMAR HAYAT and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2038 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
• UMAR DIN--Petitioneir vs A.C.KAMALIA and others1985 CLC 2982 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
• UMAR DIN vs Syed MUHAMMAD ABDUL AZIZ SHARQI AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-04
  composite propertyindustrial concernhorizontal divisionsettlement lawsconstitutional petitiondisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the appellant's constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a composite property comprising a printing press on the ground floor and a residential portion on the upper floors under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether a building housing an industrial concern on one floor could be horizontally divided to transfer the upper residential floors independently to a prior allottee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the upper residential portion, having independent access and not being situated within the premises of the industrial concern, could be lawfully divided and transferred separately in accordance with the Act and administrative instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Court laid down that an industrial concern located in only one tenement of a building does not bar the horizontal division and separate transfer of other independent residential tenements, and that the statutory embargo against treating residential buildings situated within the premises of an industrial concern as a house applies only when the residential building falls strictly within the integrated premises of the industrial unit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a composite building containing an industrial concern and residential units can be horizontally divided under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Does the statutory definition of a house under section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 bar the transfer of an upper residential floor as an independent unit when a printing press is located on the ground floor?
  • Are the instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of tenements where an industrial concern is located in only one tenement repugnant to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• UMAR DIN vs SHAMAS DIN and 12 others1985 MLD 1485 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
• UMAR DIN and others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1985 CLC 2900 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-27Read full judgment →
• UMAR DIN (Deceased) through legal heirs representatives and others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1985 MLD 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-18Read full judgment →
• Ujalla Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 345 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
• TUFAIL MUHAMMAD vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1985 MLD 1449 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
• TUFAIL MUHAMMAD MALIK vs LABOUR OFFICER, DAROGHAWALA, LAHORE1985 PLC 339 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-05-28Read full judgment →
• TUFAIL MASIH vs The STATE1985 SCMR 838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-02
  murderdeath sentencecommutation of sentencemotivegrave and sudden provocationstrangulationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of his employer by strangulation, alongside convictions for causing hurt under section 323. The core legal question concerned whether the absence of a proven motive and the presence of verbal abuse and insults by the deceased immediately preceding the incident warranted the commutation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. By majority view, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the conviction based on reliable eyewitness testimony but altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life along with a fine, reasoning that the circumstances revealed a display of bad temper and annoyance arising from insults. The key principle laid down is that while an eyewitness account is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction, mitigating circumstances such as grave annoyance and lack of premeditated motive can justify the substitution of the death penalty with life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a clear motive and the presence of verbal abuse by the deceased can serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a first information report be used as substantive evidence without being put to its maker for corroboration or contradiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the hurling of abusive language by a deceased employer amount to sufficient provocation to deprive a normal person of self-control?
  Read full judgment →
• TRUSTEES OF THE: PORT OF' KARACHI vs Messrs UNITED COTTON AND WOOL1985 CLC 2073 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE WORKMEN represented by the Habib Bank Workers Front, Karachi vs HABIBUDDIN JUNAIDI and 11 others1985 PLC 359 · Labour Court · 1984-03-21Read full judgment →
• THE WEST PUNJAB TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. vs THE WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT1985 MLD 99 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
• THE TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1985 MLD 262 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
• THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HEADQUARTER, LAHORE And Others vs MUHAMMAD LATIF1985 SCMR 885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-18
  writ jurisdictionService Tribunalcivil servantleave to appealjurisdictional barterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction to set aside an order of the Service Tribunal, and whether a civil servant could bypass the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 on the ground that the case did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance. The High Court had held that because the Service Tribunal's order was based on no evidence and violated mandatory police rules, and did not present a substantial question of law of public importance, writ jurisdiction was available. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petition raised a substantial question of law of public importance regarding the scope of the High Court's powers under its writ jurisdiction to set aside orders of the Service Tribunal, and the interpretation of Article 212 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction under its writ jurisdiction to set aside or review orders passed by the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the limitation of an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to substantial questions of law of public importance permit the High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction where no such question is deemed to exist?
  • Can the High Court in its writ jurisdiction reverse a finding of fact rendered by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ZAINUL ABDIN1985 P Cr. L J 1351 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Sardar SHER BAZ KHAN MAZARI1985 P Cr. L J 937 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Sardar ASHIQ MUHAMMAD KHAN MAZARI AND 5 OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 171 [Federal Land Commission] · Federal Land Commission · 1985-08-24Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs SALEEM KHAN1985 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-01Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs RANA PHOOL MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 26[Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-09-09Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs RAIS PHALWAN1985 P Cr. L J 1024 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1985 P Cr. L J 2292 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUNAWARUDDIN and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1431 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUKHTAR alias MOKHI1985 PLD Supreme Court 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-15
  leave to appealculpable homicidemurder convictionocular testimonyappellate interferencesentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the respondent's conviction from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (murder) to Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and reduced his sentence to the period already undergone. The respondent had been convicted by the trial court for the murder of the deceased, supported by ocular testimony, recovery of blood-stained weapons, and motive. The High Court, while accepting the credibility of the prosecution's ocular evidence and circumstantial proof, nonetheless reduced the conviction solely on the premise that the witnesses did not hear the conversation preceding the attack. The Supreme Court found this reasoning insufficient to justify the alteration of the conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court was legally justified in acquitting the respondent of the murder charge and altering the conviction to culpable homicide based on the evidence presented on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Is the absence of evidence regarding the conversation preceding an attack sufficient grounds to reduce a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction under Section 302 to Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when it has otherwise accepted the credibility of the prosecution's ocular and circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 81 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 528 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 960 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR1985 P Cr. L J 1486 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
• The STATE vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others1985 P Cr. L J 2805 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 124 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-22Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD AMIN and others1985 P Cr. L J 472 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 1564 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMIs4AD AKRAM AND 5 OTHERS1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 416 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-22Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Mst. ANWAR ICHATOONPLD 1985 Rev. 147 Federal Land Commission) · Federal Land Commission · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs LUTUF ALI and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 100(2) · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs KHURSHID AHMADPLD 1985 Rev. 47 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1983-07-27Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Kh. MANZOOR AHMAD1985 P Cr. L J 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs IZZAT NOOR1985 P Cr. L J 457 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-06
  dying declarationocular testimonyacquittal appealmedical evidencecriminal procedureburden of proofappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, Izzat Noor, who had been charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Niaz Manan. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the dying declaration and the ocular testimony presented by the prosecution to establish the respondent's guilt. The Court examined whether the deceased was in a conscious state to provide a valid dying declaration, noting that the deceased was found unconscious by independent witnesses and that the medical evidence contradicted the narrative in the dying declaration regarding the nature of the weapons used and the number of injuries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, affirming the trial court's acquittal. The key principles laid down are that a dying declaration must be scrutinized for genuineness, specifically regarding the declarant's mental capacity, consistency with medical evidence, and the absence of external prompting. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that an acquittal order should not be lightly interfered with unless the trial court's conclusion is perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon when the medical evidence contradicts the nature of injuries described therein?
  • Is a dying declaration valid if the declarant was unconscious at the time of the alleged recording?
  • Should an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order if the trial court's assessment of evidence is not perverse?
  • Does the failure to name an eye-witness in the First Information Report render their testimony unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ISHFAQ AHMAD1985 P Cr. L J 2846 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs INAYAT1985 P Cr. L J 386 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-07Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs HASSAN MUHAMMAD1985 P Cr. L J 2490 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Haji AHMAD SULTAN CHANDIO AND 7 OTHERS sPLD 1985 Rev. 41 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs HAIDER SHAH and others1985 P Cr. L J 1488 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs GHULAM SHAH1985 P Cr. L J 2716 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs GHULAM HAIDER1985 P Cr. L J 1226 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs BAHARA and 7 others1985 P Cr. L J 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs AZIZ KHAN and 4 others1985 P Cr. L J 1453 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs AZIZ alias ABDUL AZ1Z1985 PLD Karachi 27 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-10
  bail cancellationfurther inquirynon-bailable offencereasonable groundscommon intentionabscondencestatutory interpretationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed a petition to cancel the bail granted to the respondent, Aziz alias Abdul Aziz, who was implicated in a double murder case under sections 302, 307, 452, and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Additional Sessions Judge had granted bail on the premise that the case called for 'further inquiry' under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the identification of the accused in bulb light. The core legal question was the proper interpretation and application of the expression 'further inquiry' under section 497(2), Cr. P.C. The Sindh High Court held that a finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence is a sine qua non before a court can consider whether 'further inquiry' into the guilt of the accused is warranted. The court set aside the bail order and remanded the matter to the Sessions Judge for a fresh decision, noting the lower court's failure to make the requisite preliminary finding and its disregard of the accused's prolonged abscondence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused has committed a non-bailable offence is a mandatory prerequisite before invoking section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the mere ground that a case requires further inquiry without first recording a negative finding regarding reasonable grounds of guilt?
  • What are the circumstances under which a criminal case can be said to call for 'further inquiry' for the purpose of granting bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the distinction between the implication of the words 'further inquiry' appearing in section 436 versus section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ATTA MUHAMMAD ZAFAR (MAGISTRATE)1985 P Cr. L J 2816 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MINCHINABAD1985 MLD 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ASHIQ MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 634 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-13Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ALI NAWAZ and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 137 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-20Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ABDUL SATTAR and others1985 P Cr. L J 549 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ABBAS SHAH and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 128 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,' BAHAWALNAGAR vs MUHAMMAD SHARIFPLD 1985 Rev. 6 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
• THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SIND, KARACHI vs NASIR KHAN and others1985 PLC 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
• THE SARHAD INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION- vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. INDUSTRIES, COMMERCE, MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, LABOUR AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR1985 PLD Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN (now Sind) and 2 others vs Haji1985 MLD 1197 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-30Read full judgment →
• THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs ZIA Ul HASSAN And 4. Other1985 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-23
  leave to appealland acquisitioncompetency of appealreturn of memorandum of appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against Zia ul Hassan and others, reported as 1985 SCMR 1217. The core legal questions for examination are whether the appeals filed on 11 February 1978 were competently instituted in view of sections 26 and 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the return of the appeal memoranda by the court office for a requirement not mandated by law could curtail a right already properly exercised. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, ordered the interim order to continue, and directed that the appeal be heard on the present record with liberty for parties to file additional documents. The key principle laid down concerns the protection of a properly exercised right of appeal against improper administrative returns by court offices.

  Questions settled

  • Whether appeals filed under the Land Acquisition Act read with Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are competently filed?
  • Can the act of the court office in returning memos of appeal for something not required by law impede or curtail a right of appeal already properly exercised?
  Read full judgment →
• THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Communication & Works1985 MLD 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-22Read full judgment →
• THE PROJECT ENGINEER, MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND ANOTHER vs RASOOL BUX1985 PLC 874 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
• The MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. vs Messrs DASTAGIR INVESTMENTS AND MANAGEMENT LTD. and 3 others1985 CLC 2439 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-13Read full judgment →
• THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND ANOTHERs vs ZAMIR AHMED1985 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
• The MITCHELL'S FRUIT FARMS Ltd., SAHIWAL vs MAQBOOL AHMAD1985 PLC 66 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
• THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, ATTOCK INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL vs PRESIDING1985 PLC 936 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
• THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. vs THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, C-WARD, TRIVANDRUM AND ANOTHER1985 PTD 737 · Kerala High Court · 1983-06-21Read full judgment →
• THE KARACHI FISHERMEN'S COOPERATIVE SOCIETY Ltd., KARACHI vs THE ZAKARIA CORPORATION, KARACHI1985 CLC 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• THE KARACHI FISHERMEN'S COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. vs THE ZAKARIA1985 CLC 1463 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• THE KARACHI FISHERMEN'S COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED vs THE ZAKARIA1985 CLC 2410 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER, ABBOTTABAD vs Mst. SAFIA BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 110 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE AND OTHERS vs ANISURREHMAN KHAN1985 PLD Supreme Court 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-17
  departmental inquirymisconductpolice disciplinecriminal trialservice tribunaladministrative discretionshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the dismissal of two police officers following allegations of misconduct. The core legal question was whether the competent authority was legally obligated to await the outcome of a criminal trial before initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings, and whether the authority’s decision to adopt summary proceedings instead of a regular inquiry was valid. The Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings and criminal trials are distinct in scope and purpose; thus, the authority is not required to await a judicial verdict. The Court affirmed that under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the competent authority possesses the discretion to determine the mode of inquiry based on the facts and circumstances, and this discretion is not controlled by the officer's past service record or external press reports. The principle laid down is that departmental disciplinary action is independent of criminal prosecution, and the choice of procedural mechanism (summary versus regular inquiry) rests with the competent authority, provided it is exercised fairly and not perversely. The Tribunal's interference with this administrative discretion was deemed legally unjustified.

  Questions settled

  • Is a competent authority legally required to await the outcome of a criminal trial before initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  • Does the scope of a departmental inquiry necessarily coincide with the scope of a criminal trial?
  • Can a Service Tribunal interfere with the discretion of a competent authority to choose between summary proceedings and a regular inquiry under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  • Are an officer's past service record and press reports relevant factors in determining the type of departmental inquiry to be conducted?
  Read full judgment →
• The COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KARACHI (East) vs K.R. BYRAMJI1985 PTD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Sales Tax/Income Tax (Central Zone), Karachi. vsPTCL 1985 (CL.) 460 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX/IMCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI1985 PTD 312 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI (Now1985 SCMR 1908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-23
  sales taxconcurrent findings of factincome-tax referenceappellate jurisdictiontax exemptiongenuineness of sales
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals were directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning income-tax references. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the genuineness of sales and the status of purchasers as licensees under the Sales Tax Act. The Department argued that the Sales Tax Officer had conducted an inquiry and made findings against the respondent, which the appellate forums had overturned. The Supreme Court held that the Department failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the findings of the appellate forums. The Court emphasized that the findings subject to review before the High Court were those of the appellate forums, not the initial Sales Tax Officer. Since the Department could not show that the appellate findings suffered from any legal error, the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal in a tax reference?
  • Does the failure of the Department to show legal infirmity in appellate findings justify the dismissal of an appeal against a High Court judgment?
  • Are findings of fact made by appellate forums in tax matters subject to interference by the High Court if they do not suffer from legal infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Sales Tax Lahore Zone, Lahore. vs M/S. S. MuhammadPTCL 1985 (CL.) 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-19
  limitationcondonation of delaypetition for leave to appealcertificate of fitnessincome tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax Lahore Zone, Lahore, against an order of the Lahore High Court dated 11-5-1973. The petition was filed on 28-7-1976, resulting in a delay of 954 days. The core legal question addressed is whether the time spent pursuing an incompetent application for a certificate of fitness under Section 66-A of the Income Tax Act can be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Court held that since the certificate application was refused on the ground of incompetence and that determination was not challenged, the time spent thereon cannot be excluded, rendering the petition hopelessly time-barred. The petition was accordingly dismissed on the ground of limitation, establishing that time spent on incompetent proceedings cannot be excluded for limitation purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Can the time spent in prosecuting an incompetent application for a certificate of fitness be excluded for limitation purposes?
  • What is the effect of failing to challenge the determination that an application for a certificate of fitness is not competent?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,KARACHI (WEST). KARACHI vs Messrs1985 PTD 198 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-23Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST ZONE, KARACHI vs MESSRS SIND1985 PTD 515 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NASIK (NOW COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NAGPUR) vs MESSRS AGRAWAL TRADING Co., AKOLA1985 PTD 841 · Bombay High Court · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI vs Messrs MAZHIR &1985 PTD 144 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI vs FAZAL1985 PTD 189 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
• The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (WEST ZONE), KARACHI vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD1985 PTD 28 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →