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.
- ZAR KHAN vs THE SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, MUSLIM COMMERCIALBANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, ABBOTTABADAND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 89 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim against his dismissal from bank service due to the failure to serve a mandatory grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions concerned whether the grievance notice was served, whether a 'Mercy petition' could substitute for such notice, and whether the petitioner could introduce new arguments or suppress material facts in writ jurisdiction. The Court held that it cannot re-appraise evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact. It further ruled that a grievance notice must be an independent document served specifically upon the employer, not a higher authority, and that a petitioner cannot raise new pleas not previously agitated before lower forums. Additionally, the Court held that the petitioner’s suppression of a criminal compromise and the 17-month delay in filing the petition (laches) disentitled him to relief. The principle established is that writ jurisdiction is not for re-evaluating evidence or entertaining new cases, and petitioners must approach the Court with clean hands.
Questions settled- Can a High Court re-appraise evidence to set aside concurrent findings of fact in its writ jurisdiction?
- Does a 'Mercy petition' or an appeal to a higher authority constitute a valid grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can a petitioner raise a new case in a writ petition that was not pleaded before the competent lower forums?
- Does the suppression of material facts, such as a criminal compromise, disentitle a petitioner to relief in writ jurisdiction?
- Zamir Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs And 3 OtherPTCL 1984 (CL.) 236 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
- ZAKIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 948 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- ZAKIR AND 5 OTHERSs vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 987 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- ZAKAULLAH and another vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal where the petitioners were convicted under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the trial court, with their conviction and sentence subsequently maintained by the Sessions Judge and the Peshawar High Court in revision. The core legal question concerned whether a conviction for attempt to murder under section 307 can be sustained when the resulting injuries are simple in nature and certain witnesses named in the F.I.R. were not produced. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the intention, knowledge, and surrounding circumstances of the act are determinative, and actual infliction of injuries capable of causing death is not strictly essential if the act is capable of causing death in the natural course of things. The key principle laid down is that for a conviction under section 307, the nature of the actual injury resulting from the assault is secondary to the intention and capability of the act to cause death.
Questions settled- Whether actual injuries capable of causing death must be inflicted to sustain a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the failure of the prosecution to produce certain witnesses cited in the F.I.R. fatal to the case when ocular testimony is relied upon by the courts?
- What role do the knowledge, intention, and surrounding circumstances play in establishing an offence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- ZAKAULLAH AND 2 OTHERS vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 31984 CLC 283 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
- ZAKAULLAH alias ZAKA vs THE STATE1984 PLD Supreme Court 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which enhanced the sentence of a minor appellant convicted under section 18 read with section 7 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for attempting to commit Zina-bil-jabr. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether a minor attempting to commit Zina-bil-jabr can be sentenced to a term exceeding two and a half years' rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that since the substantive offence for a non-adult under section 7 carries a maximum imprisonment of five years, an attempt to commit the same under section 18 attracts a maximum punishment of one-half of that term, which amounts to two and a half years. The Court laid down the principle that the special provisions governing non-adults under section 7 constitute a distinct category separate from adult offences under section 10, and attempts committed by non-adults must be computed strictly with reference to the maximum punishment prescribed in section 7 rather than section 10.
Questions settled- What is the maximum sentence for a minor who attempts to commit Zina-bil-jabr under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does an attempt to commit Zina-bil-jabr by a non-adult fall under section 7 or section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- How is the sentence for an attempt calculated under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 when the offender is a non-adult?
- ZAKA ULLAH vs MUHAMMAD KHAN & State1984 P Cr. L J 2461 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
- ZAKA ULLAH alias ZAKA vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 16 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
- ZAKA A. MALIK vs Mian SAEED AKHTAR1984 MLD 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- ZAIR HUSSAIN vs S.GHULAM SIBTAIN NAQVI and 3 others1984 CLC 2560 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2975 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2917 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
- ZAHIR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs Mir AFSAR KHAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions for leave to appeal directed against the acquittal of the respondents by the Peshawar High Court under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13-A of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of ocular testimony and the reliability of corroboratory evidence, specifically regarding weapon recoveries. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's appreciation of evidence was unexceptionable, noting that the interested testimony of the eye-witnesses lacked reliable corroboration due to doubts surrounding the police recovery witness and the questionable subsequent transfer of the recovered weapons as rewards to police officers. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, and the Court ordered a thorough probe into the conduct of the high functionaries involved in the weapon transfers.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of closely related and interested eye-witnesses requires independent corroboration for a safe conviction?
- Does the absence of public witnesses to a weapon recovery and doubts regarding the recovering officer's presence weaken the prosecution case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal order of the High Court when the appreciation of evidence is found to be unexceptionable?
- ZAHID HUSSAIN SHAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE Opponent1984 P Cr. L J 1762 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
- ZAHEERUDDIN ANSARI vs MASHOODUL HASSAN1984 PLC 538 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER AHMED KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (POPULATION DIVISION) AND 2 OTHERS ,1984 PLC (C. S.) 462 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER AHMAD vs S. ARSHAD HUSSAIN1984 MLD 738 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER AHMAD vs GUL SHER and 6 others1984 P Cr. L J 2839 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the petitioner's penalty from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. The petitioner, a Population Officer, was dismissed for misconduct after attending an unauthorized meeting of employees in defiance of official instructions. The core legal question was whether the failure of the Inquiry Officer to supply the petitioner with a copy of the inquiry report vitiated the dismissal order, and whether the finding of misconduct was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that while the failure to provide the inquiry report was an irregularity, it did not cause prejudice to the petitioner, as he was fully aware of the charges and had defended himself against them. Furthermore, the Court declined to re-examine the factual determination regarding the unauthorized nature of the meeting. The key principle laid down is that a procedural irregularity, such as the non-supply of an inquiry report, does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings if the delinquent employee suffered no prejudice and had adequate opportunity to defend the charges.
Questions settled- Does the failure to supply an inquiry report to a civil servant automatically vitiate disciplinary proceedings?
- Can a court interfere with a finding of fact regarding the unauthorized nature of a meeting in a service matter?
- Is a disciplinary order invalid if the employee suffered no prejudice from a procedural irregularity?
- ZAFARULLAH AND 3 OTHERS vs CIVIL JUDGE, HAFIZABAD AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 396 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the orders of lower courts which permitted a separate civil suit to proceed, despite the petitioners' objection that the suit was barred by Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a challenge to a decree on the ground of 'collusion' falls within the scope of Section 12(2), which requires that any challenge based on fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction be brought by an application to the court that passed the decree, rather than by a separate suit. The Court held that 'collusion' in judicial proceedings constitutes a form of fraud and misrepresentation. Consequently, the Court ruled that the separate suit was barred by the mandatory provisions of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The principle established is that allegations of collusion in obtaining a decree are effectively allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, necessitating the use of the specific procedural remedy provided under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby precluding the filing of a separate civil suit.
Questions settled- Does the plea of 'collusion' in challenging a decree fall within the scope of 'fraud' or 'misrepresentation' under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a separate suit maintainable to challenge a decree on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, or must the remedy be sought via an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a person who is not a judgment-debtor or their successor-in-interest challenge a decree by filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- ZAFARULLA H vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS1984 CLC 661 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1830 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR MUSTAFA vs MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD.1984 PLC 1035 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR MAHMOOD vs Rai MUHAMMAD SHER AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 115 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs Haji ABDUL KARIM1984 MLD 275 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs GRINDLAYS BANK LTD1984 PLC 225 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the petitioners' convictions under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were originally charged under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, but the trial court acquitted them of that charge while convicting them of the lesser offence under the Penal Code. The core legal questions were whether an Additional Sessions Judge possessed the jurisdiction to convict for an offence under Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the Federal Shariat Court had the appellate jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Session is competent to try offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by virtue of Section 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, read with Section 20 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. Consequently, the Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the trial court and the appellate authority of the Federal Shariat Court, refusing leave to appeal on the merits.
Questions settled- Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to convict an accused for an offence under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the original charge was under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does the Federal Shariat Court have the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when that conviction was rendered by a court trying an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Is the Court of Session competent to try offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to Section 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ZAFAR IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 88 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR HUSSAIN vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1984 PLC 1162 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-10Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ALI vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS1984 PTD 167 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali vs Income Tax Officer Etc.PTCL 1984 (CL) 168 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ALI KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), HYDERABAD AND OTHERS1984 CLC 664 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
- Zafar Abbas Shah vs Chairman Commercial Court, Lahore.PTCL1984 (CL) 312 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ABBAS AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 951 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- ZA MEER ALI SHAH vs AZHAR HAIDER SHAH alias TONNI AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 1923 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
- ZA M IR LTD. vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 530 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- Z. C. Valiani, MUJIBUR RAHMAN ALVI and 8 others vs ALVIA TABLIGH TRUST1984 CLC 2936 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- Z U LFIQAR vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1392 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-21Read full judgment →
- YUSUF vs ZUBEDA and others1984 MLD 590 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
- YUSUF vs FAZAL KARIM1984 CLC 911 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
- YUSUF MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2905 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
- YOUSUF vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2198 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
- YOUSUF DIN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Yousuf Din, was convicted by the Special Judge (Central) Anti-Smuggling and Anti-Corruption, Peshawar, for an offense under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with a default clause of six months' imprisonment. Following the dismissal of his appeal by the Peshawar High Court, the appellant sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, specifically challenging the quantum of the sentence imposed. Upon review of the record and the arguments presented, the Supreme Court observed that the stolen property in question belonged to the Government. Finding no mitigating circumstances to justify a reduction or interference with the sentence, the Court upheld the conviction and sentence as legal and appropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the sentence imposed by the trial court was commensurate with the offense involving state property.
Questions settled- Is interference with a legal sentence justified when the stolen property belongs to the Government and no mitigating circumstances exist?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence imposed under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of mitigating factors?
- YOUSIF vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1982 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
- YOUSIF AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1562 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- YASMIN ANJUM vs Main MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE JAVED1984 CLC 419 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- YASMIN ANJUM vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition filed by a candidate seeking admission to the first-year M.B., B.S. class. The petitioner's application was rejected by the Selection Board due to her failure to produce a Permanent Residence Certificate and a domicile certificate of her parents, as mandated by the Prospectus of the Medical Colleges in Sind for the academic year 1982-83. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in upholding the rejection based on these procedural failures and whether the petitioner could challenge the validity of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971, for the first time during arguments. The Supreme Court held that the failure to produce the required Permanent Residence Certificate was a sufficient ground for rejection, rendering other arguments academic. The Court further established that constitutional challenges to the validity of statutory rules require specific pleadings in the original petition to allow the government an opportunity to respond, and cannot be raised for the first time during oral arguments.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner challenge the vires of statutory rules for the first time during oral arguments without specific pleadings in the constitutional petition?
- Is the failure to produce a mandatory Permanent Residence Certificate a valid ground for the rejection of a medical college admission application?
- Does a court need to address contentions regarding the reasonableness of specific admission rules if the application was already validly rejected on other grounds?
- YASIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
- YASEEN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2641 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
- YASEEN vs MUHAMMAD IDREES and 2 others1984 CLC 2472 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- YARA and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1542 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- YAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3024 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
- YAR MUHAMMAD vs Mst. JANNA T1984 CLC 2328 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-03Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB and 3 others vs Haji MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1984 MLD 637 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
- YAN LOONG WU vs SULTAN JEHAN AND 9 OTHERS1984 CLC 2369 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
- YAKOOB TIMBER MART vs COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 490 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- Yakoob Timber Market. vs Collector Of Customs,Karachi And Two OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 220 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- Y AS I N vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2332 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
- Y A B vs Hakeem MUHAMMAD FAZAL HAQUE1984 MLD 252 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
- WORKS MANAGER, SIGNAL SHOPS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1280 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- WORKS MANAGER, LOCO SHOP, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs AKHTAR HUSSAIN AND 9 OTHERS1984 PLC 540 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ZEBOO MAI vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1583 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs MESSRS SERVIS INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 899 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-07-09Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs HYESONS ELECTRIC COMPANY LTD.1984 PLC 623 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS /Pb.1984 PLC 129 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs GHAUSIA FLOUR & GENERAL MILLS, MULTAN1984 PLC 477 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
- WILLIAM C. R. MARTIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1269 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- WILAYAT KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 10 OTHERSPLD 1984 Rev. 10 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1982-08-11Read full judgment →
- WAZIR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1890 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
- WAZIR AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)1984 CLC 676 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-19Read full judgment →
- WAZIR ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1433 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-25Read full judgment →
- WAZIR AHM ED vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1589 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
- WAZIKAN (REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS) vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the inheritance and ownership of a house in Rawalpindi, originally owned by one Allah Diya, who died issueless in 1964. His widow, Mst. Waziran, sold the property to the petitioner, Faqir Muhammad. The respondent, Muhammad Asghar, claiming to be the nephew of the deceased, filed a suit for partition and possession. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, the appellate court reversed this decision. The petitioner subsequently sought a review of the appellate judgment based on a newly discovered document, which was rejected by the Additional District Judge and the High Court on the grounds that the document was already in the petitioner's possession and knowledge. The Supreme Court examined the petition, finding that the document in question failed to establish the respondent's relationship as a nephew to the deceased. Consequently, the Court held that the review petition lacked merit, affirmed the High Court's reasoning, and dismissed the petition, upholding the finality of the appellate court's decision.
Questions settled- Does a party have grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the document relied upon was already in their possession and knowledge?
- Can a review petition be maintained when the applicant fails to demonstrate that the evidence was not available or discoverable with due diligence during the original proceedings?
- WATER AND SANITATION AGENCY (WASA) L. D. A. vs MEHR DIN AND OTHERS1984 PLC 913 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD LATIF1984 PLC 1425 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs NAEEM TRADING COMPANY, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR R1984 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing WAPDA's civil revision in an arbitration matter. The respondent-company entered into a contract with WAPDA containing an arbitration clause under which an arbitrator was appointed to resolve disputes. Due to the arbitrator's failure to make an award within the stipulated time and lack of progress, the respondent applied to the civil court for revocation of the arbitrator's authority and appointment of a new one, which the civil court allowed. WAPDA's civil revision before the High Court was subsequently dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal should be granted when the petitioner alleged the respondent was solely responsible for the delay. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was also partly responsible for the failure to conclude the matter within time by not applying for an extension under the relevant statute, it was not a fit case for granting leave. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when a party alleging delay by the opposite side is itself partly responsible for failing to seek an extension of time under the Arbitration Act?
- Can the authority of an arbitrator be revoked for failing to make an award within the specified time?
- WASIQ ALI KHAN vs MAHMOOD AFZAL KHAN AND OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- WASI HAIDER vs QAMAR MUHAMMAD KHAN1984 CLC 1755 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-10Read full judgment →
- WARIS MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2442 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
- WARIS ALI and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2179(1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- WARAYO and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2815 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- WAQAR AZEEM vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the refusal of the Lahore High Court to suspend his sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending the disposal of his appeal. The High Court had declined relief on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel required a deeper appreciation of evidence, which was impermissible at the interlocutory stage. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to suspend the sentence. The Supreme Court held that there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the discretionary interlocutory order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that appellate courts will not lightly interfere with interlocutory orders regarding the suspension of sentences where deeper appreciation of evidence is required.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the contentions raised require a deeper appreciation of evidence?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order of the High Court declining to suspend a sentence in the absence of good grounds?
- WAPDA vs UMAR KHAN , , .1984P L C 989 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs SHAFIQ-UR-REHMAN /1984 PLC 5 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-05Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No, 2, LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS1984 PLC 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 1499 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1166 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs BASHIR AHMAD1984 PLC 194 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs ALTAF HUSSAIN1984 PLC 1311 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- WAPDA THROUH CHAIRMAN AND 2 OTHERS vs ZAFAR YAB ALI1984 PLC 1158 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- WAPDA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMANY AND ANOTHER vs AUSAF ALI AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1003 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- WAPDA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs MUHAMMAD AYYUB QURESHI AND 121984 SCMR 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against a Service Tribunal judgment. The respondent, initially appointed as an Assistant Accountant, held the current charge of Junior Accountant from 1964 and was regularly promoted in 1966. He sought to have his regular promotion and seniority ante-dated to 1964. After previous unsuccessful litigation and a rejected claim before the Service Tribunal, the respondent challenged a 1977 provisional seniority list, arguing it provided a fresh cause of action to relitigate his promotion date. The Tribunal allowed his claim. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying significant questions of law regarding whether a provisional seniority list can revive a past and closed transaction, whether the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction over matters originating before July 1, 1969, and whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted the authority's power to apply promotion rules. The Court suspended the Tribunal's order pending the final appeal, emphasizing the need to determine if the seniority list could legitimately reopen settled disputes regarding promotion dates and departmental authority.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a provisional seniority list confer a fresh cause of action to challenge a promotion date that was previously the subject of a final, closed order?
- Does a Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim regarding a departmental order passed prior to July 1, 1969?
- Can a departmental authority apply new promotion eligibility rules to an employee who was not yet regularly appointed to the higher post at the time the rules were framed?
- WAPDA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER vs MAQBOOL AHMAD1984 PLC 1173 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- WAPDA THROUGH CHIEF ENGINEER (E), GUJRANWALA vs MASOOD AHMAD1984 PLC 39 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-24Read full judgment →
- WAPDA THROUGH CHAIRMAN, LAHORE vs KHUSHNOOD AHSAN1984 PLC 1423 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- WAPDA THROLGH IT'S CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1984 PLC 1391 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- WAPDA AND ANOTHER vs SARWAR KHAN1984 PLC 655 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-21Read full judgment →