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.

• MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 4 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2449 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 10 others vs SESSIONS JUDGE, FAISALABAD and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2890 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias ACHHA vs THE STATE1985 MLD 802 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM (THROUGH HIS L. R.) vs WAZIR MUHAMMAD1985 PLD Supreme Court 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-14
  evictionpersonal needdeath of landlordheritable estaterent defaultlegal representativesactio personalis moritur cum personasecond appealRent Restriction Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered an appeal arising from an eviction application against a tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal need of the landlord for a commercial shop under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The Rent Controller and District Judge ordered the tenant's eviction. During the pendency of the tenant's second appeal in the High Court, the landlord died. The High Court allowed the tenant's appeal, holding that the personal need extinguished upon the landlord's death and setting aside the default finding despite the tenant's earlier concession and failure to press preliminary issues. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, holding that once an order of eviction is lawfully passed during the landlord's lifetime, it becomes a perfected, heritable right forming part of his estate. The legal representatives are entitled to defend and enforce the eviction order, subject to statutory limits. The Court restored the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order of eviction obtained by a landlord on the ground of personal need extinguish upon the landlord's death during appellate proceedings?
  • Can legal representatives enforce an eviction order based on personal need obtained by a deceased landlord during his lifetime?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a finding of fact based on a concession made by a party's counsel before the Rent Controller?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIF vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 181 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-08-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE ST ATE1985 P Cr. L J 2531 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1985 PLC 168 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs SARGODHA TEXTILE MILLS1985 PLC 608 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD MEDICAL COLLEGE, LAHORE1985 PLC 106 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs Mst. MUSARAT NISAR and 4 others1985 MLD 1524 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs MESSRS ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI1985 PLC 1005 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE GUJRAT1985 PLC 848 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs GENERAL MANAGER, C.T.R., TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 794 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs D.I.-G. OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI RANGE, RAWALPINDI1985 PLC (C.S.) 492 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-03-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs ALI H AMID1985 CLC 2090 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF SHAH vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through the Secretary, Agriculture Punjab, Lahore1985 PLC (C.S.) 161 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF NAEEM vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CANTT. DIVISION1985 PLC (C.S.) 390 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF FALAHI vs E.A. EVANS and 2 others1985 CLC 1963 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And Others vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN1985 SC-M R 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitioncompulsory acquisition chargesreference to courtlocal authoritymarket value compensationstatutory interpretationlegislation by reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 for a development scheme in Rawalpindi. The Collector fixed compensation without awarding compulsory acquisition charges, prompting the Provincial Government to make a reference under section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 at the instance of the Rawalpindi Improvement Trust. The District Judge reduced the compensation, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent appeals by the landowners. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the reference by the Provincial Government for an acquisition made for a local authority was competent, and whether the Court was under a duty under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to allow 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Government was legally competent to make the reference under section 18(3) even when land is acquired for a local authority. Furthermore, the Court held that the exclusion of section 23(2) by the local Act was ultra vires, and therefore landowners are mandatorily entitled to 15% additional compensation for compulsory acquisition regardless of whether they specifically claimed it earlier.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a reference made by the Provincial Government under section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is competent when land is acquired for a local authority?
  • Is the Provincial Government's right to seek a reference under section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 restricted only to acquisitions made for the purposes of the Government?
  • Whether the court is under a mandatory duty under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to award 15% additional compensation for compulsory acquisition even if not specifically claimed?
  • What is the legal effect of the incorporation of one statute by another through legislation by reference?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHERS vs IJAZ AHMAD BAJWAPLD 1985 Rev. 8 (Punjab) · Board of Revenue · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 8 OTHERS vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OP THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND 13 OTHERS1985 PLD SC (A & J K) 102 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 7 others vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 470 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias SARWAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1491 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs THE STATE1985 MLD 726 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WAPDA, KASUR1985 PLC 488 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-07-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ MUGHAL vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN1985 PLC 454 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ . vs SALEM A N1985 CLC 2374 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs The STATE1985 SCMR 998 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR MALIK vs MAJ. (Retd.) ABDUL KARIM RANA1985 MLD 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2294 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1743 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. KARACHI AND 21985 PLC 607 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JHELUM and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2159 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD RAZA vs The PIONEER INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.1985 PLC 354 · Labour Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD JAVED vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 310 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JHANG AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 675 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF vs Messrs PACKAGES Ltd., LAHORE1985 PLC 242 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, M.C. GUJRANWALA And Other1985 SCMR 1706 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-02
  election petitionconstitutional jurisdictionappreciation of evidenceleave to appealElection Tribunaldiscretionary poweradditional evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an Election Tribunal's decision to declare his election void. The core legal questions concerned whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional errors by improperly appreciating evidence, admitting ballot papers as evidence, and refusing to summon the Presiding Officer as a witness. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's findings were based on the appreciation of evidence, which fell within its jurisdiction, and that the refusal to allow additional evidence at a belated stage was a valid exercise of discretionary power. Consequently, the Court found no legal error warranting interference in the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction and refused leave to appeal. The judgment establishes that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-appraise evidence or challenge the discretionary procedural decisions of an Election Tribunal, provided the Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction and considered all relevant aspects of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with an Election Tribunal's decision based on the appreciation of evidence?
  • Does an Election Tribunal have the discretion to refuse the production of additional evidence at a belated stage?
  • Is the production of ballot papers by voters to prove they were not allowed to cast them permissible evidence in an election petition?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF BUTT AND 2 OTHERS vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, P. U. T. C. AND OTHERS1985 PLC 747 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF AND OTHERS vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 21985 PLC 733 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DELIMITATION OFFICER, FAISALABAD and 2 others1985 MLD 1154 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1985 PLC 836 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR HUSSAIN CHAUHAN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 31985 PLC (C.S.) 796 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR BUTT vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, MAN POWER1985 PLC (C.S.) 684 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-08-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR BHATTI vs PUNJAB AGR [CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC 633 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND ANOTHERs vs WALI MUHAMMAD1985 PLD Lahore 489 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1531 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2655 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANSAR KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2928 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANIS vs THE STATE1985 MLD 18 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANIS vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS And Other1985 SCMR 547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-20
  Service Tribunal jurisdictionseniority disputedepartmental representationstatutory barretrospective reliefservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a decision of the Service Tribunal, which had denied the petitioner's request for ante-dating his seniority and pay benefits. The petitioner, despite being recognized as senior to the respondents in his technical trade, argued that an initial misplacement at the time of his appointment in 1960 prevented his timely selection for a training course and subsequent promotion. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal regarding departmental decisions made prior to July 1, 1969, specifically when the petitioner sought to challenge the rejection of his representation filed years later. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the bar under the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, precluded relief for departmental orders issued before the statutory cutoff date. The Court established the principle that in determining jurisdiction, the substance of the relief sought is the material factor, rather than the date on which a departmental representation was rejected or the date of the final order impugned.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a departmental order made before July 1, 1969?
  • Is the date of the rejection of a departmental representation the relevant date for determining the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Does the substance of the relief sought determine the applicability of the jurisdictional bar under the Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANIS QURESHI vs SECRETARY, CABINET SECRETARIAT1985 PLC (C.S.) 300 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-04-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD and others vs MOTALLI and others1985 MLD 154 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD and 4 others vs MAT ARO and 3 others1985 MLD 286 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMJAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2232 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR QASM1 vs Ch. MUHAMMAD AZHAR SHAHEEN1985 PLD Lahore 234 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR FAROOQUI vs THE STATEPLD 1985 Rev. 159 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1978-04-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR And 2 Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-19
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirycriminal appealsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the bail application of the petitioners, Muhammad Amir, Bashir, and Jehan, who along with others were accused of the murder of Muhammad Ramzan. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the specific role attributed to each accused. The Supreme Court held that the case of petitioners Muhammad Amir and Jehan fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under criminal jurisprudence, noting that Muhammad Amir used the blunt side of a hatchet despite carrying a revolver, and the medical report did not substantiate the injury attributed to Jehan on a non-vital part. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to both petitioners. The key principle laid down is that where specific roles attributed to accused persons and the medical evidence create reasonable doubt regarding intent or the nature of injuries on non-vital parts, the case warrants further inquiry, making it a fit case for the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the role attributed to an accused carrying a firearm but using a blunt weapon creates a case for further inquiry regarding bail?
  • Does an unsubstantiated injury on a non-vital part of the deceased by an accused justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • When can a petition for leave to appeal in a criminal matter be converted into an appeal and allowed for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 797 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others1985 CLC 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN RIAZ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL1985 PLC (C.S.) 945 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN and anothers vs MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ ALI QURESHI, A.C.1985 P Cr. L J 2773 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN AND 5 OTHERS vs Mows' MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND 41985 PLD Quetta 210 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN And 4 Others vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE1985 SCMR 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD Alias MUHAMMAD ALI And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-16
  murder convictionocular testimonyleave to appeallife imprisonmentappreciation of evidencecriminal appealeyewitness reliability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners for the offense of murder. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the ocular testimony provided by the prosecution witnesses was sufficient to sustain the conviction, given the arguments regarding the reliability of the evidence and the absence of blood-stained recoveries. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the findings of the courts below were sound. It determined that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was natural, truthful, and corroborated by the medical evidence, thereby establishing the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that eyewitnesses who lack direct enmity with the accused and whose presence at the crime scene is justified can be safely relied upon to establish guilt in a capital case. Furthermore, the Court held that where the accused have already been granted the lesser sentence of life imprisonment and the benefit of statutory sentence computation, no further interference with the sentence is warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular testimony alone when recovery evidence is not blood-stained?
  • Is the testimony of an eyewitness reliable if they have no direct enmity with the accused?
  • Does the granting of the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude further interference with a sentence by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD alias MAMMAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs The STATE1985 SCMR 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-19
  illegal gratificationcorruptiontrap raidappreciation of evidenceleave to appealcourt readercriminal conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former court Reader, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for accepting illegal gratification under Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution alleged the petitioner demanded a bribe from a complainant to facilitate court proceedings, resulting in a successful trap operation supervised by a Magistrate. The petitioner contended he was falsely implicated following an altercation with the complainant and argued that his defence evidence was improperly disregarded by the lower courts. The Supreme Court examined the record, noting that the Magistrate supervising the raid provided clear testimony regarding the exchange of money and its recovery, which the trial and appellate courts correctly prioritized over the testimony of casual defence witnesses. The Court held that the lower courts applied appropriate standards in evaluating the evidence and that the petition essentially sought a re-appraisal of evidence, which was not warranted. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court's preference for the testimony of a supervising Magistrate over casual defence witnesses in a corruption trap case be considered legally flawed?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when it essentially seeks a re-appraisal of evidence already considered by the lower courts?
  • Does the failure to suggest the names of defence witnesses to prosecution witnesses during cross-examination affect the weight given to the defence evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another1985 CLC 1527 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others1985 PLC 403 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-26
  workman definitionmanagerial capacityindustrial disputelabour lawpower of attorneyconstitutional petitionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which determined that the petitioner, a bank employee, was not a "workman" and therefore ineligible for relief under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s role as a Branch Manager, involving the exercise of a power of attorney and independent administrative authority, constituted "clerical" or "manual" work. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not a "workman." The ratio established that the true test for determining a "workman" status is the nature of the duties performed, rather than the designation. Where an employee’s primary responsibilities involve managerial and administrative functions, such as exercising delegated powers of attorney, they fall outside the statutory definition of a "workman." The Court affirmed that while the burden of proof rests on the employer, the respondent-Bank successfully demonstrated that the petitioner’s duties were managerial, thereby upholding the lower courts' findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 apply to proceedings under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is a bank employee holding a power of attorney and performing managerial duties considered a 'workman'?
  • What is the primary test for determining whether an employee qualifies as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the employer to establish that an employee is not a 'workman'?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs RIZWAN HUSSAIN And Other1985 SCMR 1259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-20
  settlement operationscomposite propertyindivisible propertytime-barred appealleave to appealtransfer of propertylocal occupant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a local occupant of a residential portion within a composite property, sought leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing his Letters Patent Appeal. The property in question had been transferred jointly to other claimants in 1959. The petitioner's initial claim form was rejected in 1959, and he failed to challenge the transfer until 1961. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the transfer of the residential portion despite the property being declared indivisible and the petitioner's significant delay in challenging the transfer. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the property was indivisible and the petitioner had acquiesced to the transfer by paying rent to the respondents. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioner's challenge to be time-barred, as he had failed to file an appeal within the prescribed period. The Court affirmed that in the absence of a valid challenge to the transfer order and given the indivisible nature of the property, the petitioner had no legal entitlement to the transfer.

  Questions settled

  • Is a local occupant entitled to the transfer of a portion of a composite property that has been declared indivisible?
  • Can a petitioner challenge a property transfer order after a significant delay and after having accepted the transfer by paying rent?
  • Does the joint transfer of a composite property to multiple claimants support the finding that the property is indivisible?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs NAZRA and 7 others1985 P Cr. L J 2752 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs MANAGER, STANDARD MANUFACTURING COMPANY Ltd.1985 PLC 118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs MAHMOOD ALI1985 P Cr. L J 2937 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY and 5 others1985 CLC 1422 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs A.C./D.S.C. and others1985 MLD 86 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN vs NANGAR KHAN and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 574 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI And Others vs And Other1985 SCMR 1281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-12
  trade union electiondismissal from serviceunfair labour practiceworkman statusleave to appealinterim order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the validity of a trade union election. The petitioners, who were union members and candidates, were dismissed from service by their employers for alleged misconduct prior to the election. They challenged their dismissal before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) as an unfair labour practice, obtaining an interim order allowing them to participate in the election. Although they were elected, the first respondent challenged the election under Section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, arguing that the dismissed petitioners were no longer 'workmen actually engaged or employed' under Section 7(1)(d) of the Ordinance, thereby violating the statutory 75% representation requirement for actual employees in the union executive. The High Court upheld the Labour Court's decision to set aside the election, ruling that dismissed employees do not retain the status of workmen for union executive purposes and that the NIRC's interim order was without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to determine these novel and authoritative questions of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a workman dismissed from service, whose dismissal is sub judice before a competent forum, continues to enjoy the status of a workman within the meaning of Section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 for the purpose of contesting union elections?
  • Whether the 75 per cent representation requirement of actual workmen in a trade union executive under Section 7(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 is violated by the participation of dismissed employees whose cases are pending adjudication?
  • Whether the Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission has the jurisdiction under Regulation 32 of the National Industrial Relations Commission Regulations to issue an interim order preserving a dismissed employee's right to contest union elections?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 603 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-22
  post-arrest bailillegal detentionjudicial remandcommon intentionpolice negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed on behalf of Muhammad Ali and Moneer Ahmad facing trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Khairpur. The core legal question concerns the legality of the petitioners' continued detention in jail given that the police failed to obtain a judicial remand order from a court of competent jurisdiction since the case was transferred back from Martial Law Authorities. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners' detention without a valid judicial remand order is illegal and accordingly granted them post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing surety bonds, while clarifying that the State or complainant may seek bail cancellation upon submission of the challan. The key principle laid down is that prolonged detention without a valid judicial remand from a competent court renders custody unlawful and entitles an accused to bail, while also attracting potential penal consequences for the responsible investigating officer.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the police to obtain a judicial remand order render the continued detention of an accused illegal?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when their detention in jail is found to be without lawful authority due to lack of judicial remand?
  • Can a court order notice to be issued to an investigating officer for potential illegal confinement when no judicial remand has been secured?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI and 7 others vs SAKAR KHANOO BAI through Legal Heirs and 3 others1985 MLD 545 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2171 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM BALOCH and another vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 449 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs The STATE1985 SCMR 570 (1) · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs MUHAMMAD SAEED1985 CLC 2122 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs MUHAMMAD AYUB1985 PLC 194 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs MUHAMMAD AMIR1985 P Cr. L J 1560 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs GHULAM HITSSAIN And Other1985 SCMR 1026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-21
  leave to appealmurderculpable homicidereduction of sentenceappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  Muhammad Akram filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29-4-1980, which acquitted the respondent Ghulam Hussain of the charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and altered his conviction to section 304-I, reducing his sentence to the period already undergone. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reducing the sentence accordingly. The Supreme Court held that, upon reviewing the evidence and the reasons provided in the impugned judgment, the High Court was fully justified in its findings and in acquitting the respondent of the original murder charge. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, establishing that appellate interference is unwarranted where the lower court's appreciation of evidence regarding sudden provocation or altered intent is sound.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from section 302 to section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with an acquittal and sentence reduction where the High Court's reasoning is supported by the record?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA And Other1985 SCMR 1406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-21
  service tribunalsenioritycivil servantleave to appealpromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant working as an Assistant in WAPDA, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 28th March, 1983. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to seniority over certain named colleagues who were promoted earlier while working in separate divisions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to point to any material to unsettle the factual basis of the Tribunal's decision and that the petition raised no substantial question of law warranting interference. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that factual findings of the Service Tribunal regarding separate departmental seniorities and delayed legal recourse will not be disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction without solid legal grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal can be granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against a factual determination of seniority by the Service Tribunal?
  • Does separate divisional seniority preclude a clash in seniority claims for promotion to a higher grade?
  • Is a belated claim for seniority affected by failure to timely resort to legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN vs WAPDA and 6 others1985 PLC 21 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-12
  criminal appealmurderreasonable doubtbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceunlawful assemblyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Zafar Ali. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the conflicting testimonies and the implausibility of the prosecution's narrative regarding the abduction and subsequent murder of the deceased. The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence, noting significant inconsistencies in the statements of the eye-witnesses and the investigating officers, particularly concerning the place of occurrence and the recovery of incriminating evidence. The Court held that the prosecution's version of events was uninspiring and riddled with contradictions, rendering the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is inherently improbable, contradictory, and relies on unreliable recovery witnesses, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, necessitating their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of significant inconsistencies in eye-witness testimony and investigating officer reports warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's narrative of the sequence of events is inherently improbable and unsupported by reliable evidence?
  • Should the benefit of doubt be extended to the accused when the recovery of incriminating weapons and blood-stained clothing is supported only by witnesses of questionable credibility?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 390 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND 9 OTHERS vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER ,1985 PLC (C.S.) 819 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 8 others vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN, RAILWAYS RAWALPINDI1985 PLC 251 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 88 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM ALVI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1985 PLC (C.S.) 490 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKHLAQUE and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1650 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs THEPROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through Divisional1985 SCMR 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-04
  remand orderarbitration proceedingsSection 14 Arbitration Actleave to appealopportunity to produce evidenceacademic interestrebuttal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court remanding an arbitration matter back to the trial court. The High Court had accepted the respondent's appeal and directed the lower court to decide an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act after affording both parties an opportunity to produce evidence and rebuttal regarding objections. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court's remand order warranted interference. Refusing leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the impugned order of remand was fair and justified. The Court further observed that no interim stay had been granted against the remand order, the petitioner had failed to instruct counsel for several years regarding the subsequent proceedings, and the matter had become merely of academic interest. Consequently, the Court found no justification for interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of remand passed by the High Court providing both parties an opportunity to lead evidence on objections under the Arbitration Act warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal should be dismissed as having only academic interest where the petitioner fails to pursue the case or update counsel after an unstayed remand order?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 338 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09
  supply of copiesstatements of witnessespolice diaryinspection notepolice reportcriminal revisioninvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing an application filed under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the accused for the supply of copies of statements of various persons examined during police investigation, inspection notes, and police reports. The core legal questions involve determining whether an accused is entitled under section 265-C to copies of all statements regardless of whether the makers are actual witnesses, subsequent police reports or opinions, and later inspection notes. The Lahore High Court held that the accused are only entitled to statements of persons who qualify as witnesses in substance and essence, and not mere opinions or statements of persons who did not witness the occurrence. Furthermore, the court held that copies of subsequent inspection notes and subsequent police opinions are not mandated under the law. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed with a limited direction regarding specific statements recorded on a particular date.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused persons entitled under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to copies of statements made by persons who do not claim to be eye-witnesses and only express opinions on guilt or innocence?
  • Whether subsequent police opinions and reports prepared after the submission of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be supplied to the accused before trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to copies of inspection notes recorded by investigating officers on visits subsequent to the first visit to the place of occurrence?
  Read full judgment →