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.
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EAST) vs Messrs CRESCENT PAK SOAP & OIL1985 PTD 3 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-10Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), MADRAS vs INDIAN METAL AND METALLURGICAL CORPORATION, .(1985 PTD 611 · Madras High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI vs Messrs MOOSA1985 PTD 208 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-20Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI vs MESSRS TAJ1985 PTD 655 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI vs MESSRS1985 PTD 498 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI vs KARACHI OIL1985 PTD 770 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-19Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE) vs MESSRS SHAHSONS1985 PTD 796 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-12Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karachi. vs SadruddinPTCL 1985 (CL.) 260 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, KARACHI vs Messrs SURRIDGE AND BEECHENO, ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS, FINLAY HOUSE, KARACHI1985 SCMR 1084 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals arising from the refusal by the Income-Tax Officer to renew the registration of a law firm, Messrs Surridge and Beecheno, under the Income-Tax Act, 1922. The core legal question was whether a partnership deed is invalid for registration purposes if it lacks an explicit provision for sharing losses and contains contingent clauses regarding profit allocation. The Supreme Court held that the firm's registration was valid and the renewal was rightly granted. The Court affirmed that the absence of a specific provision for sharing losses does not invalidate a partnership deed, as such matters are governed by the Partnership Act, 1932. Furthermore, the Court ruled that profit-sharing clauses, even if contingent on future uncertainties, do not render the shares unspecified under the Act. The key principle laid down is that where a firm is genuinely constituted and its constitution remains unchanged, the renewal of registration should follow as a matter of course, provided the application is complete, and the Income-Tax Officer cannot reject renewal based on speculative contingencies regarding profit distribution.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a specific provision for sharing losses in a partnership deed invalidate the partnership for the purpose of registration under the Income-Tax Act, 1922?
- Can an Income-Tax Officer refuse the renewal of registration of a firm on the ground that profit allocation is contingent on future uncertainties?
- Is a firm with an unchanged constitution entitled to the renewal of its registration under the Income-Tax Act, 1922, once its initial genuineness is established?
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE "D" vs M.A. MUNIM1985 SCMR 2027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against a judgment of the Sind High Court regarding the taxability of a 'separation allowance' received by an employee upon the cessation of business by his employer. The core legal question was whether the separation allowance received by the assessee constituted compensation for loss of employment and a non-taxable capital receipt, or taxable remuneration for past services under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court held that the High Court and the Tribunal correctly appreciated the evidence and factual position, finding that the allowance was paid solely as compensation for the loss of employment pursuant to a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, rather than as remuneration for past services. The key principle laid down is that payments received by an employee solely as compensation for loss of employment upon cessation of business, and not as remuneration for past services, qualify as capital receipts exempt from income tax.
Questions settled- Whether a separation allowance received upon the cessation of an employer's business is taxable as a profit in lieu of salary?
- Is a payment made as compensation for the loss of employment considered a capital receipt not liable to be taxed under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Whether the Tribunal's finding of fact that a payment was made solely as compensation for loss of employment warrants interference by the superior courts?
- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Karachi. vs M/S. Surridge And Beechenco-Advocates And Solicitors, Finlay House,Karachi.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated civil appeals arose from the refusal of the Income Tax authorities to renew the registration of a firm of solicitors under Section 26-A of the Income Tax Act, 1922, on the grounds that profit allocation was subject to contingencies and uncertainties and that the partnership deed omitted explicit provisions regarding the sharing of losses. The core legal question was whether the absence of a specific clause regarding the sharing of losses and the dependence of profit shares on certain contingencies rendered the instrument of partnership invalid for the renewal of registration under the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and the High Court were correct in granting the renewal, ruling that the specific provision regarding the sharing of losses is not an essential requirement for the constitution of a valid partnership firm, and that the mechanics of profit allocation, even if subject to contingencies, sufficiently satisfied the requirement of specifying individual shares under the law. The appeals were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of a specific provision regarding the sharing of losses in an instrument of partnership renders the firm invalid for registration under Section 26-A of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
- Is an Income Tax Officer competent to reopen the question of the initial validity and genuineness of a firm when dealing with a subsequent application for the renewal of its registration?
- Whether the dependence of profit shares on certain contingencies and uncertainties means that the shares of the partners are not specified as required by law?
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs United AgenciesPTCL 1985 (CL.) 164 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs Messrs NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA And Other1985 SCMR 2008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of appeals involving foreign, non-resident shipping companies and their entitlement to initial and additional depreciation allowances under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal question was whether such depreciation could be claimed for ships registered outside Pakistan, not installed in Pakistan, and not plying in Pakistan. Relying on the precedent set in Civil Appeal No. K-45 of 1971, the Court held that for non-resident shipping companies whose income is assessed based on world income under the Income-tax Rules, initial and additional depreciation allowances are available. Regarding six specific appeals where the assessment years fell after the Finance Act, 1967—which amended the relevant provisions to require that a ship be 'installed in Pakistan'—the Court declined to adjudicate the issue. The Court reasoned that leave to appeal was not granted on the question of the 1967 amendment's impact, and the point was neither urged in the petitions nor addressed by the High Court. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Are non-resident shipping companies whose income is assessed on a world-income basis entitled to initial and additional depreciation allowances under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Does the requirement that a ship be 'installed in Pakistan' for depreciation purposes apply to assessment years governed by the Finance Act, 1967?
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Fazal Shafiq Textile Mills Ltd.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 436 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax Karachi (West) Karachi vs MuhammadPTCL 1985 (CL.) 231 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-09Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Karachi. vs Khayam Theatre, KarachiPTCL 1985 (CL.) 335 · Sindh and Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Karachi. vs Calcutta CottonPTCL 1985 (CL.) 350 · Sindh and Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Zone), Karachi. vs PetroleumPTCL 1985 (CL.) 502 · Sindh and Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Zone), Karachi. vs M/S. ShahnawazPTCL 1985 (CL.) 337 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C) KARACHI vs Messrs HABIB BANK1985 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding whether profits earned by the respondent company from the sale of shares in allied concerns constituted taxable revenue receipts or non-taxable capital gains. The core legal question was whether the sale of these shares, given the company's memorandum of association, amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade or business. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the profits were capital gains rather than revenue receipts. The Court reasoned that the mere authorization in a company's memorandum to invest surplus funds does not transform every sale of investment into a business activity. The holding establishes that for a transaction to be classified as business income, there must be evidence of a systematic commercial enterprise or speculative trading. Since the shares were held as long-term investments of surplus funds rather than as stock-in-trade, and the company did not engage in frequent, systematic trading, the profit realized from their sale was not taxable as business income. The judgment emphasizes distinguishing between capital accretion and trading profit.
Questions settled- Does the mere authorization in a company's memorandum of association to invest funds automatically render all profits from the sale of such investments taxable as business income?
- What criteria distinguish a capital gain from a revenue receipt when a company realizes profit from the sale of shares?
- Can the sale of shares held as long-term investments of surplus funds be classified as an adventure in the nature of trade?
- COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD1985 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 62 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- COMMISSION ON ECUMENICAL MISSION and 13 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and 4 others1985 CLC 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- COLONY TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., MULTAN vs GENERAL SECRETARY, MEHNAT KASH1985 PLC 155 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- COKE AND OIL PRODUCTS LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Islamabad and 2 others1985 MLD 576 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
- CLIMAX ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., GUJRANWALA vs SHABIB AHMAD and another1985 PLC 400 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which ordered the reinstatement of an employee with back benefits. The core legal question was whether an employee, by accepting payment of dues for past services upon termination, is estopped from challenging the legality of their dismissal under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Court held that the acceptance of earned wages does not equate to an acceptance of the termination or a waiver of the right to contest it. The Court reasoned that a worker is entitled to payment for services rendered and cannot be expected to forego such wages to maintain a legal challenge. Furthermore, the Court found the employer's dismissal of the employee for refusing to accept a termination order to be perverse. The principle established is that receiving earned dues does not operate as an estoppel against challenging a dismissal, particularly where the receipt does not explicitly signify acceptance of the dismissal's validity. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of earned wages by an employee upon termination preclude them from challenging the dismissal under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can an employer dismiss an employee for the sole reason of refusing to accept a termination order?
- Does a general receipt of dues signed by an employee operate as an estoppel against challenging the validity of their dismissal?
- CIVIL AND MILITARY PRESS Ltd. and 3 others vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance and others1985 CLC 1021 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, manufacturers of box cartons made from corrugated board, challenged notices issued by the Central Excise & Land Customs authorities attempting to levy central excise duty on corrugated board under Item 37 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondents contended that corrugated board fell within the definition of 'paper board, all sorts' under Item 37. The High Court of Sindh examined the technical differences, physical properties, and trade classifications of paper board versus corrugated board. The Court observed that in taxing statutes, words of art must be construed in accordance with their technical trade meanings rather than their popular sense, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the subject. It held that corrugated board is a distinct product from paper board and does not fall within the scope of Item 37. Consequently, the Court declared the levy of central excise duty on corrugated board illegal and without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether corrugated board falls within the definition of 'paper board, all sorts' under Item 37 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944?
- How should words of art and technical terms be interpreted in a taxing statute when they have a specific meaning in trade and commerce?
- Does a consistent past departmental practice of not levying a tax create an absolute estoppel against a taxing statute passed in the public interest?
- Civil And Military Press Limited And 3 Other vs Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL) 252 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-09Read full judgment →
- Ciba (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karachi.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 491 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
- Chugtai Mirza JAMILUDDIN and another vs THE SEVENTH ADDITIONAL1985 MLD 161 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2630 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH AND 4 mumss vs NIZAM DIN AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 101 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
- CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/ MBR And Another vs Retired Col.1985 SCMR 898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a long-standing dispute over the extent and entitlement of excess land attached to a bungalow in Lahore. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner had previously determined the surplus area, a decision challenged by the respondent via a writ petition. The Lahore High Court remanded the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for fresh measurement or reassignment to an officer not below the rank of Additional Settlement Commissioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner sought leave to appeal against this remand order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, primarily to examine whether, following the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, the High Court possessed the legal authority to remand the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, rather than to the specific officer notified by the provincial government to dispose of pending proceedings under the repealing legislation. The court also noted the necessity of determining the appropriate authority under the notification issued by the Government of the Punjab.
Questions settled- Can the High Court remand a case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, restrict the High Court's power to remand cases to specific notified officers?
- Chaudhry MUHAMMAD AMIN vs Mst. ZAHIDA BEGUM1985 CLC 3018 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry ABDUL AZIZ vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 4 others1985 CLC 2260 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
- CHANDOO alias CHAND MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 229 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- CHAND KHAN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition seeking leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitutional petition in an urban settlement dispute. The petitioner claimed possession of the subject house since 1954 and asserted he had filed a transfer form (N.C.H. Form) in 1959 which was allegedly ignored without a hearing. The property was subsequently auctioned and later transferred to a private respondent in 1977. The petitioner only initiated legal action in 1979 via a revision petition, approximately twenty years after submitting his initial transfer form. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the petitioner's gross delay, laches, and conduct—particularly remaining inactive for two decades despite having knowledge of proceedings as a former Patwari—precluded him from obtaining equitable relief in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the petition was improperly documented, lacking essential factual particulars. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained and prolonged delay of twenty years in agitating rights regarding a settlement transfer form disentitles a petitioner from discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether an applicant's inaction and conduct bar him from challenging the subsequent transfer of settlement property to a third party?
- Can a constitutional petition or leave to appeal be dismissed on grounds of being improperly documented and lacking essential facts?
- CHANAN DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) and others1985 CLC 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
- CHAN MUHAMMAD vs SHAMAS GUL And Other1985 SCMR 1587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court in a murder case. The trial court had convicted the respondents for the murder of Ahmad Fayaz, rejecting their plea of self-defence. The High Court, however, overturned the conviction, finding that the complainant party was the aggressor and that the respondents acted in self-defence. The Supreme Court examined the conflicting versions of the incident: the prosecution alleged a targeted killing, while the defence contended that the complainant party initiated the altercation due to a prior dispute, leading to a situation where the accused fired in defence of his brother who had been stabbed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's assessment of the evidence—specifically its rejection of the sole eye-witness's testimony due to his motive and its acceptance of the plea of self-defence—was unexceptionable. The Court affirmed that the mere retreat of an assailant does not necessarily negate the immediate danger to the accused, thereby upholding the acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the mere retreat of an assailant automatically negate the right of self-defence for the accused?
- Can an appellate court overturn a trial court's rejection of a self-defence plea if the evidence suggests the complainant party was the aggressor?
- Is the testimony of an eye-witness who is shown to have a motive to implicate the accused reliable?
- CHAITNA A ppellant vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, WAPDA vs HABIB AHMAD HASHMI1985 MLD 1539 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD And Others vs Hafiz ABDUL QAYYUM1985 SCMR 1788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding a contract of work executed between Pakistan Railways and the respondent, which was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator submitted the award to the court on 11 May 1981 in the presence of counsel for both parties, and the court adjourned the matter to 28 May 1981 for filing objections. The petitioners filed their objections on 28 June 1981, which the trial court rejected as time-barred, subsequently making the award the rule of the court. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that their objections were not time-barred and that the award was void on its face due to an incorrect rate allowed for dewatering charges. The Supreme Court held that since the award was filed in the presence of the petitioners' counsel, they had due notice, and their subsequent request for an extension on 23 June 1981 without raising any grievance of lack of notice confirmed this. Furthermore, the disputed rate change was unsigned and unagreed. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the presence of a party's counsel at the time an arbitration award is filed in court constitutes sufficient notice to start the limitation period for filing objections?
- Can an objection to an arbitration award be entertained if it is filed beyond the prescribed limitation period without any valid grievance of lack of notice?
- Whether an unsigned and unagreed amendment to a contract rate can be used to challenge the validity of an arbitrator's award.
- CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAY BOARD, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD ALI1985 SCMR 1072 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the payment of pension arrears and ongoing pension dues owed by the Pakistan Railway Board to the respondent, Muhammad Ali. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should determine the specific quantum of pension and arrears payable to the respondent during the pendency of existing proceedings, given that the final calculations had not yet been finalized by the appellant. The Court held that it was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the specific controversy regarding the precise amount of pension and dues payable, as that determination remained pending. Consequently, the Court permitted the appellant to deposit a specified sum as part payment of arrears and a monthly amount towards the pension, allowing the respondent to withdraw these funds without prejudice to his claims for the remaining balance. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not undertake the initial determination of disputed pension amounts when such calculations are administrative matters currently under process by the relevant department, provided that interim arrangements are made to secure the respondent's interests.
Questions settled- Is the Supreme Court the appropriate forum to determine the specific quantum of pension arrears when final calculations are still pending?
- Can a party be permitted to withdraw deposited pension funds without prejudice to their claims for a higher amount?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order interim payments of pension dues pending final administrative determination?
- CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, CHINIOT vs REHMAT ALI1985 PLC 525 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION And Another vs SARDAR ASHIQ1985 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against Lahore High Court judgments regarding the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The core legal questions involved whether the Chairman, sitting singly, possessed the authority to exercise revisional powers under paragraph 29 of the Regulation and whether the Chairman was disqualified from adjudicating due to bias, stemming from his prior political speeches and public statements against the respondent landowners. The Supreme Court held that while the issue of the Chairman's jurisdiction to sit singly was addressed by subsequent validation legislation, the proceedings were nonetheless vitiated by bias. The Court affirmed that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. It established that bias includes political hostility or excessive zeal that creates a reasonable apprehension of unfairness in the mind of a litigant. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases to the Federal Land Commission for a fresh decision on the merits, ensuring parties are afforded full opportunity to be heard.
Questions settled- Can a judge be disqualified from adjudicating a case on the grounds of political bias?
- Does a reasonable apprehension of bias vitiate judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings?
- Is a decision rendered by a biased authority void even if the result appears correct on merits?
- Does the principle of natural justice require that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done?
- CHAIRMAN TOWN COMMITTEE, GHAKHAR vs Malik MUHAMMAD NAWAZ1985 MLD 152(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
- CHAHAT and others vs ABDUL KHALIQ and others1985 CLC 2988 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
- Ch.MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs Ch.MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1985 CLC 2829 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-05Read full judgment →
- Ch.MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs S.M. EHSAN and others1985 CLC 2668 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
- Ch. UMAR DIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1985 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant in the Ministry of Production in 1972 and later transferred to the Ministry of Religious Affairs in 1976, challenged a seniority list assigning his seniority from the date of his transfer. His departmental representation was met with a letter stating his seniority was under determination in consultation with the Establishment Division. Subsequently, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was dismissed as time-barred and on merits. Upon further petition before the Supreme Court, the Court held that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred because the departmental letter relied upon by the petitioner was not a final appealable order. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition while observing that the petitioner remained entitled to press for a final determination of his seniority by the Ministry since such a final decision had not yet been rendered.
Questions settled- Whether an interim departmental letter regarding pending seniority determination constitutes a final appealable order under service laws?
- Is an appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal beyond the prescribed limitation period from the initial representation liable to be dismissed as time-barred?
- Does a dismissed time-barred service appeal preclude a civil servant from seeking a final determination of seniority where no final order has yet been issued?
- Ch. SHER ALI vs THE COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD DIVISION, FAISALABAD AND 21985 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- Ch. SHAUKAT ALI vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Additional Chief1985 PLC (C.S.) 206 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
- Ch. SHAH MUHAMMAD And Others vs ASHIQ And Other1985 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where the appellants initially sought to withdraw their appeal, citing an amicable out-of-court compromise. Subsequently, the appellants engaged new counsel and attempted to retract the withdrawal application, alleging that the respondents had resiled from the compromise. The Court addressed the core question of whether a party, having formally filed an application to withdraw an appeal based on a compromise, can subsequently retract that request to prolong litigation. The Supreme Court held that the initial application to withdraw the appeal was made with full responsibility and must be given full effect. The Court deprecated the practice of attempting to retract such formal requests merely to extend litigation. Consequently, the Court rejected the second application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, emphasizing that once a party has taken a definite step to withdraw, they are bound by that action.
Questions settled- Can an appellant retract a formal application to withdraw an appeal based on an alleged breach of compromise by the respondent?
- Is a party bound by a formal application to withdraw an appeal filed with the Court?
- Ch. SHAFQAT ALI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 355 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- Ch. SAMI ULLAH vs 'MUHAMMAD ASHIQ ABDALI AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 483 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. RUSTAM ALI vs Mst. JAMILA AKHTAR1985 SCMR 810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent landlady filed an ejectment application against the petitioner tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, and the High Court dismissed the tenant's first appeal. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that an advance deposit and adjustment towards whitewash and painting expenses negated the default. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to raise the plea of the receipt in his written statement, affidavit, or cross-examination, and that the plea of adjustment for repair expenses was legally untenable without obtaining prior permission under the relevant statute. The concurrent findings of fact regarding default by the lower courts were based on evidence and warranted no interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that concurrent findings of fact on default based on evidence cannot be disturbed, and that repair expense adjustments require statutory permission.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact on the question of default in rent can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Is a tenant entitled to claim adjustment of rent on account of repair expenses without obtaining permission under section 12 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Ch. RAFIQ AHMAD SHAD vs THE PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD And Other1985 SCMR 1919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of the Punjab Road Transport Board, sought contempt proceedings against the Board for failing to implement the judgment of the Punjab Services Tribunal dated 21-9-1980, which had restored his promotion to Grade-18 with consequential benefits. The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the Board's petition for leave to appeal against the Tribunal's order. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court could entertain a contempt application for the alleged violation of a Service Tribunal's order where the Supreme Court had merely dismissed the petition for leave to appeal without issuing an independent directive or granting relief itself. The Court held that the alleged breach pertained to the order of the Punjab Services Tribunal rather than an order of the Supreme Court, rendering the contempt application before the Supreme Court incompetent. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking remedy for the non-compliance of a Tribunal's order must approach the appropriate proper forum rather than invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court has only dismissed a petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a contempt application for the violation of a Punjab Services Tribunal order when the Supreme Court merely dismissed the petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a contempt application maintainable before the Supreme Court for non-compliance of an order passed by a subordinate tribunal?
- What is the proper forum for executing or seeking compliance with an order of the Punjab Services Tribunal?
- Ch. QAMAR ZAMAN vs DEPUTY SECRETARY, PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PUNJAB and 3 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 154 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HEADQUARTERS, IRRIGATION, BAHAWALPUR AND 14 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 931 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1972-06-15Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD SADIQ1985 SCMR 879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's eviction application against the respondent. The petitioner had sought the respondent's eviction from the demised shop-premises on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide use. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge both dismissed the application, and the High Court similarly dismissed the petitioner's second appeal after independently evaluating the evidence regarding personal requirement. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court misread or ignored material evidence regarding the petitioner's bona fide personal requirement for the premises. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's conclusions drawn from the evidence were legitimate and did not warrant interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement will not be interfered with where the lower courts have duly appreciated the evidence.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement in rent matters can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does the High Court's independent evaluation of evidence in a second appeal warrant interference if the conclusions are legitimate?
- What constitutes sufficient proof of personal requirement in shop eviction cases?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD RASHID1985 SCMR 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant for default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had directed the tenant to deposit future rent "before the 15th" of each month. The tenant deposited the rent on the 15th, leading the Rent Controller to strike off the tenant's defense for non-compliance, an order subsequently upheld by the District Court and the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the phrase "before the 15th" in a rent deposit order includes the 15th day or is exclusive of it. The Supreme Court held that the phrase "before the 15th" is clear and unambiguous, meaning the payment must be made earlier than the 15th day. Consequently, depositing rent on the 15th constitutes a default. The Court affirmed that in the absence of specific legislative intent to include the terminal date, such as using the phrase "on or before," the ordinary meaning of "before" must prevail, rendering the tenant's deposit untimely and the striking of the defense legally justified.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'before the 15th' in a rent deposit order include the 15th day?
- Is a tenant in default if they deposit rent on the 15th when ordered to pay 'before the 15th'?
- Can a court strike off a tenant's defense for failing to deposit rent by the date specified in a court order?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs AFSAR TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. And Another1985 SCMR 1865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether a court hearing a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act can allow an objector to claim increased compensation for acquired land by amending the original application filed before the Collector. The appellant's land was acquired, and after being dissatisfied with the Collector's award, the appellant filed an application seeking a reference to the civil court at a reduced flat rate of compensation. During the pendency of the reference, the appellant sought to amend the claim to a higher rate. The Senior Civil Judge partially allowed the amendment, but the High Court reversed this on revision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the jurisdiction of the court under a reference is special and strictly limited to the specific objection and matter referred. An objector is bound by their pleadings and claim presented before the Collector and cannot introduce a fresh case or enhance the compensation claim through amendment beyond the scope of the original reference.
Questions settled- Can a court hearing a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act allow an objector to amend their application to claim increased compensation?
- Is the jurisdiction of a civil court under a reference pursuant to section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act restricted to the specific objection referred by the Collector?
- Does an objector remain bound by the claim and pleadings presented before the Collector during subsequent judicial proceedings?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SHAFI MUSHTAQ vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Livestock and Diary Development, Punjab, Lahore and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 221 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- DILAWAR ALI KHAN vs DISTRICTFOOD CONTROLLER, FAISALABAD And Other1985 SCMR 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of his ration depot authorization. The petitioner had been running a ration depot, and following a raid, a quantity of Atta was recovered from an adjacent house stored by his Munshi, leading to the cancellation of his authorization by the District Magistrate, which was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of an authorization issued under the Sugar Distribution Order, 1960, was justified due to irregularities committed regarding the storage of Atta. The Supreme Court held that the authorities rightly attributed the irregularity to the petitioner in his capacity as a depot holder under the applicable administrative memorandum governing such depots. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that a depot holder's authorization is liable to cancellation for irregularities committed in the general performance of depot duties as covered by governing departmental instructions.
Questions settled- Whether the cancellation of a depot authorization issued under the Sugar Distribution Order, 1960 can be based on irregularities concerning commodities other than sugar?
- Can a depot holder be penalized under administrative instructions for irregularities committed in the capacity of a depot holder?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD NASEER vs S.H.O., P.S. OLD ANARKALI And Other1985 SCMR 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition seeking to declare the First Information Report registered at Police Station Old Anarkali as illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether a daily diary report recorded at a police guard room prior to the formal F.I.R. constitutes the real F.I.R., and whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction can determine which information should be treated as the F.I.R. The Supreme Court held that the S.H.O. acted in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure while recording the statement and registering the case, and that the question of which information was given first in point of time falls squarely for determination by the trial Court rather than in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the determination of the authentic F.I.R. among conflicting reports is a matter for the trial court during trial and cannot be adjudicated through constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the question of which information constitutes the real F.I.R. can be determined in writ jurisdiction?
- Does a daily diary report recorded prior to a formal F.I.R. automatically render the subsequent F.I.R. illegal?
- Is the determination of the authentic F.I.R. a matter to be decided by the trial court?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD KHALIL vs MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (SECRETARY) AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Supreme Court 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal. The appellant, a civil servant, had submitted an intimation for voluntary premature retirement after completing qualifying service under Note 1 to Regulation 465-B of the Civil Service Regulations. Subsequently, he requested to withdraw his retirement intimation, which was rejected by the competent authority. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, having submitted a written intimation for voluntary premature retirement under Note 1 to Regulation 465-B of the Civil Service Regulations, has the right to withdraw or modify such intimation prior to its acceptance. The Supreme Court held that the intimation, once submitted under the said rule, is final and cannot be modified or withdrawn, as the statutory rule expressly bars any withdrawal, distinguishing it from general rules governing resignations. The Court laid down the principle that the rights of civil servants are strictly governed by statutory rules, and where a rule explicitly provides that a notice or intimation of premature retirement is final and not subject to withdrawal, the civil servant cannot unilaterally recall it.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can withdraw an intimation for voluntary premature retirement once submitted under Note 1 to Regulation 465-B of the Civil Service Regulations?
- Does Note 1 to Regulation 465-B of the Civil Service Regulations possess statutory force?
- Can the general law of master and servant override specific statutory rules governing civil service tenure?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs The PROJECT DIRECTOR, LAHORE MILK PLANT, LAHORE1985 PLC 46 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SCARP-II CIRCLE, SARGODHA AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 915 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs NASEER AHMAD and another1985 MLD 1586 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 1245 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ZAMAN AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD SC (A J & K) 48 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD AYUB vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT QF PUNJAB, EXCISE1985 PLC (C.S.) 960 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 657 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN1985 PLC 182 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ vs Mst. SHAHIDA PARVEEN And 2 Other1985 SCMR 894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal arising from family court proceedings where the petitioner challenged ex parte decrees granted against him in suits for dower debt and maintenance. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in closing the petitioner's evidence and proceeding ex parte when the petitioner's counsel failed to appear on the fixed date, and whether the High Court correctly dismissed the subsequent writ petitions. The Supreme Court held that the trial court acted within its discretion, noting that the petitioner's counsel failed to appear or request an adjournment on the scheduled date. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner's remedy lay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree rather than filing writ petitions against the appellate orders. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot bypass established procedural remedies for setting aside ex parte orders by invoking writ jurisdiction, particularly when the party failed to attend the trial proceedings or seek timely adjournments through counsel.
Questions settled- Can a party invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge an ex parte decree without first seeking to set aside the decree in the trial court?
- Is a trial court justified in closing a defendant's evidence when the defendant's counsel fails to appear on the date fixed for evidence?
- Does a writ petition lie against an appellate order confirming an ex parte decree when the petitioner failed to pursue statutory remedies for setting aside the ex parte order?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD AMIN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 440 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD AMIN vs Mst. ZAHIDA BEGUM1985 MLD 340 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. MANZOOR AHMED vs AZAD JAMMU and KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 5 others1985 CLC 744 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- Ch. KHADIM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 PLD SC (A J & K) 125 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-06-14Read full judgment →
- CH. HAJI MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs GANGA RAM1985 SCMR 2043 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an eviction petition filed by the appellant against the respondent for non-payment of rent. The respondent contested the application, denying the landlord-tenant relationship and asserting ownership, while also arguing that the ejectment application was not maintainable due to the lack of service of notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Rent Controller ordered the respondent to deposit rent, and upon failure to comply, struck off the respondent's defence and ordered eviction. The High Court, however, set aside this order, holding that the Rent Controller was required to first determine the issue of the Section 30 notice before ordering the deposit of rent under the Rent Ordinance. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the service of a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, is a mandatory prerequisite (sine qua non) for the maintainability of an ejectment petition against a tenant occupying a property transferred to a displaced person. Consequently, an order for rent deposit made without first resolving this issue is a nullity.
Questions settled- Is the service of notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, a mandatory requirement for the maintainability of an ejectment petition?
- Can a Rent Controller order the deposit of rent under the Rent Ordinance before determining the issue of the service of a Section 30 notice?
- Does an order for the deposit of rent become a nullity if the underlying ejectment petition is not maintainable due to lack of statutory notice?
- Ch. GHULAM RASOOL vs SARDAR GHULAM FARID and others1985 MLD 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- Ch. GHULAM MUJTABA vs Mst. NAEEMA KHANUM1985 SCMR 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition regarding an objection filed during execution proceedings for the ejectment of a tenant. The core legal question was whether an individual who acted as counsel for a tenant in ejectment proceedings could subsequently intervene in the execution stage to claim independent possession of the disputed premises. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's objection was mala fide. The Court affirmed that the petitioner, having represented the tenant throughout the lengthy ejectment litigation, was fully aware of the proceedings and should have asserted his claim during the initial trial before the Rent Controller. The judgment establishes that a party who fails to assert a claim of independent possession during the primary ejectment proceedings, despite having full knowledge of the litigation, is precluded from raising such a claim at the execution stage. The principle of finality and the prevention of mala fide litigation are paramount in rent restriction matters.
Questions settled- Can a person who acted as counsel for a tenant in ejectment proceedings later claim independent possession during execution?
- Is an objection petition filed during execution proceedings maintainable if the intervenor had knowledge of the original ejectment proceedings?
- Does the failure to raise a claim of independent possession during the initial ejectment proceedings preclude such a claim at the execution stage?
- Ch. GHULAM MUJTABA vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1985 MLD 295 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-28Read full judgment →
- Ch. GHULAM MUJTABA vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a flat in a big mansion. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner, an occupant claiming through a licensee arrangement and acting as an informer, possessed the requisite locus standi to challenge the property's transfer, and whether he was guilty of laches. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no right to the transfer of the property and lacked locus standi, and that his constitutional petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court due to gross laches spanning nearly two decades while he litigated indirectly through ejectment proceedings. The key principle laid down is that an informer or a person without an independent pre-existing legal right to property cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction to challenge a transfer, particularly after inordinate delay and laches.
Questions settled- Does an occupant of a property who acts merely as an informer have the locus standi to challenge a property transfer through a constitutional petition?
- Can a party invoke the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court after a delay of nearly twenty years in challenging a settlement transfer order?
- Does the pendency of a departmental inquiry initiated on an informer's application clothe such person with a legal right to the transfer of property?
- Ch. GHULAM DASTGIR vs INSPECTOR.GENERAL OF PRISONS, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 639 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. FAZAL KARIM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE1985 PLC (C.S.) 601 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ch. EHSAN NABI vs RETURNING OFFICER/A.C. and another1985 CLC 2965 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
- Ch. ALTAF HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FORESTRY1985 PLC (C.S.) 100 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-07-18Read full judgment →
- Ch. ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 246 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL MAJID vs CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Azad J & K 83 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL HAMID vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant successfully contested a local body election for Ward No.7 of Town Committee Ghakkar but was disqualified, leading to a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed on the ground of an adequate alternate remedy via an election petition. The dispute originated from conflicting nomination papers where the same person was alleged to have proposed one candidate and seconded another, prompting proceedings before the Returning Officer, the Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner), and the Punjab Local Councils Election Authority. Upon remand, the Appellate Authority relied solely on a handwriting expert's report without recording oral testimony to invalidate the appellant's nomination paper, and subsequently, a candidate with fewer votes was declared the winner. Converting the petition into an appeal, the Supreme Court held that reliance solely on a handwriting expert's opinion without substantive corroborative evidence was legally defective, and that the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction where apparent illegalities existed. Invoking its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution to do complete justice, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and declared the appellant as the duly elected candidate, subject to any statutory election petition.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can decline to exercise constitutional jurisdiction on the ground of an alternative remedy when the impugned orders suffer from patent illegalities on the face of the record?
- Can a finding on disputed handwriting be based solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert without substantive corroborative evidence?
- Whether an appellate authority can determine disputed questions of fact regarding signatures without recording proper evidence and examining witnesses?
- Can the Supreme Court mold the relief and declare a candidate duly elected under Article 187 of the Constitution to do complete justice in election disputes?
- Ch. ABDUL HAMEED vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE1985 SCMR 927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning his claim to seniority over respondents. The petitioner, a Temporary Engineer initially appointed in 1955 and later inducted into P.S.E. Class II, contended that his promotion case was wrongfully withheld from the Public Service Commission on account of a pending inquiry that ultimately resulted only in a minor penalty, whereas a minor penalty did not bar promotion according to government policy circulars. The core legal question is whether a government servant's promotion can be withheld and their seniority bypassed due to pending disciplinary proceedings that eventuate in a minor penalty. The Supreme Court held that in view of the applicable circular dated 7-1-1969, which provides that a minor penalty inquiry may be ignored for withholding promotion, the authorities were not justified in withholding the petitioner's case. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further.
Questions settled- Whether a pending disciplinary inquiry resulting in a minor penalty justifies withholding a civil servant's promotion?
- Can the denial of promotion during the pendency of departmental proceedings affect a government servant's claimed seniority?
- Does a circular governing promotion during disciplinary proceedings override departmental discretion regarding the forwarding of cases to the Public Service Commission?
- Ch. ABDUL HAMEED vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB C & W1985 SCMR 1410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether the Government of the Punjab wrongly withheld the appellant's case from the Public Service Commission for promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer in violation of a policy circular dated January 7, 1969. The appellant, a Temporary Engineer in the Communication and Works Department, faced departmental inquiries, suffered a minor penalty, and was subsequently promoted. He claimed seniority over respondents who had been promoted during his inquiries, invoking rule 15 of the West Pakistan Services of Engineer (Building & Roads) (Class I) Rules, 1967. The Service Tribunal rejected his claim, holding that his checkered service record justified his supersession. The Supreme Court found no failure by the Government in referring the case to the Public Service Commission, noting that the 1969 circular did not apply retroactively to 1966-1967 events and that the appellant's name was duly considered. The Court further held that a minor penalty does not amount to exoneration, that subsequent expunction of adverse remarks does not invalidate prior valid consideration, and that the appellant was lawfully superseded. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the Government to submit a civil servant's case to the Public Service Commission violates departmental policy instructions?
- Does the imposition of a minor penalty following disciplinary proceedings constitute exoneration for the purpose of claiming pro forma promotion and seniority?
- Whether subsequent expunction of adverse remarks invalidates an earlier recommendation of supersession competently made by the Public Service Commission?
- Can an officer who was passed over for promotion due to a disciplinary inquiry claim seniority over juniors under the West Pakistan Services of Engineer (Building & Roads) (Class I) Rules, 1967?
- Ch MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs NASIR BEG And 4 Other1985 SCMR 652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the tenant, Muhammad Ibrahim, challenging a judgment of the High Court dated 16-11-1981, which dismissed his writ petition concerning an ejectment order. The underlying matter originated from an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the petitioner on grounds including default and bona fide personal need. Both the Rent Controller and the appellate court had previously determined that the landlord’s bona fide requirement for the premises was proven. Upon review, the Supreme Court addressed the competency of the writ petition filed by the tenant. The Court held that the writ petition was not competent in the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the Court observed that the High Court had thoroughly examined all arguments raised by the petitioner and provided cogent reasons for its decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no valid grounds for interference with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition. The decision reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction is limited when lower courts have concurrently established factual findings such as bona fide personal need in rent matters.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition competent against an order of a Rent Controller and an appellate court in a rent matter where findings of fact have been concurrently established?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that has provided cogent reasons for dismissing a writ petition in a rent dispute?
- CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs Sardar FAKHAR-E-ALAM and another1985 CLC 2228 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over compensation for land acquired by the Government of Pakistan for the Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul. The core legal questions concerned the determination of the material date for assessing compensation when a corrigendum is issued following an initial notification, and the appropriate method for valuing land that, while classified as agricultural in revenue records, possesses the potential and character of a building site. The Court held that a corrigendum which is self-contained and includes all necessary details effectively supersedes the original notification, making the date of the corrigendum the material date for valuation. Regarding compensation, the Court affirmed that market value must be determined based on the land's actual complexion and character on the material date. Consequently, if land has acquired the potential for residential or commercial use, it must be valued as a building site rather than agricultural land, rendering revenue record classifications irrelevant for determining fair market value. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the enhanced compensation awarded by the Acquisition Judge.
Questions settled- What is the material date for determining compensation when a corrigendum is issued after an initial notification under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Does a corrigendum that is self-contained and includes all necessary details supersede an earlier notification under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Should compensation for acquired land be based on revenue record classifications or the actual potential and character of the land on the material date?
- CENTRAL COTTON MILLS Ltd. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another1985 PLC 511 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
- Central Board Of Revenue vs S.I.T.E.PTCL 1985 (CL) 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANOTHERs vs S. I. T. E_1985 PLD Supreme Court 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment declaring the Sind Industrial Trading Estate Limited (SITE) exempt from Federal income tax. The core legal question was whether the profits of SITE, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913, constituted the income of the Provincial Government, thereby attracting constitutional immunity from Federal taxation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that SITE functioned as a limb of the Provincial Government. The Court affirmed the principle that the corporate veil may be lifted to ascertain the true nature of a legal entity. Upon examination, the Court found that because SITE was established, funded, and controlled by the Provincial Government, with its assets reverting to the Government upon dissolution, it operated effectively as a government department. Consequently, the Court held that the income generated by SITE was the income of the Provincial Government. Therefore, it was exempt from Federal taxation under the relevant constitutional provisions, notwithstanding its formal status as a separate juristic person. The decision underscores that substance prevails over the form of incorporation in determining constitutional immunity.
Questions settled- Can the corporate veil be lifted to determine if a company is a department of the Provincial Government for tax immunity purposes?
- Is the income of a company formed by the Provincial Government exempt from Federal taxation under the Constitution?
- Does the formal incorporation of a body as a company under the Companies Act, 1913, preclude it from being treated as a government department for tax purposes?
- CAROLINE REHMAN vs CHAIRMAN, UNION COUNCIL1985 CLC 2855 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
- Captain A.A. A ZIZ vs Dr. M.A.A. AZIZ and others1985 P Cr. L J 1926 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- Capt. SHAHID SALEEM LONE and others vs ATA-UR-RAHMAN and others1985 CLC 2555 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges a trial court order that permitted the amendment of a plaint to implead the legal heirs of a deceased defendant in a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether a suit can be instituted against a person who is already deceased and whether legal representatives can be impleaded after the limitation period has expired. The Court held that a suit filed against a dead person is a nullity ab initio. While Order XXII, Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as amended by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, allows for a judgment to be pronounced against a defendant who dies during the pendency of proceedings, it does not authorize the initial filing of a suit against a deceased individual. Furthermore, the Court ruled that legal representatives cannot be brought on record after the expiry of the limitation period. Consequently, the orders permitting the impleading of the heirs were declared void, though the suit was allowed to proceed against the remaining living defendants.
Questions settled- Can a civil suit be validly instituted against a person who is already deceased?
- Does the amendment to Order XXII, Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow for the institution of a suit against a dead person?
- Can the legal representatives of a deceased defendant be impleaded in a suit after the expiry of the period of limitation?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an order passed by a District Court in revision?