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.
- ABDUL WADOOD And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1440 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 830 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 1051 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAHEED And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding convictions for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular evidence, the validity of the plea of private defence, and the propriety of the High Court’s decision to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular evidence credible and the plea of self-defence untenable, as the accused had inflicted numerous injuries on the victims. Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that while the High Court’s reasoning for reducing the death sentence was not entirely sufficient, the death penalty remained inappropriate. The Court held that where multiple accused share a common intention to commit murder, and the deceased had provided significant, unjustified provocation by restricting the individual liberty of the accused, the court may exercise discretion in sentencing. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal in both the convicts' and the complainant's petitions, affirming the High Court's final sentencing determination.
Questions settled- Whether a plea of private defence can be sustained when the accused inflicted twenty-two injuries on the victims?
- Does the lack of identification of the specific fatal injury by a medical expert necessitate the reduction of a death sentence?
- Can the appellate court refuse to interfere with a sentence reduction even if the lower court's reasoning for that reduction is flawed?
- ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs ALI AHMED1985 CLC 25 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a tenant's appeal against an ex parte order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. The respondent landlord had filed a rent application alleging default in payment of rent and non-compliance with a notice under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant tenant challenged the ex parte order, contending that he was never served with notices and that the endorsement of service was fraudulent. The High Court examined the limitation issue and held that if an ex parte order is passed without proper service, the limitation period for filing an appeal runs from the date of knowledge rather than the date of the order, thereby rendering the appeal within time. The respondent also sought to strike off the appellant's defence for a shortfall in depositing arrears of rent ordered by the court. The High Court found that the shortfall was a bona fide mathematical miscalculation and technical default attributable to the court clerk, which could be condoned. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the ex parte order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for filing a rent appeal run from the date of the ex parte order or the date of knowledge when the order is passed without proper service?
- Does a failure to comply strictly with a rent deposit order under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance necessarily entail striking off the tenant's defence?
- Can a technical or mathematical miscalculation in depositing rent arrears be condoned to avoid penal consequences?
- Is an appeal maintainable against an ex parte ejectment order when the appellant denies service of summons and alleges fraud?
- ABDUL SATTAR and others vs UMAR BADSHAH1985 P Cr. L J 2815 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR alias SAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1974 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAMAD and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2803(2) · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM And Another vs MUNIR AHMED And Other1985 SCMR 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil petition for leave to appeal arose against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the tenants' first appeal against an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the landlords' claim of personal bona fide need was genuine despite a prior rent-enhancement compromise concerning another shop with a different tenant, and whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need could be interfered with. The Supreme Court held that the factum of a compromise in other proceedings did not detract from the bona fide personal need established for the specific shop in question, which was required for a brother's business. The Court reaffirmed the legal principle that the determination of bona fide personal need is essentially a question of fact, and concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Controller and the High Court are not open to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's prior compromise involving rent enhancement with another tenant negate their bona fide personal need for a specific premises?
- Whether the determination of a landlord's bona fide personal need is essentially a question of fact?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding personal bona fide need?
- ABDUL SALAM and 4 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 737 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 131 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs NASIR-UD-DIN1985 CLC 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2328 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN And 10 Others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Collector, Multan And Another1985 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a civil suit challenging orders by Canal Authorities regarding the alteration of a watercourse. The appellants sought a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the suit, which was initially granted by the trial court but subsequently set aside by the District Court. The High Court dismissed the appellants' revision petition, prompting this appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the lower courts properly exercised their discretion in refusing the temporary injunction, specifically regarding the assessment of irreparable loss and the balance of convenience. The Supreme Court held that the District Court had correctly considered the relevant factors for granting or refusing an injunction. The Court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable loss or that the balance of convenience favored them, as they could still irrigate their lands despite the watercourse change. The Court affirmed that disputed factual matters regarding irrigation flow and procedural fairness should be addressed by the relevant Irrigation Authority, and thus, no grounds existed to interfere with the lower courts' discretionary findings.
Questions settled- Whether the appellate court properly exercised its discretion in refusing a temporary injunction regarding the change of a watercourse?
- Does the failure to demonstrate irreparable loss justify the refusal of a temporary injunction?
- Can a court interfere in the discretionary findings of lower courts regarding the balance of convenience in the absence of legal error?
- ABDUL REHMAN alias MALAH and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2975 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs THE STATE1985 MLD 786 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2506 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZAQ KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZAK vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1885 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZAK and 5 others vs Mst. YASMEEN KHANUM and 4 others1985 CLC 1048 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs SILVER COTTON MILLS LTD., HYDERABAD1985 PLC 914 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF SULTAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2761 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1828 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs The CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER_ MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE (S&R WING) and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 38 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs Haji Syed AINULLAH1985 PLD Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through the Chief1985 CLC 199 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution of Pakistan 1962 (referred to as Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution) challenged an order dated 8-6-1968 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Lahore Region, which imposed a maximum penalty of Rs. 30,195.80 on the petitioner for delayed payment of contract instalments. Initially, the then Chief Conservator of Forests had granted extensions and determined the penalty for late payment at 10% per annum under the contract. However, a successor officer subsequently ordered the imposition of the maximum penalty of 1% per day under clause 8 of the agreement, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The High Court held that once a competent authority has made a decision that has been communicated and taken effect, it cannot be unilaterally rescinded or modified to the detriment of a party under the principle of locus poenitentiae. Furthermore, the court ruled that the successor's order violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) as no prior hearing was granted, and that under Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872, the state was only entitled to reasonable compensation rather than the automatic extraction of the maximum penalty.
Questions settled- Can a successor public officer unilaterally modify a penalty determination made by a predecessor that has already taken effect?
- Is an order imposing a maximum contractual penalty valid if passed without affording the affected party an opportunity of being heard?
- Does the phrase 'shall be liable' in a penal clause of a contract mandate the automatic imposition of the maximum penalty without considering the actual damage suffered?
- Does the existence of an alternate remedy by way of a civil suit absolutely bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
- ABDUL RASHID vs ALLAH DITTA and others1985 MLD 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID KHAN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID and others vs MEHMOOD ELAHI FAROOQI1985 CLC 968 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID and others vs CHIRAGH DIN and others1985 P Cr. L J 2824 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID and 2 others vs Mst. ZEENAT SULTANA and 8 others1985 MLD 1222 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID ABDULLAH vs RA HEEMU DDIN1985 MLD 393 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHEED Alias SHEEDA vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1778 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court in a criminal case involving dacoity and recovery of stolen property. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when stolen property, being the subject-matter of dacoity, was allegedly recovered from him, and notwithstanding that the offence is punishable under Tazir rather than as a Hudood offence due to the lack of required male witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in refusing bail given the recovery of the stolen property from the petitioner in connection with the dacoity. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that recovery of stolen property in such serious offences ordinarily disentitles an accused to bail at this stage.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail in a dacoity case where stolen property is allegedly recovered from him?
- Whether an offence punishable under Tazir with the same punishment as prescribed under section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code warrants bail when recovery is established?
- ABDUL RAHMAN vs ALI HASSAN And Other1985 SCMR 821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the acquittal of the respondents, who were tried for the murder of the deceased by firearm and incised injuries. The trial court had convicted the respondents, relying on ocular testimony, recoveries of incriminating articles, and motive arising from prior land litigation. However, the High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the respondents, holding that the eye-witnesses were interested and unnatural, their presence was doubtful, their testimony conflicted with medical evidence regarding the time of occurrence and stomach contents, the recoveries were suspicious due to delayed forensic analysis, and the motive was vague. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence warranting acquittal suffered from any legal error or perversity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court was fully justified in disbelieving the prosecution evidence, doubting the presence of witnesses, and discarding the recoveries and motive. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court's judgment of acquittal will not be interfered with when the appreciation of evidence is reasonable and supported by cogent grounds.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a conviction based on interested and unnatural witnesses whose presence at the scene was doubtful?
- Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the time of occurrence and stomach contents provide a valid ground for acquittal?
- Whether delayed dispatch of blood-stained recovered articles to the Chemical Analyser renders the circumstantial evidence impeachable?
- ABDUL RAHMAN and another vs MUKHTAR AHMAD and another1985 CLC 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition before the Lahore High Court arose from the dismissal of an appeal by the District Judge, Sargodha. A civil suit had been decreed against the petitioners, who subsequently filed an appeal appending only a copy of the judgment without the trial court's decree. The decree was produced only after the period of limitation had expired, and no application for condonation of delay was filed. The District Judge held the appeal to be hopelessly time-barred yet proceeded to adjudicate upon the merits. The High Court observed that once an appeal is found time-barred under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908, the appellate court cannot lawfully enter into the merits. The Court held that submission of a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is indispensable for condonation of delay, and courts possess no power to excuse delay without such an application, even by invoking inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can decide an appeal on merits after finding it barred by limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can delay in filing an appeal be condoned in the absence of a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a court excuse delay in filing an appeal by resorting to its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does an appeal become time-barred if the copy of the trial court's decree is produced only after the expiration of the limitation period?
- ABDUL RAHIM vs MUHAMMAD SALIM alias CHOTTAN1985 CLC 2834 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM KHAN vs TOWN COMMITTEE,MAKHDOOMPUR PAHOORAN and others1985 CLC 2805 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a lessee of an octroi duty collection contract against the Town Committee, challenging a notice and subsequent resolution that cancelled his lease for alleged non-payment of monthly instalments. The petitioner contended that he had not defaulted and had paid in excess of the due amount. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact of having previously filed a civil suit on the same subject-matter, which disentitled him to discretionary relief due to coming to court with unclean hands. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the dispute involved complex, contested questions of fact and the determination of contractual liabilities arising out of a lease agreement, both of which fall outside the scope of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had alternative efficacious remedies available, including an arbitration clause in the contract and the option to file a civil suit.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner who suppresses the material fact of having instituted a civil suit on the same subject-matter is entitled to discretionary relief under the constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can the High Court adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact and resolve accounts under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a constitutional petition the appropriate remedy for determining and enforcing liabilities arising purely out of a contract?
- ABDUL RAHIM AND 9 OTHERS vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLC 911 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAFIQUE vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KHUIRATTA1985 P Cr. L J 776 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-11-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QUDDUS vs The STATE1985 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where the appellant, Abdul Quddus, was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced to death, along with a fine under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which conviction and sentence were upheld by the Lahore High Court. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the death sentence should be reduced in view of a compromise between the parties and the amount of fine substantially increased. The core legal question was the effect of a genuine compromise between the legal heirs of the deceased and the convict on the quantum of sentence in a murder case. The court held that upon satisfaction of a genuine compromise effected by the legal heirs of the deceased, the death sentence of the appellant should be converted to imprisonment for life while enhancing the compensation fine. The key principle laid down is that a genuine compromise between the heirs of the victim and the offender can be taken into mitigating account to commute a sentence of death to imprisonment for life coupled with an enhanced compensation fine under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether a genuine compromise between the legal heirs of the deceased can be considered as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Can the Supreme Court enhance the amount of compensation fine under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while commuting a death sentence?
- What is the effect of a valid compromise presented by the legal heirs in a murder appeal before the court?
- ABDUL QUDDUS BIHARI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THARPARKA And 9 Other1985 SCMR 2015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a long-standing dispute over the status of properties belonging to a joint Hindu family, which had been repeatedly litigated and adjudicated as non-evacuee property by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The petitioner, a temporary allottee, challenged the High Court's dismissal of his constitutional petition and the allowance of a petition filed by the property owners, which had invalidated notices issued by settlement authorities regarding the alleged evacuee status of said properties. The core legal question was whether the status of the property as non-evacuee, having been settled by multiple prior judicial and quasi-judicial orders, could be re-agitated by the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the status of the property as non-evacuee was res judicata, having been affirmed by previous High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The Court affirmed that the settlement authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue notices treating the property as evacuee property once its status had been definitively determined. The principle laid down is that where the status of property has been conclusively determined by competent authorities and upheld by superior courts, such findings cannot be reopened or re-agitated in subsequent proceedings.
Questions settled- Can the status of property as non-evacuee be re-agitated after it has been conclusively determined by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and upheld by superior courts?
- Do settlement authorities have jurisdiction to issue show-cause notices treating property as evacuee property when its non-evacuee status has been previously established by final orders?
- Does an order admitting a Letters Patent Appeal to regular hearing have binding effect if the appeal itself is subsequently dismissed for default?
- ABDUL QAYYUM QURESHI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2775 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM PARACHA vs GHULAM HUSSAIN And Other1985 SCMR 580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant for default in rent payment. The core legal questions were whether a tenant's defence could be struck off for non-compliance with a Rent Controller's provisional rent order, specifically when the tenant argued that a fresh order was required following the High Court's restoration of the Rent Controller's original order, and whether the quantum of provisionally determined rent could be challenged during default proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Rent Controller's provisional determination of rent is binding and discretionary. Once the High Court restored the Rent Controller's order, the tenant was obligated to comply without the need for a fresh order. The Court further held that the legality of the quantum of provisional rent cannot be challenged during proceedings specifically concerning the striking off of a defence for default; such challenges are reserved for the final determination of rent at the conclusion of the case. Failure to comply with a provisional rent order empowers the Rent Controller to strike off the defence and order ejectment.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the quantum of provisionally determined rent during proceedings for striking off the defence due to default?
- Is a fresh order from the Rent Controller required for rent deposit after an appellate court restores an earlier order for such deposit?
- Does the Rent Controller have the power to strike off a tenant's defence for failure to comply with a provisional rent order?
- ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN vs Mst. RAZIA BIBI And Another1985 SCMR 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over a gift deed executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner regarding a share in agricultural land. The respondents, who are Pardah Nashin ladies, filed a declaratory suit alleging that the gift deed was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, claiming they believed they were executing a lease deed. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding no evidence of fraud and confirming the transfer of possession. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the petitioner failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift, specifically the delivery of possession, and failed to produce the gift deed or examine marginal witnesses to establish its execution. The High Court upheld this reversal, noting the lack of evidence regarding the execution and the absence of a justifiable cause for the gift. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate and revisional courts to be unexceptionable and dismissed the petition, affirming that the essential requirements for a valid gift were not established.
Questions settled- Is the delivery of possession an essential element for the validity of a gift?
- Can a gift deed be declared null and void if it was executed by Pardah Nashin ladies under the misrepresentation that it was a lease deed?
- Does the failure to produce the gift deed or examine marginal witnesses invalidate a claim of gift?
- ABDUL QAYUM vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1319 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AND MINORITY AFFAIRS1985 PLC (C.S.) 435 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR vs SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES And Other1985 SCMR 2004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arose from a dispute over a prospecting licence for mineral rights in District Kalat. The appellant, Abdul Qadir, had received a favorable recommendation from the Mining Committee for a licence covering an area that partially overlapped with a previously cancelled licence held by the third respondent. The Secretary of Industries subsequently restored the third respondent's licence on appeal without granting the appellant a hearing. The appellant challenged this in the High Court, which dismissed the petition on the grounds that the appellant lacked standing as an aggrieved person. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the parties reached a consensus. The core legal question concerned the violation of natural justice principles when the appellate authority decided the matter without hearing the appellant. The Supreme Court, acknowledging the shared view of all parties that both the Mining Committee and the appellate authority failed to provide necessary hearings to the affected parties, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Secretary of Industries for a fresh decision after affording both parties an opportunity to be heard.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate authority violates the principles of natural justice by deciding an appeal without hearing a party whose interests are adversely affected?
- Is a party whose application for a prospecting licence has been favourably recommended by a Mining Committee entitled to a hearing before an appellate authority restores a competing licence?
- ABDUL QADIR vs MOULVI ARBAB1985 SCMR 2086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which set aside an eviction order passed against a tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment. The central legal question was whether the tenant had committed a default in payment of rent for over a year and whether the High Court was justified in exercising its discretion to set aside the eviction order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence, specifically by ignoring the tenant's failure to tender rent through proper channels (money order or court deposit) after the alleged initial refusal by the landlord. The Court emphasized that the tenant's delay of thirteen months in remitting rent, coupled with the failure to follow the contractual requirement of obtaining receipts, established a clear default. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Rent Controller's order of eviction, ruling that the discretion exercised by the High Court was based on incorrect factual premises and a failure to consider the prejudice caused to the landlord.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's failure to deposit rent in court or remit it via money order after an alleged refusal by the landlord constitute a default in payment of rent?
- Can a High Court set aside a Rent Controller's finding of fact regarding rent default based on a misreading of the evidence?
- Is a tenant's delay of over a year in remitting rent, despite an alleged initial offer, sufficient grounds for eviction?
- ABDUL QADIR vs MESSRS SIND AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY ORGANISATION1985 PLC 907 · Labour Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR vs FAZAL AHMAD. AND OTHERsPLD 1985 Rev. 146 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MATEEN KHAN and others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1985 CLC 2897 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MATEEN AND 3 OTHERS vs YUSUF BILAL AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 422 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an application filed under section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, by the plaintiffs—including a minor—and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in a pending civil suit, seeking to refer matters in dispute to arbitration without joining defendant No. 5. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a reference under sections 21 and 24 of the Arbitration Act when all interested parties had not joined, and whether an agreement to refer disputes to arbitration is valid when made on behalf of a minor without obtaining the prior leave of the court under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court held that under section 21, all interested parties must join in the application, and defendant No. 5, against whom substantial relief was claimed, remained an interested party despite being proceeded against ex parte. Furthermore, the court held that the mandatory provisions of Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, require the express leave of the court to be obtained for entering into an arbitration agreement on behalf of a minor, and failure to do so renders the agreement void or voidable at the instance of the minor. Consequently, the application for reference to arbitration was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a valid reference to arbitration can be made under section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, when all interested parties to the suit have not joined the application?
- Does a defendant against whom substantial relief has been claimed cease to be an interested party under section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, merely because proceedings against them are taking place ex parte?
- Whether an agreement to refer matters in dispute to arbitration on behalf of a minor without obtaining the express leave of the court under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is valid?
- Can a partial reference to arbitration under section 24 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, be sustained when the matters in dispute cannot be separated from the rest of the subject-matter of the suit?
- ABDUL MANAN vs MUHAMMAD SHIBLAIN and 15 others1985 CLC 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK-- vs THE STATE1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 293 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-06-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK vs Mst.SAEEDA KHATOON1985 CLC 839 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK vs Mst. BIBI AMINA1985 PLD Quetta 85 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK vs Haji EJAZ AHMAD1985 SCMR 1555 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from eviction proceedings initiated against the appellant from a portion of a house let out as a shop under a tenancy agreement dated 11 September 1974. Eviction was sought on grounds including default, personal need, damage to property, and change of use. The trial court allowed ejectment on default, while the High Court upheld it solely on the ground of the landlord's bona fide personal need for accommodation. The core legal question was whether a commercial premises could be sought for eviction on the ground of personal residential or family need under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, given precedents under the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the 1979 Ordinance do not distinguish between commercial and residential use in defining 'premises' or under section 15(vii) regarding personal need, and stipulation in a tenancy agreement cannot override statutory provisions or create estoppel. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether commercial premises can be sought for eviction on the ground of personal need under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 make any distinction between commercial and residential use regarding personal need eviction?
- Can a stipulation in a tenancy agreement regarding the purpose of letting override the plain meaning of the provisions of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- ABDUL MAJID vs THE STATE and others1985 P Cr. L J 1610 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs THE JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT (OFFENCES IN BANKS), LAHORE1985 P Cr. L J 890 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns multiple bail petitions filed by accused persons facing charges for scheduled offences under the Offences in Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. The core legal questions addressed were whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to grant bail in scheduled offences, whether the Special Court possesses the authority to grant pre-arrest bail, and whether the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly Section 497, remain applicable to proceedings before the Special Court. The Court held that the High Court retains its inherent and statutory jurisdiction to grant bail, and the Special Court, exercising the powers of a Court of Session, is competent to grant pre-arrest bail. The Court further ruled that Section 5(6) of the Ordinance is not a complete code for bail, meaning the provisions of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, continue to apply. It was established that the jurisdiction of superior courts cannot be ousted except by express legislative enactment, and the Special Court's power to cancel bail under Section 4(7) of the Ordinance is limited to cases where the bail was granted by the court that originally tried the case.
Questions settled- Does the High Court retain jurisdiction to grant bail in scheduled offences under the Offences in Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
- Does a Special Court constituted under the Offences in Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 have the jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail?
- Are the provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to proceedings before a Special Court?
- Does bail granted by a court other than the trial court stand cancelled upon the transfer of a case to a Special Court under the Offences in Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
- ABDUL MAJID vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF ALI CHISHTI and others1985 MLD 127 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs Mst. NAIMUN NISA BEGUM1985 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- AHMED vs IMAM BUXPLD 1985 Rev. 169 [Sindh] · Board of Revenue · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs GARRISON ENGINEER, EAST, RAWALPINDI and others1985 PLC (C.S.) 1053 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-06-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 CLC 3021 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID And Others vs MUHAMMAD WALAYAT KHAN Through His Legal1985 SCMR 1018(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit. The core legal question examined by the court is whether the first appeal in the pre-emption matter should have been properly filed before the High Court or the District Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the court granted leave to appeal to consider this jurisdictional question and ordered the matter to be heard alongside other connected cases raising the same issue. Additionally, the court directed that status quo be maintained regarding the property in dispute until a specified date, subject to further applications for interim orders if necessary.
Questions settled- Whether the first appeal in a pre-emption matter should be filed in the High Court or before the District Court?
- ABDUL MAJEED KHAN vs AZIZUDDIN and 6 others1985 P Cr. L J 2368 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED BAWANY and 6 others vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, SIND AT KARACHI and 2 others1985 MLD 489 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJ1D vs Syed AZHAR ALI SHAH AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a landlord's writ petition challenging an appellate order that set aside an ex parte ejectment order. The Rent Controller had dismissed the tenant's application to set aside the ex parte order on the sole ground that the tenant's advocate had filed a memorandum of appearance instead of a properly executed power-of-attorney, which was deemed a violation of Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Additional District Judge reversed this on appeal, noting the advocate had prosecuted the case for two years without objection and had filed an affidavit of authority supported by the tenant. The High Court, however, restored the Rent Controller's decision. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not strictly applicable to rent proceedings, which are designed to avoid mere formalism and technicalities. The Court ruled that as long as no party is prejudiced and a fair opportunity is afforded, technical defects in representation should not defeat a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 strictly applicable to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- Can an application to set aside an ex parte ejectment order be dismissed solely because the advocate filed a memorandum of appearance instead of a formal power-of-attorney?
- Should the High Court exercise its writ jurisdiction to set aside an equitable appellate order on the basis of a technical defect in legal representation?
- ABDUL MAALIK vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL M A LIK vs Haji EJA Z A HMA D1985 CLC 1546 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs The STATE1985 SCMR 867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against his conviction for accepting illegal gratification. The petitioner, a Reader to an S.D.O. in the Irrigation Department, was accused of demanding a bribe to facilitate a water-course dispute. A trap was laid by Anti-Corruption officials, resulting in the recovery of marked currency notes from the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a public servant can be convicted of accepting illegal gratification if the act for which the bribe was accepted was not actually within their official duties. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the recovery of tainted money credible and noting that the raiding party had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. The Court laid down the principle that if a public servant erroneously believes an act is within their official duty and accepts illegal gratification by inducing such a belief in another person, they are guilty under the relevant anti-corruption laws, regardless of whether the act was factually within their official authority.
Questions settled- Is a public servant guilty of accepting illegal gratification if the act for which the bribe was taken was not actually within their official duties?
- Does the erroneous belief of a public servant that an act is within their official capacity satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- ABDUL LATIF vs RIAZ UD DIN And Other1985 SCMR 1648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which set aside the cancellation of a property transfer originally made in favor of a claimant displaced person. The core legal question concerned the validity of the notice of demand issued prior to the cancellation of the transfer and the legality of an auction-purchaser's rights acquired during the pendency of litigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding regarding the lack of proper service of notice on the original transferee was essentially factual and suffered from no legal infirmity, and that an auction-purchaser who intervenes during pending litigation acquires no superior equities. The ratio decidendi is that the cancellation of a transfer without proper service of notice to the transferee is without legal effect, and a pendete lite purchaser's entitlement is entirely dependent on the ultimate outcome of the ongoing litigation. The Court laid down the principle that auction-purchasers acquiring property during active settlement litigation cannot claim independent equities if the original transferee's title is ultimately restored.
Questions settled- Whether the cancellation of a property transfer is lawful without proper service of a notice of demand on the transferee?
- Does an auction-purchaser who acquires property during the pendency of litigation develop superior equities if the original transfer is restored?
- Can a factual finding regarding the service of notice recorded by the High Court be interfered with by the Supreme Court without showing misreading of evidence or error of law?
- ABDUL LATIF vs Mst.BAKHT BHARI and 2 others1985 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the maintenance orders passed by the Arbitration Council and upheld by the Collector under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, whereby maintenance was awarded to a neglected wife and her minor children. The core legal questions involved whether the Arbitration Council has the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the said Ordinance to award maintenance to minor children and for a period exceeding three years, and whether a composite maintenance order for both wife and children is severable. The Lahore High Court held that the Arbitration Council lacks jurisdiction to award maintenance to minor children under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and cannot award past maintenance exceeding three years preceding the claim. Furthermore, since the maintenance was awarded as a composite sum without specifying individual shares, the principle of severability could not be applied. The court laid down the principle that statutory tribunals cannot assume jurisdiction not expressly conferred upon them by law, and set aside the impugned orders, remanding the matter for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Does the Arbitration Council have the jurisdiction under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 to award maintenance to minor children?
- Can the Arbitration Council award past maintenance for a period exceeding three years preceding the lodging of the claim?
- Whether a composite maintenance order passed in favour of both a wife and minor children without specifying individual shares is severable in constitutional jurisdiction?
- ABDUL LATIF vs KHAIR MUHAMMADPLD 1985 Rev. 153 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1970-08-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's third constitutional petition concerning a land allotment dispute. The petitioner's initial writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, and subsequent attempts to restore it or file fresh petitions were rejected due to pending appeals and gross negligence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he had pursued his remedies diligently and challenged the factual assumption of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the fixation of a three-acre allotment scale under paragraph 11 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Supreme Court, after hearing the petitioner on the merits, held that the challenge to the settlement authority's factual assumption was raised for the first time and was unsupported by any evidence or certificate. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with a concurrent finding on a question of fact and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a factual assumption made by a settlement authority for the first time before the appellate court without producing supporting evidence?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a finding on a question of fact where no material was placed before the High Court to disprove it?
- Does the filing of multiple successive writ petitions on the same subject-matter after dismissal for non-prosecution constitute gross negligence?
- ABDUL LATIF NIAZI vs PUNJAB PROVINCE Through Collector, Multan1985 SCMR 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil servant's challenge to his removal from service, wherein the Lahore High Court remanded a first appeal to the District Judge after setting aside an order that had dismissed the appeal as infructuous based on a mistaken legal statement regarding the effect of reinstatement. The core legal questions involve the scope of abatement under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 for orders passed prior to 1969, the competency of a civil revision versus a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether an appellate court can interfere in revision with an order passed under a misconception of law. The Supreme Court held that the abatement provisions do not apply to departmental orders passed prior to 1-7-1969, that an objection to the form of proceedings (revision versus second appeal) cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court when it could have been cured in the High Court, and that a misconception of law by a counsel rendering an appeal infructuous warrants revisional interference. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Questions settled- Whether the abatement provisions under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 apply to departmental orders passed prior to 1-7-1969?
- Can an objection as to the competency of a civil revision petition instead of a second appeal be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Does a reinstatement of a civil servant prior to the filing of an appeal against a decree make the departmental appeal infructuous?
- When can a revisional court interfere with an appellate order passed on the basis of a counsel's statement?
- ABDUL LATIF KHAN and others vs MUHAMMAD LATIF KHAN and 3 others1985 CLC 490 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF AWAN vs N.W. F. P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 52 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2580 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs Haji MAHMOODPLD 1985 Rev. 112[Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1972-02-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs MANZOOR AHMAD and anothers1985 MLD 1621 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs M.S. JAVED and another1985 MLD 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM JANEJO vs MAHFOOZ AHMED through 5 Legal Heirs1985 CLC 2083 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM And Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court refusing leave to appeal. The petitioners sought the deletion of certain observations made in the previous order, contending that these remarks had caused prejudice and led to a multiplicity of proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order and noted that it explicitly directed settlement authorities to form their own independent opinions based on the facts before them, uninfluenced by the Court's observations. The Court emphasized the legal distinction between a judicial finding, the reasons supporting that finding, and incidental observations made during the reasoning process. It held that counsel should properly project this distinction in subsequent proceedings to avoid futile litigation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the review petition was time-barred by 98 days. Consequently, the Court found the petition both meritless and hopelessly time-barred, leading to its dismissal. The principle established is that observations made by an appellate court while refusing leave to appeal do not bind competent authorities if the order explicitly directs those authorities to exercise independent judgment.
Questions settled- Does an observation made by the Supreme Court while refusing leave to appeal bind the competent authorities in subsequent proceedings?
- Is a review petition maintainable if it is filed with a significant delay and lacks merit?
- What is the distinction between a judicial finding, the reasons for that finding, and incidental observations made during the reasoning process?
- ABDUL KARIM AND ANOTHERs vs ALI GAUHAR1985 PLD Lahore 552 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM ADAMJEE VASAVADWALA vs The STATE1985 SCMR 982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge restoring certain case property consisting of tin ingots to the petitioner. The core legal question involved the proper disposal of case property under the Code of Criminal Procedure when substitution of property allegedly occurred during investigation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the case disclosed features requiring fuller examination in the background of the law and equities involved, particularly concerning whether fabricated evidence and property substitution by the investigating agency should warrant returning the converted property to the person from whom it was originally recovered.
Questions settled- How should case property be disposed of under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when substitution of property occurs during the investigation?
- Can a Magistrate determine questions of title regarding case property instead of returning it to the person from whom it was recovered?
- Whether the High Court is justified in interfering in revision with an appellate order regarding the return of case property.
- ABDUL KALIM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KADAR MUSSAWIR and another vs MRs, FATIMA BIB' and 12 others1985 MLD 1166 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR vs UNITED BANK LIMITED1985 PLC 302 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR vs SALAHUDDIN and 4 others1985 CLC 2594 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR SIDDIQUI vs RETURNING OFFICER, HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL1985 PLD Karachi 339 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR and 8 others vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DERA ISMAIL1985 CLC 2221 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAYEE vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 572 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question involves the challenge raised against a lower forum's decision as presented by the petitioner. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the court recorded the counsel's statement that he would not press the petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed. The key principle governing such matters is that when a party elects not to press a legal challenge or petition through its counsel, the court disposes of the proceedings accordingly without entering into the merits of the case.
Questions settled- What is the effect when a petitioner's counsel states that a petition is not being pressed?
- ABDUL HAYEE NIAZI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME1985 PLC (C.S.) 512 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQUE vs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD., LAHORE , .1985 PLC 499 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQUE vs MESSRS FAUJI SUGAR MILLS . .1985 PLC 560 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQ vs DIVISIONAL TRANSPORTATION OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another1985 PLC 236 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VEHARI and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 109 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →