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.
- Mums SHANKAR THEATRES, AMRA VATI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VIDARBHA & MARATHWADA, NAGPUR1985 PTD 594 · Bombay High Court · 1983-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mums GLAXO LABORATORIES LTD. vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1985 PLD Karachi 630 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These miscellaneous appeals challenged the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing to register the trade mark "VITAMILK" in classes 5 and 29 on the ground that it was descriptive under section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The core legal question was whether the trade mark "VITAMILK" is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness, requiring dissection into its prefix and suffix to determine its character and quality. The court held that the Registrar erred in dissecting the mark rather than evaluating it as a whole, finding that "VITAMILK" is a newly-coined word which, while suggestive, does not have a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods so as to render it unregistrable. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the matters remanded to the Registrar. The key principle laid down is that composite trade marks must be viewed as a whole rather than artificially dissected into component parts when assessing descriptiveness under the Trade Marks Act.
Questions settled- Whether a composite trade mark should be evaluated as a whole or dissected into its component parts when determining descriptiveness under the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
- Does the trade mark "VITAMILK" have a direct reference to the character or quality of goods so as to disqualify it from registration under section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
- Can the Registrar of Trade Marks refuse registration solely on the ground that a trade mark contains a suggestive prefix or suffix?
- MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN And Others vs Sh. ABDUL HAMID1985 SCMR 658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the restoration of an appeal previously dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's failure to deposit security. The appellant, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, had been issued a show-cause notice under the Supreme Court Rules for failing to deposit the required security. Upon the appellant's failure to appear, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant subsequently sought restoration, initially citing travel delays as the reason for non-appearance. However, the core legal question presented was whether the requirement to deposit security applies to appeals filed by Government functionaries in their official capacity. The Court held that the demand for security was unwarranted because Government functionaries are exempt from such deposits when acting in their official capacity. Consequently, the dismissal order was withdrawn, the appeal was restored to its original number, and the Court directed that the matter proceed without the requirement of security. The judgment establishes that the failure to comply with an invalid demand for security cannot serve as a valid ground for dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution.
Questions settled- Are Government functionaries required to deposit security when filing appeals in their official capacity?
- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution due to failure to deposit security when such security is not legally required?
- Does the failure to deposit security by a Government functionary constitute a valid ground for dismissal of an appeal?
- MULTAN COTTON INDUSTRIES, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD SULTAN1985 PLC 48 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
- MULTAN COTTON INDUSTRIES, MULTAN vs MEHNAT KASH UNION MULTAN1985 PLC 244(1) · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MULLAH GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS vs ASSIST ANT COMMISSIONER1985 PLD Quetta 139 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- MULLA SYED ALI vs MULLAH ASMI1985 SCMR 1516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing a second appeal, which in turn confirmed the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Majlis-e-Shoora, Kelat Division, against an ex parte order of the Qazi of Pasni. The core legal question was whether the Majlis-e-Shoora acted legally and in accordance with natural justice in dismissing the appellant's appeal on an adjourned date without proper notice or adequate opportunity of hearing, particularly when the appellant's counsel sought an adjournment due to transportation constraints. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Majlis-e-Shoora violated the principles of natural justice by denying the appellant an opportunity of being heard. The Court laid down the principle that the right of appeal granted by a statute is a substantial right, and the maxim audi alteram partem applies equally to appellate proceedings, implying that an appellant must be given a proper right of being heard.
Questions settled- Whether the principles of natural justice and the maxim audi alteram partem apply to appellate proceedings before a tribunal?
- Does a statutory right of appeal implicitly include the right of being heard?
- Can an appellate tribunal dismiss an appeal on an adjourned date without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant or their counsel?
- MULCHAND vs Smt. INDRA AND OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 362 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Appellate Court, which decreed maintenance in favor of a Hindu wife and her minor child. The petitioner, a Hindu husband, contended that the Family Courts Act, 1964, is inapplicable to Hindus, arguing that the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946, should govern. He further challenged the refusal of the trial court to allow an amendment to his written statement and asserted that the wife was divorced and thus ineligible for maintenance. The Court held that the Family Courts Act, 1964, is a procedural statute that applies to all, including non-Muslims, and does not conflict with the substantive rights provided under the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946. The Court further ruled that the trial court's discretion to refuse a belated amendment to the written statement was lawful and that the issue of divorce had already been conclusively decided against the petitioner in prior litigation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that Family Court findings supported by evidence are not subject to constitutional interference.
Questions settled- Does the Family Courts Act, 1964, apply to the family affairs of Hindus?
- Is the Family Courts Act, 1964, a procedural statute that does not affect substantive rights under the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946?
- Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact reached by a Family Court under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- MULAZIM HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND1985 PLC (C.S.) 62 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-03-30Read full judgment →
- MUKHTIAR ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2325 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR HUSSAIN And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the convictions of the appellants under sections 302/34, 404, and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of a thirteen-year-old boy, misappropriation of property, and causing disappearance of evidence, which resulted in sentences including death and imprisonment for life, subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession, the reliability of last-seen evidence, the credibility of recovery witnesses, and the propriety of the death sentence on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that even excluding the extra-judicial confession, the remaining circumstantial evidence—including the discovery of the dead body pointed out from the appellants' premises and the recovery of stolen ornaments—sufficiently established guilt. However, due to the lack of direct evidence showing who fired the fatal shot and the possibility of youthful influence by the acquitted father, the court commuted the death sentence of the first appellant to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the other convictions and sentences with modifications regarding concurrent running and statutory benefit.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on circumstantial evidence consisting of last-seen testimony and incriminating recoveries when an extra-judicial confession is excluded from consideration?
- Does the absence of direct evidence regarding who fired the fatal shot warrant the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Are recoveries invalid solely because the attesting witnesses are related to the complainant, in the absence of established enmity or hostility?
- Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be granted to convicts whose sentences of imprisonment are modified on appeal?
- MUKHTAR and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 881 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR alias MOKHI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1511 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-28Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs WILLAYAT ULLAH KHAN1985 MLD 261 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 839 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-04-19Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 775(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others1985 MLD 418 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs ABDUL RAHIM AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 122 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 843 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUKHT AR HUSSAIN vs SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIALKOT and others1985 CLC 2496 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- MUJEEB AHMED ANSARI vs FAZAL KHAN alias KHAN1985 PLD Quetta 249 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
- MUJAHID WORKERS' UNION (C.B.A.), REHMANIA TEXTILE MILLS, FAISALABAD vs MAZDOOR UNION, REHMANIA TEXTILE MILLS and another1985 PLC 184 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUJAHID HUSSAIN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Court arose from the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and his sentence of death, which were maintained by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the First Information Report, discrepancies regarding the identity and number of accused persons, the naturalness of ocular witnesses, and the safety of basing a capital conviction on uncorroborated or doubtful evidence. The Supreme Court held that serious discrepancies between the First Information Report and the statements of eye-witnesses, coupled with unnatural witness testimony, self-contradictory motive, and doubtful recoveries, created reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. The court laid down the principle that major discrepancies in naming accused persons in the First Information Report and subsequent improvements by witnesses cannot be ignored, and where the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the benefit must be given to the accused, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and an acquittal.
Questions settled- Does a material discrepancy in the names and number of accused persons in the First Information Report and the ocular testimony cast doubt on the prosecution case?
- Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses whose presence at the scene is doubtful and unnatural?
- Whether the benefit of doubt should be extended to an accused when the prosecution evidence suffers from serious gaps, contradictions, and unreliable corroboratory material?
- MUJAHID HUSSAIN And Others vs MUHAMMAD AHSAN1985 SCMR 691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, vendee defendants of a house in Shujaabad, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below decreeing the plaintiffs-respondents' pre-emption suit. The core legal question centered on whether a previous 1972 civil court judgment was relevant and legally sufficient to prove the existence of a custom of pre-emption in the locality prior to or at the time of the enforcement of the Punjab Pre-emption Act in 1913, and whether the property in dispute was correctly identified as being in the same locality. The Supreme Court held that the 1972 judgment was indeed a relevant piece of evidence to establish the pre-1913 custom and that the lower appellate court had correctly traced and identified the property's location despite a change in ward numbers. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact, dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, and left the matter of refunding deposited sums to the executing Court.
Questions settled- Whether a previous judicial decision of 1972 is a relevant piece of evidence for determining the existence of a custom of pre-emption in 1913?
- Can a concurrent finding of fact regarding the location of a property and ward number changes be assailed in second appeal without material showing incorrectness?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts upholding a right of pre-emption?
- MUJAHID ABDUR REHMAN KHAN and another vs REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE1985 CLC 1469 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMADConvict vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 649 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 850 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 488 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN Alias MANA vs The STATE1985 SCMR 560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the murder of Sher Muhammad. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court, which relied on the testimony of two eyewitnesses and the recovery of incriminating evidence, including a blood-stained shirt and the weapon of offense, to establish guilt. The motive was attributed to a suspected illicit liaison between the deceased and the petitioner's sister. The High Court upheld the conviction, though it modified the sentence regarding the default of fine payment and granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the contention of innocence. The Court held that the ocular testimony of natural witnesses, corroborated by physical recoveries, was sufficient to sustain the conviction, affirming that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence and found no basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
Questions settled- Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon and clothing provide sufficient corroboration for eyewitness testimony in a murder case?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained when the lower courts have concurrently relied on natural witnesses and physical evidence?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a convict sentenced for murder?
- MUHAMMAD ZAKA ULLAH vs Mst. RASHIDAN BIBI and 2 others1985 CLC 484 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH vs COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA DIVISION, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 893 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION1985 PLC (C.S.) 168 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs The STATE1985 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the identity of the assailant was established despite claims of mistaken identity, whether the dying declaration was reliable or procured by prompting, and whether the non-availability of blood for transfusion mitigated the offence to a lesser charge. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the petitioner was specifically identified by his alias in the dying declaration, which distinguished him from other individuals of the same name. The Court affirmed that the lack of immediate blood transfusion did not mitigate the offence of murder, citing Explanation 2 to Section 299 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court found no error in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence and refused leave to appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Does the non-availability of blood for transfusion mitigate the offence of murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a dying declaration be considered reliable when the assailant is identified by a specific alias?
- Does the absence of enmity between the accused and the victim preclude a conviction for murder?
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs ALAF DIN1985 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant regarding a transferred property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions involved whether the notice under section 30 of the Act was valid, whether the respondent became the landlord, and whether the High Court was justified in ordering ejectment on the ground that the tenant had wrongfully denied the tenancy or should have remanded the case for an independent conclusion. The Supreme Court held that the authorities relied upon by the High Court regarding persistent denial of landlord's title were inapplicable to the facts, as the tenant had actually acknowledged the transfer and tendered rent, albeit at the previous rate. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the High Court for a decision on merits, laying down that where a tenant does not contumaciously deny the landlord's title and attempts to tender rent, the matter of default and validity of notice must be examined on its specific facts rather than summarily ordering ejectment.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant who tenders rent at a previous rate after receiving a notice under section 30 can be said to have contumaciously denied the landlord's title?
- Did the High Court err in directing ejectment without properly evaluating whether the notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was valid?
- Whether the case should be remanded to the High Court for decision on merits when the first appellate court's findings on tender of rent were not duly considered?
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF KHATTAK vs MUSARAT ALI and 14 others1985 PLC 450 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSAF vs FAZAL KARIM and 4 others1985 CLC 503 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs MAQBOOL AHMAD1985 CLC 2862 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant's application under Section 16(2) of the relevant rent restriction law for striking off the respondent's defence due to alleged non-deposit of rent. The core legal question was whether depositing rent in a separate miscellaneous rent case instead of the specific ejectment proceedings constitutes a contumacious default warranting the striking off of the tenant's defence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where a tenant has regularly deposited rent in court—albeit in a miscellaneous case due to a misunderstanding rather than the specific ejectment case—and has acted in good faith without contumacious conduct, such a technical default cannot form the basis for striking off the defence. The key principle laid down is that technical defaults in the mode of depositing rent, when sufficiently explained and devoid of bad faith or willful defiance, do not penalize a tenant with the striking off of their defense.
Questions settled- Does depositing rent in a miscellaneous rent case instead of the ejectment proceedings constitute a default warranting the striking off of a tenant's defence?
- Can a technical default in depositing rent be excused when the tenant acts in good faith?
- Is contumacious conduct or bad faith required to strike off a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a rent deposit order?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 637 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs YAQOOB KHAN and another1985 MLD 1491 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2446 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs THE MANAGER, PUNJNAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1985 PLC 83 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs MUHAMMAD ABBAS1985 CLC 2248 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs Khalifa ASGHAR HUSSAIN1985 SCMR 152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed by a tenant seeking review of an order of the Supreme Court which had dismissed his petition for leave to appeal against an ejectment order maintained by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the effect of an earlier remand ordered by the High Court in a constitutional petition and its subsequent setting aside by the Supreme Court, along with the scope and meaning of the expression 'possession' under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Additionally, a belated plea regarding the nullity of a transfer order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was raised. The Court held that the review petition merely sought a rehearing of previously examined points without proper grounds, and that a factual mistake alleged by the petitioner had no bearing on the legal questions. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, affirming that no further time to vacate the commercial premises was warranted beyond the three months already granted.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be entertained for the rehearing of points already examined at length without proper grounds or reasons?
- What is the scope and meaning of the expression 'possession' used in section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Whether an order of transfer passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner can be raised as a nullity for the first time in a review petition before the Supreme Court?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs ALI JHANG and 5 others1985 MLD 664 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF RATHORE vs DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEGRAPHS, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 797 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF RATHOR vs DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEGRAPHS, RAWALPINDI1985 PLC 702 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN vs JEHAN BAHADUR and another1985 CLC 2214 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER LAND, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN And Other1985 SCMR 1669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals against the cancellation of excess land allotted to the appellants, which was necessitated by a departmental calculation error regarding Produce Index Units. The core legal question is whether allottees, whose excess land is being resumed due to administrative error rather than fraud or misrepresentation, possess a right to exercise a choice regarding which specific parcels of land they must surrender. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Settlement Commissioner. The Court held that while the authorities are entitled to resume excess land, the allottees should be afforded an opportunity to choose the area to be surrendered, particularly where they have developed the land through significant expense and labor. The key principle laid down is that the denial of such a choice in cases of non-fraudulent error is inequitable and punitive. Consequently, the Court directed that the appellants be permitted to exercise their choice, subject to the condition that the surrendered land must, as far as possible, constitute a compact block.
Questions settled- Does an allottee have a right to choose which land to surrender when excess land is cancelled due to a departmental error?
- Is the cancellation of excess land due to departmental error considered a punitive measure if the allottee is denied the right to choose the surrendered area?
- Must the surrender of excess land by an allottee be made in a compact block?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another vs NIGHAT FAYYAZ1985 CLC 2609 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ASIM AND 6 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 159 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs THE WEST PAKISTAN CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER1985 PLC 169 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs The STATE1985 SCMR 2051 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court which directed that the accused, charged with murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, be tried under the Sind Children Act 1955. The trial court had rejected the accused's claim of minority by preferring a birth certificate issued by the Karachi Municipal Corporation over conflicting school certificates and a medical report based on an ossification test. The High Court reversed this, preferring the medical certificate. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that conflicting certificates of age, including medical certificates, school leaving certificates, and municipal birth registers, do not by themselves constitute conclusive legal evidence. The Court held that in the face of such conflicting documentary evidence, the trial court must record proper evidence produced by the parties to determine the accused's age. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the orders of both the trial court and the High Court, and remanded the matter for a fresh determination of the accused's age based on recorded evidence.
Questions settled- Whether conflicting certificates of age, such as medical certificates, school certificates, and municipal birth registers, constitute conclusive legal evidence on their own?
- How should a trial court resolve conflicting documentary evidence regarding the age of an accused claiming juvenile status?
- Is a medical certificate based on an ossification test automatically preferred over a municipal birth certificate?
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs SULTAN AHMAD1985 MLD 953 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS ALI BABOO vs HASEEN AHMED1985 CLC 2864 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1985 CLC 2849 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNIS MALIK vs DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition challenging his eviction from commercial premises. The landlady sought eviction on the grounds of bona fide personal need, default in rent payment, damage, and nuisance, along with a subsequent default in depositing monthly rent as directed by the Controller. The Rent Controller initially rejected the eviction plea, but the District Judge ordered eviction upon finding the personal need and default proved. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the appellate authority misapplied the law regarding personal need since vacant premises were available in the building. The Supreme Court held that the question of suitability of alternative accommodation is one of fact which must be established by evidence or pleadings, and the petitioner failed to show that the available premises were equally suitable. Finding no misdirection of law, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, granting the petitioner a two-month period to surrender possession upon conditions.
Questions settled- Whether the availability of other premises disentitles a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of personal need without establishing the unsuitability of such alternative premises?
- Does the misapplication of law by an appellate authority vitiate a finding of fact regarding personal need in rent matters?
- Whether the High Court can interfere under constitutional jurisdiction with a concurrent finding of fact on personal need without a proven misdirection of law?
- MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2554 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2705 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN vs SHABBIR AHMAD1985 CLC 2111 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first rent appeal challenges an order of the II-Rent Controller, Karachi, which allowed ejectment of the tenant from the disputed residential quarter on the ground of unauthorized conversion of the premises into commercial use. The landlord filed an ejectment application alleging personal need, damage, and conversion. The Rent Controller ruled against the landlord on personal need and damage, but found in favour of the landlord regarding the conversion of premises. The core legal question was whether the landlord's uncontroverted testimony on affidavit regarding conversion, in the absence of cross-examination by the tenant, was sufficient to discharge the burden of proof under the rules of evidence. The High Court held that since the tenant failed to cross-examine the landlord on the assertion of conversion, the evidence is deemed accepted, upholding the eviction order. The key principle laid down is that failure to cross-examine a witness on a deposition in examination-in-chief leads to the legal presumption that the evidence is accepted by the opposing party.
Questions settled- Whether failure to cross-examine a landlord on the assertion of conversion of premises amounts to an admission of the fact?
- Is a single sentence assertion in an ejectment application and affidavit sufficient to prove conversion when left unchallenged in cross-examination?
- Can a tenant appeal an ejectment order based on a finding of conversion of residential premises into commercial use without the landlord's consent?
- MUHAMMAD YASIN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2917 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASEEN KHAN vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHLR1985 PLC (C.S.) 701 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-02-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASEEN KHAN and 6 others vs DEPUTY1985 MLD 565 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASEEN and another vs MAQBOOL A HMAD1985 CLC 1955 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. BAHAWAL NAGAR AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 651 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 761 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAR alias ALLAH YAR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2406 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FORT DIVISION (ELECTRICITY)1985 PLC (C.S.) 382 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB SHAH vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE and 3 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-08-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB KHAN vs S. MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ HUSSAIN and others1985 CLC 2705 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB KHAN and 3 others vs AKBAR KHAN and 5 others1985 CLC 1078 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, an Assistant at a bank, who was facing trial for alleged criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts under Sections 409 and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Following the promulgation of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984, the case was transferred to the Special Court, causing the petitioner's prior bail to stand cancelled by operation of law. His subsequent bail application before the Special Court was dismissed under Section 5(6) of the Ordinance. The High Court considered whether Section 5(6) creates an absolute bar against granting bail and whether the High Court retains jurisdiction under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail in cases pending before the Special Court. The High Court held that the Special Court is an inferior court subject to the High Court's appellate and ancillary jurisdiction, and Section 5(6) is an enabling provision that does not impose an absolute prohibition on bail. Granting bail, the Court found the case warranted further inquiry as the disputed credit entry was rectified prior to FIR registration without proof of personal misappropriation.
Questions settled- Does the High Court retain jurisdiction under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail in cases pending trial before a Special Court constituted under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
- Is a Special Court constituted under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 a court inferior to the High Court?
- Does Section 5(6) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 impose an absolute bar on the grant of bail to an accused charged with a scheduled offence?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs The STATE1985 SCMR 619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail petition by the Lahore High Court in a murder case registered under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner contended that the First Information Report did not disclose a case against him and that only a lalkara was attributed to him. The core legal question was whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, attracting the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that upon perusal of the First Information Report, allegations clearly indicated that the petitioner had fired a shot at the scene, thereby prima facie establishing common intention. The key principle laid down is that where the First Information Report discloses overt acts and prima facie application of common intention under section 34, pre-arrest bail is rightly refused.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be refused when the First Information Report prima facie discloses the applicability of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does a lalkara coupled with an allegation of firing a shot constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, MULTAN1985 PLC 782 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs PIONEER STEEL MILLS, MURIDKE1985 PLC 503 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs Messrs NATIONAL FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES1985 SCMR 1994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of an evacuee property in Quetta originally consisting of a dilapidated one-room house. The appellant applied for and obtained the transfer of the property and a Permanent Transfer Deed under paragraph 2(i.e) of Scheme No. 1 framed under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The first respondent, whose earlier transfer application had been rejected, successfully challenged the transfer through a constitutional petition in the Baluchistan High Court, which held that the appellant was not qualified for transfer as he had neither made permanent constructions by the crucial date nor exercised the option within the prescribed period. Upon grant of leave to appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the High Court misread the relevant provisions of the Scheme. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that permanent construction prior to the promulgation of the Scheme and exercise of the option within the prescribed deadline were mandatory conditions precedent. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an occupant is entitled to the transfer of an evacuee property under Scheme No. 1 without having made permanent constructions by the crucial date?
- Can an option to retain a building site under paragraph 2(i.e) of Scheme No. 1 be exercised after the expiry of the prescribed period?
- Does a party whose transfer application was previously refused have locus standi to challenge the illegal transfer of evacuee property to another person?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs MAHMOOD and others1985 CLC 2993 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs Dr. BADSHAH BEGUM And Other1985 SCMR 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the allotment and subsequent confiscation of land originally allotted to Mangli in District Sheikhupura. The core legal question involves the validity of the restoration of the allotment by the Settlement Commissioner in favour of the original allottee without notice to interested parties, and the rights of a purported bona fide purchaser where the initial allotment was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly quashed the Settlement Commissioner's order, noting that the land was indeed subject to a confiscatory order by a Special Military Court and that alienation by an allottee is void if the allotment is subsequently found to be tainted by fraud or misrepresentation. The key principle laid down is that an order passed without notice to interested parties is rightly set aside in constitutional jurisdiction, and alienation of land by an allottee is deemed void if the underlying allotment is found to be the result of fraud or misrepresentation.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner restoring an allotment without notice to interested parties is lawful?
- What is the legal effect on an alienation of land by an allottee if the allotment is subsequently found to be obtained by fraud or misrepresentation?
- Is a bona fide purchaser entitled to restoration of land when the original allotment was confiscated and the alienation deemed void?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1985 SCMR 1255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and anothers vs THE STATE and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 1064 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and another through his legal heirs vs MUHAMMAD1985 MLD 414 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 827 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs Mst. ASGHARI and 2 others1985 MLD 247 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAMIN AJMERI vs Mst. SALMA KHATOON1985 MLD 1542 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAMEEN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 299 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAM1N vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 682 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAHYA vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1985 PLC 616 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAHYA KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1985 MLD 107 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD WASEEM vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DERA GHAZI KHAN1985 P Cr. L J 244 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, which set aside a Magistrate's order discharging the petitioner under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner had been arrested for theft, but the Magistrate, finding no incriminating material, ordered his discharge and directed proceedings against the complainant under Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Additional Sessions Judge reversed this, holding the Magistrate lacked competence to discharge the accused before the police submitted a final report. The core legal question was whether a discharge order under Section 63 terminates police investigation and whether such an order is subject to revision. The High Court held that an order under Section 63 is purely administrative, merely releasing the accused from custody without terminating the police investigation. Consequently, such an order is not susceptible to revision. The Court affirmed that while a Magistrate may release an accused under Section 63, they cannot interfere with the ongoing police investigation, which must proceed until a final report is submitted under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does an order of discharge under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 terminate the police investigation?
- Is an order of discharge passed under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to revision by the Sessions Court?
- Can a Magistrate direct action under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against a complainant before the police investigation is concluded?
- MUHAMMAD WALAYAT vs ABDUL MAJEED and others1985 CLC 2765 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD WAHID and anothers vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY1985 P Cr. L J 1747 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 21 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD USMAN vs WAL1 MUHAMMAD and 4 others1985 CLC 1669 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD USMAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 864 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD USMAN vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL1985 MLD 985 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ARIF QURESHI and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2701 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD USMAN and another vs REHMATULLAH and 4 others1985 CLC 420 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD USMAN and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1310 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMER MIRZA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2020 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →