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.
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs QAMAR-UL-ISLAM1985 PLC 625 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs NISAR AHMAD1985 PLC 522 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM1985 PLC 318 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-05-27Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs DOST MUHAMMAD ,1985 PLC 518 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs B.D BURNEY And Another1985 SCMR 910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the decision of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of respondent No.1. The core legal question concerns the rights of a retrenched employee under labour laws to be re-employed when a vacancy subsequently arises, rather than having a junior employee promoted. The Supreme Court held that the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was fully in consonance with the law and did not suffer from any legal error. The key principle laid down is that under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, retrenched workmen have a preferential right to re-employment over other persons when the employer proposes to fill vacancies within the prescribed period following retrenchment.
Questions settled- Whether a retrenched employee has a preferential right to re-employment when a vacancy arises within one year of retrenchment?
- Does the promotion of a junior employee to a post instead of recalling a retrenched workman violate labour laws?
- Whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to set aside a retrenchment order based on subsequent vacancies?
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs AKHTAR ALI1985 PLC 163 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD through its General Manager vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHAH1985 PLC 96 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD through its General Manager (Admn.), Lahore vs Syed WAJID HUSSAIN GILLANI1985 PLC 102 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD through its Distt. Manager, Govt.1985 PLC 103 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD through its District Manager, Government1985 PLC 71 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER, LAHORE vs QAMAR RAZA ZAIDI ,1985 PLC 568 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD through District Manager Government1985 PLC 16 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD LAHORE through District Manager, G.T .S., Lahore vs ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LABOUR UNION, PUNJAB, Lahore and 26 others1985 PLC 24 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB LIVESTOCK, DAIRY AND POULTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAHORE vs Sh.1985 SCMR 1729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed against a statutory corporation in a civil suit for monetary recovery. The core legal questions involve the competency of the application to set aside the ex parte decree, the sufficiency of service by registered post, and the proper exercise of judicial mind by the trial court under procedural law when proceeding ex parte. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal for an authoritative pronouncement on the subject, ordering the investment of the decretal amount in Khas Deposit Certificates and staying execution proceedings in the interim.
Questions settled- Whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree was competently filed by a statutory corporation?
- Did the trial court properly apply its mind while proceeding ex parte under Order IX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether service of notice by registered post was legally sufficient in the circumstances of the case?
- PUNJAB LIVESTOCK, DAIRY & POULTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAHORE and another vs LAHORE MILK PLANT WORKERS' UNION1985 PLC 507 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB GOVERNMENT and others vs SALEEM-UR-REHMAN and others1985 PLC (C.S.) 112 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION vs AZHAR1985 PLC 852 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION1985 PLC 201 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT and another vs Mir HASSAN HAJI1985 MLD 459 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN (Punjab) through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department and another vs M ia 11 ABDUL HAMID & CO1985 CLC 1170 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenged a trial court order that made an arbitration award a rule of court and passed a decree in favor of the respondent contractor. The core legal question was whether the statutory requirement of notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, necessitates a formal written notice served personally on the party, or if oral notice or notice to the party's counsel in open court constitutes sufficient compliance to trigger the limitation period for filing objections under Article 158 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court held that Section 14(2) does not mandate a formal written notice. It affirmed that notice given orally to the parties or their authorized counsel in open court, informing them of the filing of the award, constitutes valid and sufficient notice. The key principle laid down is that notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, can be oral or constructive, and communication of the filing of the award to a party's pleader in court is legally sufficient to commence the limitation period for filing objections.
Questions settled- Does Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 require a formal written notice to be served personally on a party regarding the filing of an award?
- Can oral notice or notice given to a party's counsel in open court satisfy the requirement of notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Does the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitration award under Article 158 of the Limitation Act, 1908, commence upon constructive knowledge of the award's filing?
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB vs Messrs ELECTROGAS1985 MLD 251 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Irrigation and Works, Lahore1985 PLC 23 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through Collector, Sheikhupura vs ANJUMAN1985 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Others vs Syed ABBAS HUSSAIN SHAH And Other1985 SCMR 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of the Punjab against a judgment of the High Court. The respondent, a declarant under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959, possessed excess land units and was permitted by Land Commission authorities in 1961 to gift this excess area to his daughter. However, the transaction was never completed, and the respondent retained ownership and possession of the land until he sold it in 1969. Upon the sale, Land Commission authorities reopened the matter, determining the gift was incomplete and the land remained with the respondent. A learned Single Judge of the High Court reversed this finding in a writ petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court was legally justified in concluding that the respondent's mere declaration of intent to transfer the excess area was sufficient to constitute a valid gift, despite the lack of completion of the transaction and the respondent's continued exercise of ownership rights over the property.
Questions settled- Whether a mere declaration of intention to transfer excess land under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959 constitutes a completed gift?
- Can a gift of land be considered valid if the transaction was never completed and the donor retained possession and ownership?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs BASHIR AHMAD NASIR1985 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Government of Punjab sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent Magistrate's appeal and expunged adverse remarks regarding his integrity recorded in his character roll for the period between 1-1-1975 and 5-6-1975. The core legal question was whether a service appeal before the Tribunal was competent regarding the expunction of adverse remarks, and whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the refusal to expunge the remarks. The Supreme Court held that the matter of recording and expunction of adverse remarks in annual confidential reports relates to the terms and conditions of service under the applicable rules and instructions, making the service appeal competent. Furthermore, the Court held that the Tribunal's factual finding that the authorities acted arbitrarily in refusing to expunge the 1975 remarks while expunging nearly identical 1974 remarks by the same reporting officers was unexceptionable. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the recording and expunction of adverse remarks in annual confidential reports constitute a matter concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
- Does a Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the refusal of the government to expunge adverse remarks?
- Can adverse remarks be retained when similar remarks for an adjacent period by the same reporting officers have been expunged without distinguishing reasons?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through The Chief Conservator Of Forests, Punjaband Others vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Other1985 SCMR 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the unilateral cancellation of a timber auction sale. The respondents were the highest bidders at a public auction held by the Divisional Forest Officer on June 5, 1978, which bids were formally accepted on June 7, 1978. Subsequently, the Chief Conservator of Forests unilaterally cancelled the transaction. The core legal question was whether the competent authority could unilaterally cancel a completed sale transaction without lawful justification. The Supreme Court held that since the sale transaction was fully completed, the Chief Conservator had no right or scope in law to cancel it unilaterally, especially when the grounds urged before the Supreme Court were neither part of the original cancellation order nor raised before the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that completed government auction sales cannot be arbitrarily undone.
Questions settled- Can a competent authority unilaterally cancel a completed public auction sale transaction?
- Whether a plea not raised before the High Court or in the original order can be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Secretary To Government Of The Punjab1985 SCMR 1800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Province of Punjab, filed a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which had declared the termination of the respondent's service vide order dated 3-12-1966 to be illegal, void, and of no legal effect, and dismissed the petitioner's subsequent appeal and revision. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in declaring the service termination unlawful. The Supreme Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and held that no question of law or principle of general importance had been violated by the courts below. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower forums.
Questions settled- Whether the termination of service declared void by lower courts warranted interference by the Supreme Court?
- Did the courts below violate any law or principle of general importance in decreeing the respondent's suit regarding illegal termination?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH EDUCATION SECRETARY AND ANOTHER vs Mufti ABDUL GHANI1985 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, where the appellants challenged the respondent's status as landlord, asserting the property was transferred to a school rather than the respondent. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller can order eviction without resolving a substantial dispute regarding the landlord's title and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to establish ownership of the plot or the building beyond reasonable doubt, as the property was transferred to the school under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. Consequently, the Court set aside the eviction orders. The judgment laid down that a Rent Controller must distinguish between genuine title disputes and vexatious ones; if a landlord's title is doubtful, the Controller should not order eviction but may direct the parties to a civil court. Furthermore, the rule of estoppel under the Evidence Act 1872 does not apply where the dispute involves a paramount owner or arises after the tenancy's commencement.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller proceed with an eviction application without first resolving a genuine dispute regarding the landlord's title?
- Does the rule of estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872 apply to all disputes over title between a landlord and tenant in rent restriction proceedings?
- Should a Rent Controller dismiss an eviction application where the landlord fails to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant beyond reasonable doubt?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Collector, Gujranwala And Others vs Ch.1985 SCMR 660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a civil suit initiated by landowners challenging the government's acquisition of their property for a housing scheme in Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujrat. The respondents sought a declaration that the acquisition was not for a public purpose and requested a permanent injunction against the government. The trial court granted a temporary injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court in civil revision proceedings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the grant of an interim injunction warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court's exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in granting the temporary injunction was appropriate and legally sound. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by trial courts regarding interlocutory orders unless a clear legal error or miscarriage of justice is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary exercise of jurisdiction by a trial court in granting a temporary injunction?
- Can a civil suit be maintained to challenge the acquisition of land for a housing scheme on the grounds that it is not for a public purpose?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL1985 PLD Supreme Court 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the eviction of the Government from a building it had rented for a nationalized school. The landlord had successfully obtained an ejectment order from the Rent Controller due to non-payment of rent, which the Government subsequently attempted to circumvent by issuing a requisition order for the same building. The High Court invalidated the requisition order on grounds of mala fides. Before the Supreme Court, the Government sought an interim stay of the eviction, arguing that the displacement of the school would cause hardship to the students. The Supreme Court dismissed the stay application, holding that the Government, as a tenant, is subject to the same legal obligations as any other tenant under the rent laws. The Court emphasized that running a school does not exempt a tenant from paying rent or complying with statutory requirements. It further observed that such tenants bear a greater responsibility to act lawfully to avoid causing disruption to students through their own defaults.
Questions settled- Does the operation of a school in a rented building exempt the tenant from the obligations imposed by the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can the Government use its power of requisition to circumvent an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller?
- Is the potential inconvenience to students a valid legal ground for staying an eviction order against a school tenant who has defaulted on rent?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Others vs Messrs MIAN MUHAMMAD SALEEM &.Co.1985 SCMR 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a contractual dispute between the Province of Punjab and Messrs Mian Muhammad Saleem & Co. regarding outstanding payments, which was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of the respondent for Rs. 20,964.45. The petitioner challenged the award, but the Senior Civil Judge made it the rule of the court, rejecting the petitioner's objections. Subsequent appeals to the District Judge and a revision petition to the High Court were unsuccessful. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the respondent's claim was time-barred and that the respondent was estopped from asserting it. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether the arbitrator had misconducted himself. Finding that the lower courts had concurrently determined no misconduct occurred—noting only a minor typographical error that was duly corrected—the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds to vitiate the award. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that in the absence of proven misconduct, an arbitral award remains immune from judicial interference.
Questions settled- Does a typographical error in an arbitration award constitute misconduct sufficient to vitiate the award?
- Can an arbitral award be challenged on grounds of limitation and estoppel when concurrent findings of fact by lower courts have rejected claims of arbitrator misconduct?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an arbitral award that has been made the rule of the court?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHERs vs Miss KHAQAN MAHMOOD AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These Inter-Court Appeals challenge a Single Judge’s decision regarding medical college admission policies in the Punjab for the 1983-84 academic year, specifically concerning the reduction of seats and the deduction of marks for extra examination attempts. The core legal questions were whether the Provincial Government possessed the authority to unilaterally alter admission policies and whether such actions, implemented after the advertisement but before final selection, were legally valid or retrospective. The Court held that the Provincial Government, as the managing and financing authority, holds plenary power to formulate and amend admission policies, including seat reduction and mark deduction. The Court determined these actions were not retrospective as they were finalized before the admission lists were displayed. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the respondents' failure to implead the students whose admissions would be affected by a favorable judgment was fatal to their petitions. The principle laid down is that while the government has the authority to set admission policies, such policies must not be arbitrary; however, writ petitions challenging such policies are incompetent if necessary parties are not impleaded.
Questions settled- Does the Provincial Government have the authority to amend medical college admission policies, including the reduction of seats and deduction of marks?
- At what point in the admission process do applicants acquire vested rights that prevent the government from amending admission policies?
- Is a writ petition maintainable if the students whose admissions would be adversely affected by the requested relief are not impleaded as parties?
- Can a prospectus for admission be equated with statutory rules or subordinate legislation?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 5 others vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL1985 CLC 1775 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN vs Messrs SALEEM Brother1985 SCMR 1585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which upheld the District Judge's order making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The disputes arose from a contract for the construction of a bridge. The respondents had filed an application under the Arbitration Act for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, which was done by consent of the parties. The arbitrator made an award in favor of the respondents, which was subsequently challenged by the petitioner on grounds of territorial jurisdiction, an inflated claim, limitation, and lack of opportunity to defend. The Supreme Court held that the former High Court of Sind and Baluchistan had territorial jurisdiction since part of the cause of action, including the execution of the contract and financial transactions, arose within Karachi. The Court further held that factual pleas such as limitation must be raised before the arbitrator, and that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to defend the proceedings. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act where the contract was executed and financial transactions took place within its local limits?
- Can a plea of limitation involving factual controversy be raised for the first time when challenging an arbitration award if it was not raised before the arbitrator?
- Whether an arbitration award can be set aside on the ground of an inflated claim without supporting evidence of misconduct or illegality?
- PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND ANOTHERs vs MESSRS SALEEM BROTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 48 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- PROJECT DIRECTOR, LAHORE MILK PLANT vs FATEH KHAN1985 PLC 56 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- PROF. YOUSAF SALIM CHISHTI AND 6 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1985 PLD Lahore 92 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-09Read full judgment →
- Prof. ABDUS SATTAR CHOHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 1085 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- PRINTING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs PROVINCE OF SIND through Secretary, Department of Excise & Taxation and 3 others1985 CLC 1486 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-21Read full judgment →
- Present: Abaid Ullah Khan, Sh. MANZOOR AHMAD and others vs SHAUKAT1985 CLC 2778 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-06Read full judgment →
- PREMOON vs DEVO AND 3 OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 198 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1978-05-15Read full judgment →
- PIYARO vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1222 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- PIRU and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 276 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- Piru And Another vs The StatePTCL 1985 (CL.) 40 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- PIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2566 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
- Pir GHULAM SIDIK JAN vs Pir MUHAMMAD SAEED JAN and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 931 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
- PIR BUX vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SANGHARPLD 1985 Rev. 105 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1972-01-02Read full judgment →
- PIR BUX vs BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND, HYDERABAD and others1985 MLD 1470 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
- PIR BAKHSH And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 2068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside the acquittal of the appellants in part and convicting them under sections 326 and 304, Part-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants should be reduced in view of an out-of-court compromise reached between the parties. The Supreme Court held that considering the parties had compromised inter se and wished to live in peace and amity, reducing the appellants' sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone would be in the interest of justice. The key principle laid down is that a compromise between parties in criminal matters, while not resulting in acquittal where offenses are non-compoundable, can be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of sentence to foster future peace and harmony.
Questions settled- Can a sentence of imprisonment be reduced in view of an out-of-court compromise between the parties?
- Whether a compromise between parties can be treated as a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
- PIR BADSHAH Alias PIR KHAN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 2070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was brought by the appellant, an elderly man aged 75, after being convicted under Sections 302 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for three counts of murder and sentenced to death by the trial court, which conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the death sentence was justified or if mitigating factors—such as constructive liability, advanced age, the murder of his son the preceding day, and the principle of sentencing uniformity relative to co-accused awarded life imprisonment—warranted a reduction to life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the death sentence. The Court held that the attack was cold, calculated, and concerted rather than sudden or impulsive. It ruled that constructive liability under Section 149 PPC in a premeditated attack does not preclude the imposition of the capital penalty, nor does leave to appeal create a legitimate expectancy of life to mitigate a legal sentence.
Questions settled- Does constructive criminal liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude the imposition of the death penalty for murder?
- Can the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court create an expectancy of life sufficient to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Does the principle of sentencing uniformity require that a principal accused receive the same lesser sentence of life imprisonment awarded to co-accused?
- PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD. vs GUL ZAMAN AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC 722 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
- PIARA and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2777(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- PIA KHAN vs WORKS MANAGER SIGNAL. SHOP PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1985 PLC 70 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- PHAKKAR vs Mst. PATHANI and 2 others1985 CLC 487 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-23Read full judgment →
- Petitioners: M/S. Mohammad Ibrahim & Versus Sons Gowalmandi LahorePTCL 1985 (CL.) 283 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- PERVEZ YASMIN PIRZADI vs Syed MAHBOOB ALI SHAH1985 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a defendant in a suit for specific performance, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which had restored an ex parte decree against her. The trial court had initially passed an ex parte decree, which the parties subsequently agreed to set aside through a conditional compromise order requiring payment of costs by a specific date, failing which the application for setting aside the decree would stand dismissed. The petitioner failed to pay the costs within the stipulated time, leading the trial court to dismiss her application. Although the District Judge allowed her appeal, the High Court accepted the plaintiff's revision petition and restored the ex parte decree. The Supreme Court considered whether the court was bound to examine the justification for an ex parte decree notwithstanding a compromise, and whether the time for payment of costs could be extended. The Supreme Court held that the parties' binding compromise regarding both the setting aside of the decree and the timeline for payment of costs must be upheld, and no legal infirmity existed in the High Court's judgment. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a court is under a duty to examine the justification for passing an ex parte decree notwithstanding a compromise entered into between the parties for its setting aside?
- Does a trial court retain jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of costs stipulated in a conditional compromise order setting aside an ex parte decree?
- Whether a compromise order regarding the setting aside of an ex parte decree and the timeline for paying costs is binding on the parties?
- PERVEZ MAHMOOD vs The STATE1985 SCMR 696(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of interim bail granted to the petitioner in a criminal case involving allegations of misappropriation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether, given the specific circumstances of the case—namely, that the alleged shortfall of Rs. 5,000 was rectified by the petitioner within six days of the occurrence—the interim bail previously granted should be confirmed. The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions of the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Advocate-General, held that the interim bail should be confirmed. The Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, thereby confirming the interim bail granted on 4-9-1984. The judgment implicitly reinforces the principle that where an alleged financial misappropriation is promptly rectified by the accused, such conduct may be a relevant factor in the court's assessment of whether to grant or confirm bail, particularly when the trial is expected to commence in the near future, as the prima facie case against the accused may be weakened by the restitution of the funds.
Questions settled- Can the prompt restitution of an alleged misappropriated amount be a relevant factor in confirming interim bail?
- Does the likelihood of a trial commencing in the near future support the confirmation of interim bail?
- PERVEZ and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 50 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
- PERVEZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 41(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ vs THE STATE1985 MLD 837(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ AKHTAR vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, armed with a knife, joined a co-accused (who had already inflicted fatal injuries on two victims) and caused simple injuries to one of the victims. The trial court and the High Court both convicted the appellant of murder on the basis of vicarious liability and sharing a common intention on the spur of the moment. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant shared a common intention to kill. The Court held that common intention must be judged from all facts and circumstances. Since the appellant arrived after the fatal blows had already been dealt, and only caused simple injuries on non-vital parts, he did not share a common intention to kill. Consequently, his conviction was altered from Section 302 to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who arrives at the scene after fatal blows have already been inflicted and causes only simple injuries on non-vital parts can be held vicariously liable for murder under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- How should common intention be evaluated and judged under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the accused's individual act only caused simple injuries without sharing a common intention to kill?
- PERVAIZ AHMAD and 8 others vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 4 others1985 MLD 567 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- PERSONNEL MANAGER, BATA (PAKISTAN) LTD., LAHORE vs MUZAFFAR ALI1985 PLC 786 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- PERCY JOSEPH vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment proceeding wherein an ex parte order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner by the Rent Controller. The petitioner's application to set aside the ex parte order and his subsequent appeal were both dismissed, the latter being dismissed on the ground of limitation. A constitutional writ petition challenging the ejectment order was likewise dismissed by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist to confer jurisdiction upon the Controller, and that the appeal was not time-barred as the requisite certified copy had not been furnished. The Supreme Court held that both contentions had been duly considered and properly rejected by the High Court, and that no case was made out for the issuance of a writ. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against an ex parte ejectment order can be dismissed on the ground of limitation when the certified copy of the order had not been furnished?
- Can a Rent Controller assume jurisdiction in an ejectment proceeding in the absence of the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to issue a writ against the concurrent orders of the lower forums in an ejectment matter?
- PEHLWAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 726(1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-30Read full judgment →
- PEER BAKIISH vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 217 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- PCSIR EMPLOYEES' HOUSING SOCIETY (REGD.) vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAFPLD 985 Rev. 15 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- PASAL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 229 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-07-27Read full judgment →
- PARVEZ SAMAD and another vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, LOCAL1985 MLD 1087 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-14Read full judgment →
- PARVEZ IQBAL vs THE STATE1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 134 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- PARVEZ AKHTAR vs TASLEEM HUSSA1N AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 66 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
- PARPIO and another vs Haji SULEMAN (deceased) through Legal1985 CLC 2299 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN vs Messrs ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD_1985 SCMR 1968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arose from constitutional petitions challenging the Central Board of Revenue's refusal to grant income-tax exemptions to two assessees under Section 15-BB(4) of the Income Tax Act. In the first case, a cement manufacturer was denied exemption for its fourth kiln despite having previously received exemption for its third kiln under identical circumstances. In the second case, a textile manufacturer was denied exemption for its combing sets and granted only a qualified exemption for its doubling frames. The Central Board of Revenue justified its decisions on the ground that the expanded units were not 'independent' of the existing machinery and buildings. The High Court allowed the constitutional petitions, holding that the statutory requirement was only that the unit or process be 'identifiable', not 'independent'. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the tax authority cannot import extraneous words or conditions into a statute. The Court ruled that adding the word 'independent' to 'identifiable industrial unit' or 'identifiable industrial process' was an impermissible intermeddling with legislative intent.
Questions settled- Can a statutory tax authority import extraneous conditions or words into a statute to deny a tax exemption?
- Whether an expanded industrial unit must be completely independent of the existing undertaking to qualify as an 'identifiable industrial unit' under Section 15-BB(4) of the Income Tax Act?
- Is the Central Board of Revenue bound to grant a tax exemption once all statutory requirements are satisfied?
- PAKISTAN TYRES AND RUBBER COMPANY Ltd. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI1985 PTD 195 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-19Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. vs FULL BENCH OF THE NATIONAL1985 PLC 884 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD RAUF BHALLI1985 PLC 381 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI vs RAFIQ AHMED JOKHIO1985 PLC 1025 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN SERVICES Ltd. vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and,3 others1985 CLC 1757 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-27Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Services Ltd. vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 othersPTCL 1985 (CL.) 449 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION vs AHMAD ALI KHAN and 31985 P Cr. L J 2018 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI vs SHAKOORULLAH KHAN1985 PLC 265 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs SIRAJUDDIN KHAN1985 PLC 291 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT AND 11 OTHERS1985 PLC 731 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs GHULAM SARWAR1985 SCMR 1596 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a Service Tribunal. The core legal question presented is whether an appeal filed before the Tribunal was time-barred, given that it was directed against an order dated 6-2-1979, or alternatively, whether the appeal was incompetent due to the failure to specify the impugned order. The Supreme Court observed that the Service Tribunal had failed to expressly address these critical issues regarding limitation and competence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions of law and procedure. As an interim measure, the operation of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was stayed pending the final adjudication of the appeal. The judgment establishes that a Tribunal is legally obligated to expressly deal with and decide upon objections regarding the limitation period and the competency of an appeal before it, and failure to do so constitutes a legal error warranting appellate intervention.
Questions settled- Is an appeal before a Service Tribunal competent if the impugned order is not specified?
- Does a failure by a Service Tribunal to address objections regarding limitation constitute a ground for granting leave to appeal?
- Can an appeal filed against an order dated 6-2-1979 be considered time-barred if filed on 13-5-1982?
- PAKISTAN POLYPROPYLENE PACKAGES LTD. vs GHULAM SHABBIR and 2 others1985 PLC 22 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN PETROLEUM Ltd. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI1985 PTD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Petroleum Limited. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (CentralPTCL 1985 (CL) 69 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN P.V.C. Ltd. vs GENERAL EMPLOYEES' UNION and 2 others1985 PLC 307 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN OXYGEN Ltd., KARACHI and another vs MUHAMMAD MUSA1985 PLC 1075 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL PRODUCE COMPANY Ltd. vs Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and another1985 PLC 153 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Ltd. vs ALI MUHAMMAD and another1985 PLC 1096 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI1985 PTD 500 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-25Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD SAFDAR1985 PLC 1068 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD. vs MUHAMMAD YASIN1985 PLC 810 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY Ltd. vs MUBASHIR HASAN1985 PLC 12 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTORS Ltd., LAHORE vs ABDUL RASHID And 5 Other1985 SCMR 813 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court returning a memorandum of appeal for presentation to the District Judge on the ground of valuation. The petitioner had purchased land by a registered sale-deed, following which the first respondent instituted a suit for a mandatory injunction regarding the same land and obtained an ad interim injunction. The petitioner's application under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of the injunction was dismissed, and his subsequent appeal to the High Court was returned because the High Court held that under section 12 of the Court Fees Act it could not interfere with the plaintiff's valuation of the suit in an interlocutory appeal. The core legal question concerns the interpretation and application of section 12 of the Court Fees Act regarding a court's power to examine suit valuation in interlocutory proceedings, alongside the propriety of the interim injunction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court's view based on section 12 of the Court Fees Act required examination and that the exercise of discretion by the trial court in granting the interim injunction warranted re-examination.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can interfere with the valuation of a suit made by a plaintiff in an interlocutory appeal under section 12 of the Court Fees Act?
- Whether an appeal against an order relating to an interim injunction in a suit valued below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court should be filed in the High Court or the District Court?
- PAKISTAN BANKING COUNCIL And Another vs ALI MAOHTARAM NAQVI And Other1985 SCMR 714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an interlocutory order of the High Court of Sind, whereby the Pakistan Banking Council and its member, Mr. Altaf Ahmad, were added as defendants in a pending civil suit filed by a borrower against Habib Bank Limited regarding a breach of contract for a development loan. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction and was justified in law to add the petitioners as parties under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court of Pakistan partly allowed the appeal, holding that while the Pakistan Banking Council was a proper party due to its direct statutory directives affecting the subject matter and loan facilities in dispute, the individual member (petitioner No.2) acted solely in his official capacity without personal liability or interest, making his joinder unjustified. The key principle laid down is that a statutory body issuing binding directives connected to the subject matter of a pending suit may constitute a proper party for effective adjudication, but individual officers acting purely in their official capacity cannot be personally impleaded without specific allegations of personal malice or interest.
Questions settled- Whether a statutory body issuing directives concerning loan facilities is a proper party to be joined in a suit between a borrower and a nationalized bank under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an individual member of a statutory council be impleaded personally in a suit when acts attributed to him were performed strictly in his official capacity?
- What constitutes a proper party versus a necessary party for the complete and effectual adjudication of a dispute under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- PAIYA KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 95 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-30Read full judgment →
- PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 854 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- P.U.T.C. (KOT LAKHPAT), LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM ABID1985 PLC 52 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →