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.
- P. R. ADAIKAPPA CHETTIAR, PALLATHUR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1985 PTD 725 · Madras High CourtRead full judgment →
- ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY IV ,1985 PTD 847 · Bombay High Court · 1962-06-14Read full judgment →
- ORIENTAL FASHIONS LTD. AND 4 OTHERS vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1985 PLD Karachi 178 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, granting conditional leave to defend a recovery suit upon furnishing security. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional writ petition against an order of a Single Judge of the same High Court acting under the Ordinance, and whether conditional leave to defend was rightly granted where triable issues were raised. The court held that a Single Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction under the Ordinance acts as the High Court and not as a persona designata or an inferior tribunal, and is therefore excluded from the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Furthermore, the court held that mere erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or a wrong decision by a competent court does not attract constitutional jurisdiction, particularly where an appeal against an interlocutory order is expressly barred by statute. The key principles laid down are that High Court judges acting in original civil jurisdiction under special statutes are not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the same court, and that the grant of conditional or unconditional leave to defend under summary procedures is a matter of judicial discretion not open to constitutional interference absent a total lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a Single Judge of the High Court acting under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, act as a persona designata or as the High Court itself?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked merely because a statute expressly bars an appeal against an interlocutory order?
- Does a mere erroneous decision or improper exercise of discretion by a court having initial jurisdiction render its order liable to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Qazi SHER MUHAMMAD vs PUNOON and others1985 CLC 2611 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
- ORIENT STRAW BOARD AND PAPER MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs THE ASSISTANT1985 PLD Karachi 126 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the imposition of excise duty on straw board that had already suffered duty at their manufacturing plant. After transporting the goods to Karachi for pasting and cutting, authorities levied excise duty a second time, claiming these processes constituted "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal question was whether these specific processes amounted to "manufacture" warranting a second levy. The Court held that the levy was unlawful, reasoning that "manufacture" under the Act requires the creation of a new, distinct, and marketable product. Since pasting and cutting did not transform the straw board into a different marketable item, the second levy was unjustified. Furthermore, the Court held that Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which bars refund claims after one year, was inapplicable because the petitioners paid the duty under protest rather than through inadvertence or error. The Court directed the refund of the illegally collected duty, establishing that excise duty cannot be levied twice on the same goods unless a new marketable product is created.
Questions settled- Does the process of pasting and cutting straw board constitute 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Is excise duty leviable a second time on goods that have already suffered duty if the subsequent processing does not create a new marketable product?
- Does Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, apply to refund claims where the duty was paid under protest?
- Orient Straw Board And Paper Mills Limited, 49-Napier Road, Karachi vs Assistant Collector Of Central Excise And Land Customs Division No.II, Karachi And Two OtherPTCL 1985 (CL) 1 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
- ORGANISATION OF K.P.T. WORKERS vs KARACHI PORT TRUST1985 PLC 408 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
- OLYMPIA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS Ltd. vs COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE1985 MLD 987 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-21Read full judgment →
- OIL INDIA Ltd. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-II, CALCUTTA1985 PTD 115 · Calcutta High Court · 1981-09-06Read full judgment →
- OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs Mst. GULSHAN1985 PLC 975 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-15Read full judgment →
- OBAID UR RAHMAN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 70 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- NUSRAT vs ZULFIQAR And Another1985 SCMR 1402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-21Read full judgment →
- NUSRAT FATIMA vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1985 PLD SC (A J & K) 93 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- NUSRAT BIBI vs THE DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and another1985 CLC 759 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- NUSR A T BIBI vs FAQIR HUSSAIN SHAH1985 CLC 2986 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
- NUR MUHAMMAD and another vs IMAM SAIN and 2 others1985 CLC 2256 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the Civil Judge and District Judge denying a temporary injunction to the petitioners, who sought to restrain interference with their possession of land based on a registered gift deed. The core legal question was whether the petitioners established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to warrant discretionary relief. The Court held that the petitioners failed to satisfy these requirements. It observed that the gift deed contained misrepresentations regarding the land being free of encumbrances and failed to account for all legal heirs under Muslim Personal Law. Furthermore, the Court found that the essential ingredients of a valid gift—offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession—were not established, as the donor remained in possession until death. Additionally, the petitioners were deemed to have approached the Court with 'tainted hands' due to misrepresentation. The Court affirmed that discretionary relief, such as a temporary injunction, is unavailable to a party who misrepresents facts or fails to demonstrate a prima facie case, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a mortgage on land under the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance 1961 bar the transfer of such property?
- Can a party who misrepresents facts in a gift deed claim entitlement to discretionary relief like a temporary injunction?
- What are the essential ingredients required to constitute a valid gift under law?
- Is a temporary injunction appropriate when the petitioner fails to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience?
- NUR KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
- NOT vs SAEEDUDDIN AHMED1985 PLC 142 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- NOT vs NOT1985 PTD (Trib.) 382 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1984-09-11Read full judgment →
- Not vs 1. Muhammad Yousaf 2. Munir Ahmad 3. Mushtaq Ahmad Etc.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 519 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- NOQOR MUHAMMAD vs Messrs ALAM BROTHERS1985 PLC 424 · Labour Court · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
- NOORUS SAMAD CHAUDHRY vs DIRECTOR, MANPOWER AND TRAINING, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 130 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- NOORUDDIN CHANNA vs MESSRS INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1985 PLC 947 · Labour Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- NOORA vs THE STATE1985 MLD 907 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- NOORA And Others vs Mst. MATLOOB BIBI1985 SCMR 2080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision application against a decree for pre-emption of land. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to deposit the required Zar-e-Saman within the stipulated timeframe, thereby rendering the suit liable to dismissal. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the plaint should have been rejected due to a deficiency in court fees. The Supreme Court observed that the argument regarding the failure to deposit Zar-e-Saman was a fresh plea not raised before the High Court. Regarding the court fee issue, the Court noted that the trial court had not issued a specific order directing the payment of additional court fees. Relying on the precedent established in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan, the Court held that the plaint could not be rejected in the absence of such an order. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that new pleas cannot be introduced at the appellate stage and that the rejection of a plaint for deficient court fees requires a prior judicial order.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise a fresh plea for the first time before the Supreme Court that was not argued before the High Court?
- Can a plaint be rejected for deficient court fees without a prior order from the trial court directing the payment of such fees?
- Does a failure to deposit Zar-e-Saman within the stipulated time automatically result in the dismissal of a pre-emption suit?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2047 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE MEMBER ELECTION COMMISSION, PUNJAB And Other1985 SCMR 1178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for election to the Provincial Assembly, which was upheld by the Member Election Commission and the High Court. The petitioner, a former Zilledar, was dismissed from service on 19-10-1983, with the order directed to take effect retrospectively from 29-7-1981, later modified to removal from service. The core legal question is whether an executive authority can give retrospective effect to a departmental removal order, and whether the petitioner was disqualified under section 10(2)(b)(3) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977 on the ground of removal from service for misconduct within three years. The Supreme Court held that executive authorities lack the power to make departmental orders operate retrospectively unless expressly authorized by rules; hence, the removal order took effect from the date it was passed (19-10-1983) rather than the retrospective date. Consequently, the three-year disqualification period had not elapsed by the time of the election, rendering the petitioner disqualified. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an executive authority pass a departmental removal or dismissal order with retrospective effect without express statutory or rule authorization?
- From which date does a departmental removal order take effect when it purports to operate retrospectively?
- Whether a person removed from government service is disqualified from contesting an election if the prescribed three-year period has not elapsed since the actual date of the removal order?
- Can election authorities and superior courts refuse to give effect to a patently unlawful retrospective departmental order in collateral proceedings?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD And Other1985 SCMR 1120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment concerning the transfer of property under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with factual findings made by Settlement Authorities regarding the possession and entitlement of parties to specific portions of a building, particularly a "big hall." The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court held that the appellant failed to establish his possession of the disputed hall on the crucial date of December 21, 1958. The Court affirmed that the High Court properly reviewed the evidence, finding that neither party had demonstrated a valid entitlement to the hall, thereby necessitating its disposal by the relevant authorities under the law. The judgment reinforces the principle that constitutional jurisdiction does not permit interference with findings of fact unless they are perverse or arbitrary, and that a party must strictly demonstrate actual possession on the relevant statutory date to substantiate a claim for property transfer under settlement regulations.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with factual findings of Settlement Authorities in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is proof of possession on the crucial date a prerequisite for property transfer under settlement laws?
- Does a party have locus standi to challenge the disposal of property if they have failed to establish their own entitlement to it?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1985 CLC 2751 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs SARWAR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Noor Muhammad against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the High Court. The petitioner had executed a surety bond in a recovery suit. After the suit was decreed, the executing court issued warrants of attachment against the petitioner, who objected, claiming he had never executed the surety bond. His objection was dismissed by the executing court, and his subsequent civil revision was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge. He then challenged these orders through a constitutional petition, which was likewise dismissed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition was competent against orders passed by a court of competent jurisdiction merely on the ground that the decision on a question of fact or law was incorrect. The Supreme Court held that where a court has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it has jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly, and an incorrect decision does not render it without lawful authority. The petition was dismissed with costs as frivolous.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is competent against an order passed by an executing court having jurisdiction to decide the matter?
- Does an incorrect decision on a question of fact or law by a court of competent jurisdiction render its order without lawful authority?
- Can a surety bond executed during trial be enforced in execution proceedings against an objector?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs N A ZIR1985 CLC 480 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN and 7 others1985 CLC 1280 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MEMBER, BOARD.OF REVENUE and 3 others1985 CLC 571 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs IQBAL AHMED1985 CLC 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against a tenant on grounds of wilful default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide personal requirement for business. The core legal questions were whether the tenant's continued deposit of rent in a pre-existing court proceeding, following a change in property ownership, constituted wilful default, and whether a landlord's bare assertion of personal need satisfies the "good faith" requirement under the relevant rent legislation. The High Court held that the tenant’s conduct in continuing to deposit rent in the established court proceeding, despite the transfer of property, lacked dishonest intent and did not constitute wilful default. Furthermore, the Court held that a landlord’s mere statement of personal requirement is insufficient to establish "good faith" under the statute; the landlord must provide tangible evidence to support such a claim. Consequently, the Court set aside the ejectment order, establishing the principle that technical non-compliance without dishonest intent does not constitute wilful default, and that "good faith" for personal requirement requires objective evidence beyond a mere assertion.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's continued deposit of rent in a pre-existing court proceeding after a change in ownership constitute wilful default?
- Is a landlord's bare statement sufficient to establish the 'good faith' requirement for personal use of rented premises?
- Does technical non-payment of rent to a new owner constitute wilful default in the absence of dishonest intent?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs GHULAM SIDDIQUE1985 PLD Peshawar 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs . SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND AT KARACHI and 51985 MLD 167 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STAT E1985 P Cr. L J 1374 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others1985 MLD 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHERs vs YOUSUF SHAHPLD 1985 Rev. 192 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1975-04-24Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 725 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD and another vs Mst. HAJIRA and :6 others1985 CLC 2085 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an eviction application filed under the Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, by the legal heirs of a deceased landlord against the appellants, who were alleged tenants. The core legal question was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, particularly when the appellants disputed the landlord's title and claimed ownership themselves. The Rent Controller had initially ordered eviction, finding the relationship established. However, the High Court set aside this order. The Court held that the respondents failed to prove the existence of a tenancy, noting that their evidence was contradictory and inconsistent with their own pre-litigation legal notices. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle that where the determination of the landlord-tenant relationship depends solely on a disputed question of title, the Rent Controller cannot decide the issue against the alleged tenant without reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the proper course is to dismiss the eviction application and direct the landlord to establish title before a competent civil court.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller decide an eviction application when the relationship of landlord and tenant depends solely on a disputed question of title?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a Rent Controller when a landlord fails to establish their title to the property beyond reasonable doubt?
- Does a pre-litigation legal notice that contradicts the subsequent pleadings of a landlord undermine the credibility of their claim regarding the existence of a tenancy?
- NOOR MUHAMMA D vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 CLC 3002 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
- NOOR MOHAMMAD vs M. ABDUL HASSAN1985 CLC 4 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-01Read full judgment →
- NOOR KHAN CHOUDHRY vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 21985 PLC (C.S.) 65 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
- NOOR ILAHI vs SHER MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an ejectment order against the petitioner. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner, as a tenant, could deny the landlord's title to the property, specifically where the property was claimed to be evacuee trust property. The Supreme Court held that the respondent's title remained valid because the property had been transferred to him prior to 1968, a transfer protected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner's instructions, which ensured such transfers would not be disturbed. The Court further held that the Rent Controller could not go behind the valid Transfer Order issued in the respondent's favour. Additionally, the Court affirmed the principle of estoppel, ruling that the petitioner, having entered the premises as a tenant under the respondent and having executed a written undertaking to pay rent, was legally precluded from denying the landlord's title. The petition was dismissed, though the Court granted the petitioner time to vacate the premises by consent of the parties.
Questions settled- Can a tenant deny the title of his landlord after having entered into a tenancy agreement and provided a written undertaking to pay rent?
- Does a declaration by a Settlement Commissioner that property is evacuee trust property automatically invalidate a prior transfer of that property made to an individual?
- Can a Rent Controller go behind a valid Transfer Order issued by the Settlement Organization?
- NOOR HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SALIM1985 SCMR 893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal of respondents who were initially convicted by the trial court for offences under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but subsequently acquitted by the High Court. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether a one-day delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal should be condoned, given the petitioner's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay caused by the Advocate-on-Record. The Court held that the petition was time-barred and declined to condone the delay. The ratio of the decision emphasizes that where an acquittal has been granted, the respondents acquire valuable rights to life and liberty, which cannot be lightly disturbed, especially when the delay in filing an appeal is not satisfactorily explained, even if the delay is minimal.
Questions settled- Can a one-day delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal be condoned without a satisfactory explanation?
- Does an acquittal judgment confer a valuable right to life and liberty upon the respondents that warrants strict adherence to limitation periods?
- NOOR HUSSAIN vs GHULAM and 14 others1985 CLC 1925 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-05Read full judgment →
- NOOR HUSSAIN PATWARI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2677 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- NOOR HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-24Read full judgment →
- NOOR HASSAN vs THE STATE And Other1985 SCMR 1473 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- NOOR DIN vs THE STATE and 2 others1985 MLD 713 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD MIRZA vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 788 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-12-15Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD M. MUGHAL vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 707 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD AND OTHERs vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 376 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-03Read full judgment →
- NOMAN BHAI vs M.V.F. HAMEER1985 MLD 189 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
- NIZAMUDIN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KABIRWALA and others1985 MLD 1280 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- NIZAM DIN And Another vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD And 8 Other1985 SCMR 1492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines whether the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under a special statute, possesses the power to review its own decision. The matter arose from conflicting property allotments under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1951. The High Court had initially dismissed a revision petition as time-barred, holding that section 5 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable, but subsequently entertained a review petition and restored the revision by applying section 14 of the Limitation Act. The appellants challenged the competency of the review. The Supreme Court held that proceedings brought before the High Court under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1951, are civil in nature and, by virtue of section 117 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, are governed by the Code. Consequently, the High Court possesses the inherent and statutory power under section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to review its orders, distinguishing it from special jurisdictions where such provisions are expressly or impliedly excluded. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has the power to review its decision given in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1951?
- Are proceedings brought before the High Court under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1951, of a civil nature governed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding review of judgments apply to the High Court exercising special revisional powers under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1951?
- NISHAT MILLS Ltd. vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 CLC 2754 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD vs The INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 21985 PLC (C.S.) 35 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD BAJWA vs QAIM DIN and others1985 CLC 2795 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1651 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- NICOS G. IONIDES vs REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS through Minister of Finance, Commissioner of Income-tax1985 PTD 354 · Supreme Court of Cyprus · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD represented by Legal Heirs vs ABDUL HAM1D and others1985 CLC 2382 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR1985 PLC (C.S.) 320 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-01-06Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD KHAN vs TAHIR HUSSAIN1985 MLD 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1985 PLC (C.S.) 530 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
- NIAMAT ULLAH KHAN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR and others1985 MLD 970 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-23Read full judgment →
- NI Z A M DIN vs NIAMAT BIBI and 3 others1985 CLC 98 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-08Read full judgment →
- NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs Messrs ULBRICHT'S (PAKISTAN)1985 MLD 411 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NEKU vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1787 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
- NEK MUHAMMAD ROPAAL vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, CO-1985 PLC (C.S.) 993 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NEK MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHERs vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1985 PLD Quetta 63 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-10-10Read full judgment →
- NAZRA and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2684 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- NAZIR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2713 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
- NAZIR HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, EDUCATION1985 PLC (C.S.) 918 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
- NAZIR HUSSAIN vs HANIFA BEGUM1985 CLC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- NAZIR HUSSAIN and 2 others vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 303 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
- NAZIR DAD KHAN vs QAMAR AFTAB and 4 others1985 CLC 1122 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- NAZIR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2469(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
- NAZIR And Another vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE LAHORE And Another1985 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed writ petitions challenging the cancellation of land allotments. The core legal question was whether the Chief Land Commissioner could exercise suo motu review powers after a delay of nearly six years to set aside land allotment orders based on allegedly forged tenancy records. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the cancellation of the allotments. The Court held that the appellants had obtained the land through fraudulent entries in the Khasra Girdawari Register and Form LC-IX, which were manipulated to create fictitious tenancy rights. The Court affirmed the principle that fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings, and constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to protect or perpetuate benefits obtained through fraudulent means. Furthermore, the Court ruled that there is no time limit for the exercise of suo motu revisional or review powers in such circumstances, as established in precedent. Consequently, the Court refused to exercise its discretion to aid parties who secured land through collusion.
Questions settled- Can constitutional jurisdiction be exercised to protect benefits obtained through fraud?
- Is there a time limit for the exercise of suo motu review powers under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules 1959?
- Does fraud vitiate solemn proceedings in land allotment cases?
- NAZIR ALI vs IKRAMUDDIN1985 MLD 390 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED vs NASRULLAH KHAN and 6 others1985 P Cr. L J 2533 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2146 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 588 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALNAGAR and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 219 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-10Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs SIDDIQUE and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 2131 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD TAQI And Other1985 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment regarding the transfer of evacuee shops. The core legal questions concern whether the appellants possessed the locus standi to challenge the auction of the shops and whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by suo motu cancelling the auction after a remand order limited to verifying the filing of transfer forms. The Supreme Court held that the appellants lacked locus standi as they were not in possession at the time of the auction and had no established entitlement to the property. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court’s finding that the Additional Settlement Commissioner acted beyond the scope of the remand order by cancelling the auction, as his authority was confined to specific verification. The Court established the principle that a person without a valid entitlement to the transfer of evacuee property lacks the standing to challenge its disposal by public auction. Additionally, it reaffirmed that authorities acting on remand must strictly adhere to the scope of the remand order.
Questions settled- Does a person who lacks entitlement to the transfer of evacuee property have the locus standi to challenge its disposal by public auction?
- Can an Additional Settlement Commissioner suo motu cancel an auction when the scope of the remand order is limited to verifying the filing of transfer forms?
- Is a Permanent Transfer Deed issued by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner open to judicial scrutiny if issued in the proper exercise of authority?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs HOLARAM1985 CLC 41 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an ejectment order passed against the appellant-tenant by the Rent Controller under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for failing to deposit the monthly rent for April 1983 by the stipulated date of the 10th, resulting in a two-day delay. The appellant offered an explanation of serious illness supported by a medical certificate. The core legal question is whether the Rent Controller has the power to condone a delay in complying with a tentative rent order and whether the provisions regarding default are mandatory. The court held that the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (and its predecessor Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959) are mandatory, and the Rent Controller has no discretion to condone delays in deposit unless the default stems from a bona fide mistake or misinterpretation by counsel. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming that strict compliance with tentative rent orders is a condition precedent for a tenant to enjoy statutory protection.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions relating to the deposit of rent under a tentative rent order are mandatory or directory?
- Does the Rent Controller have the power to condone a delay by a tenant in depositing monthly rent pursuant to a tentative rent order?
- Can a tenant's default in complying with a tentative rent order be excused on the ground of personal illness without establishing a bona fide counsel's mistake?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs FATEH MUHAMMAD1985 CLC 2503 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 794 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs ALLAH RAKHA and another1985 P Cr. L J 2685 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs ABDUL QAYYUM BHATTI And Other1985 SCMR 634 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat, along with an application for a temporary injunction. Although an initial status quo order was passed, it was subsequently vacated by the trial court on 30-10-1979. The petitioner's appeal before the District Judge was dismissed on 2-2-1980, and a subsequent civil revision in the High Court was also dismissed in limine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether interference was warranted against concurrent discretionary orders of the lower courts refusing to grant interim relief. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the case did not present a fit ground for interference under discretionary jurisdiction, particularly as no serious question of law was involved. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent discretionary orders refusing interim relief unless a serious question of law or a patent illegality is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent orders of lower courts refusing interim relief?
- Does the refusal of a temporary injunction by courts below warrant interference when no serious question of law is involved?
- NAZIR AHMAD KHAN vs COLLECTOR and others1985 MLD 88 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD and others vs Mian MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others1985 MLD 1128 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 30 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-08Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD and another vs MEMBER (SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION)1985 MLD 1102 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2190 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →