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.

• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EAST ZONE, KARACHI vs ATTA1985 PTD 874 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-20Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY IV vs THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, BOMBAY1985 PTD 844 · Bombay High Court · 1982-06-24Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (WEST ZONE), KARACHI vs ABDULLAH1985 PTD 188 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs Messrs SMITH KLINE & FRENCH OF PAKISTAN Ltd1985 PTD 297 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-23Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs Messrs RECKITT & COLMAN OF PAKISTAN Ltd1985 PTD 298 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-16Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs Messrs PAKISTAN PROGRESSIVE1985 PTD 359 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SALES TAX, EAST ZONE, KARACHI vs MESSRS 0. K. MOTORS1985 PTD 513 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (WEST ZONE), KARACHI vs A. J.1985 PTD 508 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-10Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Lahore. vs Soli M.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 467 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION), LAHORE vs SOLI M.1985 PTD 401 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EAST ZONE) KARACHI AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS MUHAMMADI RE-ROLLING MILLS, OLD HAJI CAMP, KARACHI, .(1985 PTD 767 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-05Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI vs MESSRS1985 PTD 509 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI vs MESSRS1985 PTD 662 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI vs MESSRS1985 PTD 653 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-25Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income Tax. vs M/S. Smith Kline & French Of PakistanPTCL 1985 (CL) 60 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income Tax, vs M/S. Abdul Karim TransportPTCL 1985 (CL.) 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  territorial jurisdictionincome tax assessmentprincipal place of businesstax return disclosurestatutory barIncome Tax Act 1922
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer, Gujranwala, to assess the respondent for the 1963-64 assessment year. The respondent had initially disclosed its principal place of business as Gujrat in its tax return. Following administrative bifurcations of tax circles, the case was transferred to the Gujranwala Circle. Although the respondent initially objected to the transfer, it did not pursue the matter until the appellate stage before the Income Tax Tribunal, which annulled the assessment for lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the assessee was barred from challenging territorial jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act, 1922, given the disclosure of its business location in the return. The Supreme Court held that the second proviso to Section 64(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, precluded the assessee from questioning the place of assessment once it had declared its principal place of business in the return. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the Tribunal was not legally justified in annulling the assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Is an assessee precluded from challenging the territorial jurisdiction of an Income Tax Officer if the assessee declared the principal place of business in its tax return?
  • Does the second proviso to Section 64(3) of the Income Tax Act 1922 bar an assessee from questioning the place of assessment after declaring its business location?
  • Can an objection to territorial jurisdiction, once abandoned by an assessee during assessment proceedings, be revived at the appellate stage before the Income Tax Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi vs Fazal PeeraPTCL 1985 (CL.) 208 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karachi (West Zone), Karachi. vs FaqirPTCL 1985 (CL.) 154 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs R. G. CHAPMAN1985 PLD Supreme Court 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-14
  earned income reliefnon-resident assesseetotal incomecharging sectionincome tax deductionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a common judgment of the High Court of Sind concerning whether a non-resident assessee was entitled to earned income relief under section 15-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, despite the provisions of section 17(1) of the Act. The core legal question was whether section 17(1) as a charging section permits the deduction of earned income allowance under section 15-A. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court and the Tribunal were correct in determining that earned income relief is allowable under the statutory scheme, as 'total income' is computed in the manner laid down in the Act, which includes deductions and allowances such as those under section 15-A. The Court ruled that no repugnancy existed between section 17 and section 15-A prior to the specific restrictive amendment introduced later by the Finance Act of 1965. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a non-resident assessee liable to pay tax at the maximum rate is entitled to earned income relief under section 15-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • Does section 17(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, exclude the deduction of earned income allowance?
  • How is the expression 'total income' to be construed in the context of computation provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF 1NCOME-TAX vs MESSRS CIBA (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI1985 PTD 651 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-10Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF .INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI vs Messrs1985 PTD 389 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER 'OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI vs MESSRS ABDUL KARIM1985 PLD Supreme Court 271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-28
  territorial jurisdictionincome-tax assessmentprincipal place of businessstatutory bartax returnnullity of assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns whether an income-tax assessment was a nullity due to the Income-tax Officer's lack of territorial jurisdiction. The respondent-assessee filed a return disclosing its principal place of business in Gujrat. Following the bifurcation of administrative circles, the case was transferred to the Gujranwala Circle. Although the assessee initially objected to the transfer, the objection was not pursued until the matter reached the Income-tax Tribunal, which annulled the assessment. The core legal question was whether the assessee, having declared its principal place of business in its return, was statutorily barred from challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the assessment officer under the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court held that the assessment was valid. The Court ruled that under the second proviso to section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act, an assessee who has declared their principal place of business in a return is precluded from subsequently challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Consequently, the Tribunal was not legally justified in annulling the assessment, and the High Court's judgment affirming the Tribunal was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can an assessee challenge the territorial jurisdiction of an Income-tax Officer after having declared a specific principal place of business in their tax return?
  • Does the second proviso to section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act preclude an assessee from questioning the place of assessment if they have stated their principal place of business in their return?
  • Is an assessment order a nullity if the assessee fails to pursue an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction during the assessment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI vs ISMAIL ADAMJEE1985 PTD 157 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
• THE COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS vs ASLAM ALI SHAH1985 PLD Supreme Court 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-28
  service tribunalterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of high courtrepresentation by counseldisciplinary proceedingscivil servantconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by the departmental authorities challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which held that a civil servant facing departmental inquiry proceedings is entitled to be represented by a counsel despite rule 10-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether the High Court had the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain a writ petition regarding interlocutory matters pertaining to terms and conditions of service, specifically representation by counsel in disciplinary proceedings, or if such matters fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including disciplinary proceedings, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212(2) of the Constitution, ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court laid down the principle that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitions or interfere with interlocutory departmental orders concerning the terms and conditions of service of civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain a writ petition concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Whether matters relating to disciplinary proceedings and service terms fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a civil servant invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against an interlocutory order passed in departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• THOMAS D'souza vs LOUIS D SILVA1985 SCMR 1664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-10
  ejectmentex parte orderabsentee tenantsub-lettingpower of attorneyrent controllerleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of an appeal by the Sind High Court, which upheld an ex parte order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. The respondent-landlord had filed an ejectment application against his tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent and unauthorized sub-letting. Notice was served on the tenant by publication, whereupon advocates filed a vakalatnama signed by the petitioner, who claimed to be the tenant's agent and attorney. The petitioner's application to be joined as a party was dismissed, and subsequently, an ex parte ejectment order was passed when no written statement was filed. The core legal question concerns the competency of ejectment proceedings against an absentee tenant and the executability of an ex parte eviction order against an agent. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment application was competent notwithstanding the tenant's absence, and the High Court committed no illegality in upholding the ex parte order. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that an absentee tenant's proceedings remain competent and an attorney acting for the tenant cannot claim independent occupation to defeat an ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment application against an absentee tenant is competent?
  • Can an ex parte order of eviction be passed when no written statement is filed by the tenant or his authorized agent?
  • Does an agent and attorney holding a power of attorney for a tenant occupy the premises in an independent capacity?
  Read full judgment →
• THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF And Other1985 SCMR 694 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-07
  settlement proceedingsnotified officerevacuee propertyexecutive directionjurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Chief Settlement Commissioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a constitutional petition, declaring certain orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue to be without lawful authority. The core legal question concerned whether a notified officer under the evacuee laws could delegate or refer a matter for final decision to the Chief Settlement Commissioner instead of deciding it personally, and whether executive instructions could override statutory duties. The Supreme Court held that the notified officer was legally bound to dispose of the matter finally and could not abstain from exercising jurisdiction, nor could executive directions erode or curtail the statutory powers conferred by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that statutory mandates cannot be bypassed by administrative circulars.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a notified officer can refer a matter required to be decided under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act), 1958 to the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
  • Can executive directions override the provisions of the Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  • Is a notified officer bound to dispose of a pending proceeding finally under the repealed evacuee laws?
  Read full judgment →
• THE CHAIRMAN,EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE vs THE SETTLEMENT1985 SCMR 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-15
  evacuee trust propertyallotment cancellationjurisdiction of ChairmanWaqf propertyleave to appealstatus quoDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the status of land measuring 186-1/2 Kanals in District Sargodha. The petitioner, the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board, contends the land is evacuee trust property, having devolved from Guru to Chela until 1947, and subsequently vested in the Board. The core legal question is whether the determination of the property's status as evacuee trust property, and the assessment of the bona fide nature of its prior allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these submissions, noting that the petitioner had not been a party to earlier departmental proceedings. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding the alienation of the property by the respondent allottee pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board have the exclusive authority to determine whether a property is evacuee trust property under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
  • Is the decision regarding the bona fide nature of an allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 vested in the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board?
  Read full judgment →
• THE CHAIRMAN PAKISTAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, ISLAMABAD and 2 others vs NASIR AHMAD and another1985 MLD 1119 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
• THE ADMINISTRATOR THAL DEVELOPMENT, BHAKKAR vs SHER MUHAMMAD1985 MLD 139 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
• THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX M, P., BHOPAL vs MESSSR1985 PTD 625 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
• THARAJ vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1985 CLC 1871 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
• THAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION vs THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others1985 MLD 1463 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
• TH.E STATE vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM1985 PLD Peshawar 116 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• TEHMAS KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs Mst. BASTARI1985 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
• TAYYAB HUSSAIN vs RELIEF COMMISSIONER and another1985 CLC 2024 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• Tayaba Enterprises vs Collector Of Customs Lahore.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 285 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
• TAUQIR ALAM and 9 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 604 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• TAUQIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1475 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
• TAUQEER HYDER vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 927 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
• TASADDAQ ELAHI and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2226 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
• TARIQ NOOR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE1985 PLC (C.S.) 1018 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• TARIQ MEHMOOD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 484 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-06-24Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
• TARIQ JAMEEL vs SUFI SOAP CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LAHORE and 2 others1985 PLC 214 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
• TARIQ HAMEED vs INAMULLAH HASHMI and another1985 PLC 51 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
• TARIQ ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 996 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• TANZEEM-E-NAU BROTHERAN-E-QURAISH vs MARTIN FIALHO through his1985 MLD 332 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• TANWIR AHMAD and 4 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
• TANVEER ZAMAN vs UNITED BANK Ltd.1985 PLC 380 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• TANVEER HUSAIN alias Bhaiya and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 266 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
• TANVEER AHMED vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1985 PLC 651 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• TALIB vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2025 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-05Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN vs Mst.BASHIRAN BIBI and 2 others1985 CLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN vs MIR MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 35[Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN And Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And Other1985 SCMR 1375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25
  constitutional petitionmutationallotment of landdelay in filingleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a constitutional petition before the High Court challenging the attestation of a mutation treating Mst. Begum Bibi as a full owner of allotted property, which order was maintained up to the Board of Revenue. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of a four-year delay in filing and the subsequent cancellation of the allotment as being in excess of her entitlement. In seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the delay was excusable due to unclear legal positions regarding allotted property, subsequently addressed by Punjab Act 25 of 1975, and disputed the record regarding the cancellation of the allotment. The Supreme Court held that the petition raised a question of law requiring further consideration and consequently granted leave to appeal, subject to furnishing security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delay of four years in filing a constitutional petition against a revenue mutation order can be condoned when the underlying legal position about allotted property was unclear?
  • Does the subsequent cancellation of a land allotment affect pending proceedings regarding the attestation of a mutation treating the allottee as full owner?
  Read full judgment →
• TALAT MAHMOOD vs PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, LAHORE and 4 others1985 MLD 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
• TAJAMAL HUSSAIN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 25 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 848 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2857 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-12Read full judgment →
• TAJ DIN vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and 2 others1985 MLD 560 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
• TAJ AHMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MUZAFFARGARH and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 30 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• TAHIR SHAIKH vs AHMAD A. DAMA1985 CLC 993 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
• TAHIR SHAH and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 679 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-11-21Read full judgment →
• T.M. MULLICK vs SULTANA BEGUM1985 CLC 2001 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• T AJU DDIN vs Haji MUSHTAQUE and another1985 CLC 2182 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-05
  interim injunctiondesign infringementregistered designnoveltypatents and designscopyright in design
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved an application for a temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's registered design for bronze coffee pots under the Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The core legal question was whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted in an infringement action where the defendants bona fide challenge the validity and novelty of a recently registered design obtained ex parte without prior notice. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application for injunction, holding that where the validity of a recent design registration is seriously and bona fide contested on grounds that it is neither new nor original nor previously unpublished, the ex parte registration loses its initial evidentiary impact, and an interlocutory injunction ought not to be issued. The court reasoned that balancing the injury, the plaintiff could be adequately compensated through accounts of profits if the suit succeeded, whereas the defendants would suffer irreparable injury if a monopoly were wrongly enforced pendente lite. The key principle laid down is that courts will refuse temporary injunctions in design infringement suits involving recent, ex parte registrations when the defendant raises a credible challenge to the novelty and validity of the design.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interlocutory injunction can be granted in an action for the infringement of a design when the defendant bona fide challenges the validity and novelty of a recent registration?
  • Does an ex parte registration of a design under the Patents and Designs Act create an absolute prima facie right to an interim injunction regardless of a challenge to its validity?
  • What is the effect of a challenge to the novelty or prior publication of a design on the evidentiary value of its registration at the interim stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed ZARIEF ZAIDI vs Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL FABRICATING CO. LTD.1985 PLC 433 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAMIN HUSSAIN ABIDI vs Mst. MUBARAK BANO and 2 others1985 CLC 663 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAKIR HUSSAIN MASHHADI and 9 others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1985 MLD 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-30Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAFAR ALI SHAH AND OTHERS vs NASIR ALI RAZA AND OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• Syed WAJID ALI SHAH And Another vs THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND1985 SCMR 370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-18
  land reformsfederal land commissionprovincial governmentlease cancellationconstitutional petitionproprietary rightsrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through leave of the Supreme Court challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition against an order of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, which had cancelled a lease granted to the appellants by the Provincial Government under the Land Reforms Regulation No. 115. The core legal question concerned whether the Federal Land Commission possessed the jurisdiction to interfere with and cancel a lease of state-owned land granted by the Provincial Government under paragraph 19 of the Regulation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgments, holding that land resumed under paragraph 15 of Land Reforms Regulation No. 115 vests in the Provincial Government in its proprietary capacity, and authorities under the Regulation cannot exercise jurisdiction over such proprietary interests. The Court laid down the principle that the ownership and leasing powers of the Provincial Government regarding resumed state lands under paragraph 19 remain unaffected by the Land Reforms Regulation, rendering interference by the Federal Land Commission unlawful.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Land Commission can exercise revisional jurisdiction over state land leased by the Provincial Government under paragraph 19 of Land Reforms Regulation No. 115?
  • Do the authorities established under Land Reforms Regulation No. 115 have jurisdiction over the proprietary interests and land ownership rights of the Provincial Government?
  • Does paragraph 18 of Land Reforms Regulation No. 115 apply to land that vested in the Government under paragraph 15 of the Regulation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed TAUSIF AHMED ZAIDI vs Mst. NAHEEDA NIGHAT1985 SCMR 1602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-06
  landlord and tenant relationshiprent evictionappreciation of evidencesecond appealdocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a rent dispute where the Rent Controller initially dismissed the respondent's eviction application, finding no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Additional District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, concluding that the respondent was the owner and the petitioner was indeed her tenant, a finding subsequently upheld by the High Court upon a second appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of the evidence regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower appellate court and the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence. The Court emphasized that documentary evidence, specifically a document executed by the respondent to facilitate the petitioner's issuance of a ration card as a tenant, conclusively established the relationship. The principle laid down is that where documentary evidence, such as a document used by a tenant to obtain official benefits, corroborates the landlord's claim, it serves as cogent proof of the tenancy relationship in the absence of rebuttal evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a document executed by a landlord to facilitate a tenant's ration card issuance constitute sufficient proof of a landlord-tenant relationship?
  • Can a High Court in second appeal uphold a finding of fact regarding a tenancy relationship based on an independent reappraisal of evidence?
  • Is the absence of rebuttal evidence by a tenant significant when the landlord has produced cogent documentary proof of the tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed TASNEEM HUSSAIN vs THE SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another1985 PLC 529 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed TASLEEM AHMAD SHAH vs SAJAWAL KHAN Etc.1985 SCMR 585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-23
  specific performanceadjournmentclosing of evidencesecond appealleave to appealremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal in limine of the petitioner's second appeal concerning a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question involves the proper interpretation and applicability of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the closing of a party's evidence upon default following an adjournment. The trial court had closed the defendants' evidence and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court set aside the judgment and remanded the case for fresh decision after allowing the defendants to lead evidence, a view upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 apply only where an adjournment has been granted to a party at its own instance to produce evidence or perform an act, which was not the case here since the adjournment had been requested by the plaintiff. Furthermore, as the evidence of both parties had concluded before the trial court during the pendency of proceedings, a decision on merits was most appropriate. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when an adjournment was granted at the request of the opposite party rather than the defaulting party?
  • Whether an appellate court is justified in setting aside a trial court's judgment that prematurely closed a party's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can leave to appeal be refused when subsequent events during the pendency of proceedings, such as the completion of evidence, render a technical interference unnecessary?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SULTAN SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN And Another1985 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-20
  pro forma promotionarrears of payback benefitsservice tribunalwrongful withholding of promotionFundamental Rule 17seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan arose from the judgment of the Service Tribunal Baluchistan, which had denied the appellant arrears of pay following his pro forma promotion as Tehsildar from 26-10-1968, relying on Fundamental Rule 17. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, granted pro forma promotion after being wrongfully kept back from promotion due to departmental proceedings, can be lawfully denied the arrears of pay and allowances of the higher post under Fundamental Rule 17. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, holding that Fundamental Rule 17 cannot be invoked to justify or perpetuate a wrongful act by the authorities. The Court laid down the principle that when an official is wrongly prevented from rendering service in a higher post to which they were admittedly entitled, the logical consequence of granting pro forma promotion and ante-dated seniority is the allowance of all ancillary financial benefits, including arrears of salary, unless valid ex officio justification exists for denial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant granted pro forma promotion is entitled to arrears of pay for the period of such promotion under Fundamental Rule 17?
  • Can the authorities invoke Fundamental Rule 17 to deny financial benefits when an official is wrongfully kept back from promotion?
  • What are the logical consequences of granting pro forma promotion and ante-dated seniority regarding ancillary financial benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SULTAN ALI SHAH vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1985 P Cr. L J 1720 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAUKAT HUSSAIN BUKHARI vs COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION1985 PLC (C.S.) 570 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-03Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAH HASSAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 220 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAFI SHAH And Others vs MAKHDUM UL MULK SYED GHULAM MIRAN1985 SCMR 1794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-20
  constitutional petitionright of hearingland reformsrevisionreview petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition is directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court passed in a constitutional petition. The core legal question revolves around whether an order passed by the Chief Land Commissioner in revision without providing an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties violates procedural requirements and renders the order a nullity. The Supreme Court held that since the impugned High Court judgment proceeded on an agreed premise between the parties that the Chief Land Commissioner disregarded sub-rule (3) of rule 12 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959 by failing to grant a hearing, the High Court correctly set aside the order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does failure to provide a hearing in revision proceedings render an order of the Chief Land Commissioner a nullity under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that proceeds on an agreed premise between the contesting parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SAFDAR ALI vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1941 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-07
  briberycorruptionreasonable doubtappreciation of evidencecriminal appealtainted moneyfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, a Head Clerk, for accepting a bribe under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the defence's plea of false implication due to enmity. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. The Court noted significant discrepancies in the testimony regarding the signaling process and the appellant's actions during the raid. Furthermore, the Court found the defence's contention that the complainant may have stealthily placed the money in the drawer to be plausible. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, emphasizing that when prosecution evidence is inconsistent and fails to rule out the possibility of a frame-up in the face of established enmity, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material discrepancy in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the signaling process during a trap raid warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a conviction for bribery be sustained when the defence establishes a plausible motive for false implication and the prosecution evidence is inconsistent?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt applicable when the prosecution fails to prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs DIRECTOR, SOIL CONSERVATION, PUNJAB, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 572 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
• Syed QASIM vs RESIDENT ENGINEER,PAK. P.W.D. and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 438 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
• Syed QAMAR SHAH vs THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE VICEPRESIDENT AND MEMBER, EXECUTIVE BOARD, ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 106 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed QAMAR RAZA vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2804 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• Syed PIR KAMAL vs MUNIR SHAH And Other1985 SCMR 1466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-18
  acquittalocular testimonyappreciation of evidencecriminal appealforensic evidencewitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents Munir Shah and Hassan Shah, who were accused of murdering Mazhar Abbas. The prosecution alleged that the respondents fired fatal shots at the deceased while he slept in his 'Bethak'. The trial court had convicted the respondents, but the High Court acquitted them, finding the ocular testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses unreliable and the recovery of the crime weapons suspicious. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's reappraisal of the evidence was legally flawed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court provided adequate, reasoned grounds for disbelieving the presence of the eyewitnesses, noting their inability to explain their presence at the scene and contradictions regarding the crime scene conditions. Furthermore, the Court upheld the High Court's rejection of the forensic evidence, noting the improbable manner of weapon recovery and the potential for planting evidence. The Court affirmed that an appellate court's reappraisal of evidence, when based on sound reasoning, cannot be lightly set aside. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court's acquittal based on a reappraisal of evidence be set aside if the court provided adequate reasons for its conclusion?
  • Does the failure of eyewitnesses to provide a reasonable explanation for their presence at the scene of a crime justify rejecting their testimony?
  • Is the recovery of crime weapons and matching empties reliable if the manner of production is found to be highly improbable?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed NOOR NABI SHAH vs VICE-CHAIRMAN (WATCH & WARD,P.W. RAILWAY)1985 PLC (C.S.) 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
• Syed NOOR MUHAMMAD SHAH vs THE STATE1985 PLD Peshawar 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-22Read full judgment →
• Syed NOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2563 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• Syed NISAR AHMED SHAH vs HASHIMPLD 1985 Rev. 34 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1984-07-14Read full judgment →
• SYED NAZIM HUSSAIN SHAH vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1985 PLC 730 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• Syed NAWAZISH ALI vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI1985 PLC (C.S.) 861 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
• Syed NASIR KHUSRO JAFFERY vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB LAHORE AND 81985 PLC (C.S.) 658 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
• Syed NASIM ASGHAR vs WALT MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 531 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-07Read full judgment →
• Syed MUNEEB NAZIR SHAH vs AZAD KASHMIR GOVERNMENT THROUGH ITS1985 PLD Azad J& K 17 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-07-07Read full judgment →
• Syed MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs The PUNJAB PROVINCE through Home secretary, and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 122 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
• Syed MUJTABA HUSSAIN ABIDI vs FEROZUDDIN ZAKAI1985 PLD Karachi 663 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-31Read full judgment →
• Syed MUJTABA AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 185 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD YOUSAF SHAH vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 CLC 2877 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD WAJID ALI SHAH vs MANAGING DIRECTOR (P) WAPDA, LAHORE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 1112 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-09-10Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT and 3 others1985 MLD 1179 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD MUKARRAM And Others And Syed MUHAMMAD1985 SCMR 1490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD vs NAEEM ALI MUHAMMAD1985 CLC 3015 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-17
  trademark infringementpassing offinterim injunctionprior userregistered proprietorintellectual propertylikelihood of confusion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order granting an interim injunction in a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The appellant challenged the restraint on using a trade mark similar to the respondent's registered marks. The core legal question was whether the respondent, as the registered proprietor, was entitled to an interim injunction and whether the appellant had established a superior claim through prior user. The court held that the respondent, being the registered proprietor, established a prima facie case of infringement. The court found that the appellant’s evidence of prior user—consisting merely of two calendars—was insufficient to rebut the respondent's claim. Furthermore, the court observed that the similarities in calligraphy, get-up, and colour scheme were likely to cause confusion and deception in the mind of an unwary purchaser. Consequently, the court upheld the interim injunction, affirming that the registered proprietor's rights prevail absent compelling evidence of prior user by the defendant. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can an interim injunction be granted in a trademark infringement suit where the plaintiff is the registered proprietor?
  • Does the production of minimal evidence, such as two calendars, suffice to establish prior user of a trademark against a registered proprietor?
  • Is a device common to the trade sufficient to defeat an infringement claim if the overall get-up and design cause confusion?
  • Can an appellate court maintain an interim injunction if the appellant fails to provide prima facie evidence of prior user?
  Read full judgment →