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.

• THE STATE vs AU KHAN1984 P Cr. L J 2877 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-06Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs AHMAD KHAN1984 P Cr. L J 238 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-24Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ABDUL SAMAD AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Quetta 72 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-04-19
  Acquittal appealApprover's statementPardonWitness competencySection 342 Cr.P.C. examinationOaths ActRemandCriminal procedureMurderUnnatural offense
  Summary & questions settled

  This acquittal appeal arose from a murder case where the trial court acquitted the accused. The High Court addressed preliminary objections regarding the maintainability and limitation of the appeal, holding that an appeal against an acquittal order passed by the High Court in its original jurisdiction is maintainable under Section 411-A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the appeal was filed within the six-month period prescribed by Article 157 of the Limitation Act. The core legal issues concerned the trial court's exclusion of an approver's statement, improper examination of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C., and the non-administration of oath to a minor witness. The High Court held that a witness, even if wrongly granted pardon, remains a competent witness, and their statement cannot be disallowed solely on that ground. It further ruled that the failure to put all incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and the non-examination of a 15-year-old witness on solemn affirmation constituted material illegalities. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case to the Sessions Judge for retrial with specific directions for proper examination of witnesses and the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal against an acquittal order passed by the High Court in its original criminal jurisdiction maintainable?
  • What is the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal?
  • Can a person to whom pardon has been granted, but who is later found not to be connected with the offence, be examined as a witness?
  • Does the failure to put all incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code vitiate the trial?
  • Is it mandatory to administer an oath or solemn affirmation to a witness aged 15 years?
  • Can a trial court refuse to treat an approver as a witness if it believes the pardon was improperly granted?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ABDUL QAYUM1984 PLD Sh. C (A I & K) 11 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  prohibitionhaddtazirdrinkingcognizable offencepolice investigationarrest safeguardscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed multiple criminal appeals and petitions concerning offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of 'drinking' under Article 11, the mandatory nature of Rule 6 of the Punjab Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Rules, 1979, the scope of police powers of arrest and investigation under Article 12 and Article 16 of the Order, and whether procedural non-compliance vitiates a trial. The Court held that the offence of drinking includes being found in a state of drunkenness and is not restricted to the actual act of drinking witnessed live; that Rule 6 of the Rules applies to Excise Officers rather than police officers; and that procedural lapses or failure to strictly observe safeguards under Article 12(1) render the officer liable under Article 12(2) but do not vitiate the trial or affect the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the State appeals were allowed and remanded, while certain individual appeals were dismissed with modifications to sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the offence of drinking under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 is restricted to being found in the actual act of drinking or includes being found in a state of drunkenness?
  • Whether Rule 6 of the Punjab Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Rules, 1979 applies to police officers or is restricted to Excise and other competent non-police officers?
  • Does a breach of the arrest safeguards contained in Article 12(1) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 vitiate the trial and render the court's cognizance illegal?
  • Whether an offence under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 committed at a private place is a cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ABDUL AZIZ AND 2 OTHERSAccused1984 PLD Peshawar 230 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THROUGH NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUMTAZ AHMAD AND 41984 P Cr. L J 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-30Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATEGENERAL vs MUHAMM AD UMAR1984 P Cr. L J 1718 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATEGENERAL AND Ex Officio PUBLIC PROSECUTOR1984 P Cr. L J 1769 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-01Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATEGENERAL & Ex OFFICIO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR1984 P Cr. L J 1011 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs Mst. BARKAT BIBI1984 PLC 1416 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• The SIND PROVINCIAL CO--OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs AHMED MUKHTAR and 71984 MLD 948 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-21Read full judgment →
• THE SEVENUP COMPANY vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, KARACHI1984 CLC 3249 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN1984 PLD Supreme Court 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-14
  service tribunalqualifying servicepensioncivil servantdeputationfederal and provincial servicecompulsory retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal setting aside the retirement of the respondent civil servant under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, on the ground that he had not completed twenty-five years of service qualifying for pension. The core legal question was whether service rendered under the Central Government, where the employee was not on deputation and was paid from the Federal Consolidated Fund, could be counted towards service qualifying for pension under the provincial rules, and whether total length of service is synonymous with service qualifying for pension. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Rule 2.1 of the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1963, qualifying service must be under the provincial government and paid from the Provincial Consolidated Fund, and that service under the Central Government without deputation does not count. The key principle laid down is that 'total service' and 'service qualifying for pension' are distinct, and inter-governmental service rendered without formal deputation cannot be clubbed for pensionary benefits unless explicitly authorized by the applicable pension rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service rendered under the Central Government can be counted towards service qualifying for pension under the provincial government without a formal deputation?
  • Is the expression 'service qualifying for pension' synonymous with 'total service' under the civil servants law?
  • Does time spent on service paid out of the Federal Consolidated Fund qualify for pension under Rule 2.1 of the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1963?
  Read full judgment →
• THE PUNJAB, COOPERATIVE UNION vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EXCISE AND TAXATIONDEPTT. AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1539 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
• THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS vs Syed MUHAMMAD AKRAM1984 PLD Supreme Court 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-24
  service tribunalmartial law instructionrule relaxationad hoc appointmenttehsildarjurisdiction barprovisional constitution order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal setting aside the removal of the respondent from the post of Tehsildar. The respondent had been appointed as a 'B' Class Tehsildar candidate in relaxation of rules due to an exemplary service record. Following a change in government, Martial Law Instruction No. 21 mandated the review of all appointments made through rule relaxation, leading to the respondent's reversion. The Service Tribunal accepted the respondent's appeal, holding that his appointment required no rule relaxation because the restrictive service requirement stood abolished by subsequent rules, thus excluding him from Martial Law Instruction No. 21. The core legal question was whether the respondent's appointment required rule relaxation, thereby attracting Martial Law Instruction No. 21 and rendering the Review Board's action immune from judicial review under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred in interpreting the abolition rules, confirming that a rule relaxation was indeed necessary and that the removal order was protected from challenge. The appeal was allowed, though the Court recorded a concession by the Board of Revenue to consider the respondent for future promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of specific service experience under the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962 stood abolished by rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Change in Nomenclature of Services and Abolition of Classes) Rules, 1974?
  • Whether an appointment made in purported exercise of powers of relaxation of rules falls within the purview of Martial Law Instruction No. 21 as an ad hoc appointment?
  • Whether an order passed by a Review Board under Martial Law Instruction No. 21 is immune from being called in question in any court under Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981?
  Read full judgment →
• THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Mst.UMAR BIBI and another1984 MLD 491 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
• THE PRINTERS COMBINE (MERCANTILE) LTD, NAZIMABAD, KARACHI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF IN OME-TAX KARACHI, WEST KARACHIF331984 PTD 276 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-28Read full judgment →
• THE PRINCIPAL, CADET COLLEGE, KOHAT AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SHOAB1984 PLD Supreme Court 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantstatutory bodyservice matterstermination of serviceeducational institutionstatutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals challenging the Peshawar High Court's decisions to set aside the termination of a Head Clerk and a Senior Master from Cadet College, Kohat. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction to reinstate employees of a statutory body where no violation of statutory rules or regulations was established. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was unjustified. The Court affirmed that while an employee of a statutory body may invoke writ jurisdiction if their service conditions are governed by statutory rules, such jurisdiction is not available where the relationship is governed merely by internal instructions or where no statutory provision has been violated. The Court clarified that the 'master and servant' theory applies when statutory fetters are absent. Furthermore, the Court found that the respondents failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory provisions or rules in their removal. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, holding that in the absence of statutory violations, the High Court lacks the authority to interfere in the service matters of such institutions.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee of a statutory body invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court if their service conditions are not governed by statutory rules?
  • Does the 'master and servant' theory apply to employees of a statutory body when no statutory fetters on the power of dismissal exist?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a statutory body in the absence of a violation of any statutory provision or rule?
  • Does the mere fact that an institution is established under a statute automatically make all its employees holders of a 'public office' for the purpose of writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• The PAKISTAN WATER and POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE vs ALAM ALI and others1984 SCMR 1267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-06
  compromise decreesection 12(2) CPCrejection of plaintpermanent injunctionWAPDAbar to suitcompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a suit for permanent injunction filed against WAPDA to restrain them from installing electricity poles and lines over the respondents' land without paying compensation for mango trees. A compromise decree was passed based on admissions and statements of WAPDA officers. Subsequently, WAPDA filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenging the decree as collusive and fraudulent, and arguing a lack of authority. The executing court dismissed the application, but the District Judge in revision set aside the decree and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court declared the revisional order without lawful authority and remanded the matter, leading to the current petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the suit was barred by law under the Telegraph Act 1885 and the WAPDA Act 1958. Holding that the mere authority to install lines without prior compensation does not bar the civil suit, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the statutory provisions do not operate as an absolute legal bar to the cognizance of a suit for permanent injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise decree be challenged under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of want of authority?
  • Whether the provisions of the Telegraph Act 1885 and the WAPDA Act 1958 operate as a legal bar to the maintenance of a suit for permanent injunction against WAPDA?
  • Is a revisional court competent to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 while hearing a revision against an order under section 12(2) CPC?
  Read full judgment →
• THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1984 PLC 1149 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-18
  constitutional petitiondismissal from servicemisappropriationgrievance petitionlimitationdepartmental appeallabor appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal which allowed an employee's appeal against dismissal from service for alleged misappropriation and ordered his reinstatement without back benefits. The petitioner bank challenged this decision, arguing primarily that the employee's grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was barred by time, and that the Appellate Tribunal had misread the evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the limitation period for serving a grievance notice commenced after the conclusion or reasonable expectation of departmental remedies, noting that the employee was informed his case was pending before the Staff Review Committee and his departmental appeal had not been rejected. Furthermore, the Court held that in a constitutional petition, the findings of fact and evaluation of evidence by the Labour Appellate Tribunal cannot be interfered with unless found to be perverse or contrary to the record, which was not the case here. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is barred by time when a departmental appeal remains undecided and the employer delays communicating a final decision?
  • Can the findings of fact and appreciation of evidence by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal be interfered with in a constitutional petition?
  • Does the pendency of a departmental appeal extend the time for serving a grievance notice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• THE MORAFCO INDUSTRIES LTD. FAISALABAD AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 1283 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• THE MANAGER ADMINISTRATION, AFSAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MURIDKE, DISSTRICT1984 PLC 1186 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• THE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs THE COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1984 SCMR 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-10
  land acquisitionregistration of sale deedcompensation awarddoctrine of relation backtransfer of propertyconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over compensation for land acquired by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA). The LDA acquired land on June 22, 1976, under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973. On June 19, 1976, the original owner executed a sale deed for a portion of this land in favor of a third party, which was subsequently registered on June 23, 1976. The Commissioner awarded compensation to the vendee, a decision the LDA challenged, arguing that the vendor lacked title to transfer the property after the acquisition date. The High Court dismissed the LDA's petition, relying on Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, which dictates that a registered deed takes effect from the date of execution. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that registration of a deed after the transferor has lost interest in the property is legally permissible, as the transaction relates back to the earlier date of execution. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, confirming that Section 47 creates no bar to such registration.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sale deed registered after the acquisition of the subject property by a statutory authority remain valid?
  • What is the legal effect of Section 47 of the Registration Act 1908 regarding the date of operation of a registered deed?
  • Can a vendor transfer title to property after it has been acquired by a development authority?
  Read full judgment →
• THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION vs SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE1984 PLC 614 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION Ltd. vs PAKISTAN DEFENCE1984 MLD 240 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
• The GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 3 others vs M A SOO D JAN1984 MLD 957 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
• THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs NASEER1984 PLC 1521 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
• THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT WORKSHOPS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1984 PLC 1236 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• THE DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs NANAH MASIH1984 PLC 224 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
• THE DEPUTY CUSTODIAN, ENEMY PROPERTY vs Messrs MUHAMMAD JAMIL &1984 MLD 340 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• THE DARUL ULOOM NAIEEMIA TRUST vs MUNIR AHMED1984 CLC 3483 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-11
  evictionbona fide personal usetrust propertycharitable purposerent restrictiondini madaresa
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller dismissing an eviction application filed by a registered Trust under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking the ejectment of a tenant from residential premises to use them for charitable purposes, namely running a 'Madaresa' and 'Dars-e-Qur'an'. The core legal question was whether a trust can seek eviction of a tenant for personal bona fide use to advance charitable objects and whether the distinction between residential and non-residential premises under older rent laws subsists. The High Court held that the Rent Controller erred in refusing eviction on grounds of tenant hardship and alternative local facilities, noting that trust objects benefiting the public outweigh tenant inconvenience, and that the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 removed the earlier statutory distinction between residential and non-residential buildings. The appeal was accordingly allowed, granting the tenant time to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trust seek the eviction of a tenant from rented premises for personal bona fide use to carry out its charitable objects?
  • Does the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 maintain a distinction between residential and non-residential buildings for eviction purposes?
  • Can a rent controller refuse eviction of trust property on the ground that alternative religious institutions exist in the locality?
  • Whether the hardship caused to a tenant outweighs the public benefit of advancing the charitable objects of a trust?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COOPERATIVE ZENITH INDUSTRIES LTD., D. G. KHAN vs Mst. QAYYUMAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-20
  land acquisitioncompany acquisitionurgency provisionsright of hearingstatutory preconditionnotificationobjections
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether an interested party whose land is proposed to be acquired for a company is entitled to a hearing during an inquiry under section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land in question was notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, along with urgency provisions under section 17, which excluded the application of section 5-A objections. The trial court decreed the landowners' suit declaring the acquisition void due to non-compliance with statutory preconditions. The District Judge allowed the appeal, but the High Court restored the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the powers under section 17 to exclude section 5-A cannot be invoked prior to obtaining the previous consent of the Government and executing the agreement with the company as mandated by section 39. The Court established that failure to comply with these statutory prerequisites vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings, thereby preserving the landowners' right to file objections and be heard under section 5-A.

  Questions settled

  • Can urgency provisions under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be invoked before complying with the requirements of sections 39 and 40?
  • Whether the failure to execute an agreement with the company prior to issuing a notification under section 6 vitiates the entire land acquisition proceedings?
  • Does the exclusion of section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 remain valid if the initial notification under section 17 is issued before obtaining the Government's consent?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER QF INCOMETAX, LAHORE ZONEA, LAHORE vs MESSRS1984 PLD Lahore 401 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-20Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs SIKANDAR ALI AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 1774 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-01Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX/INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (EAST), KARACHI1984 PTD 164 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-27Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX; LAHORE ZONE A, LAHORE vs MESSRS NEW1984 PTD 401 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-19Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (EAST), KARACHI vs MESSRS PHILIPS1984 PTD 42 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• The COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (EAST) KARACHI vs MESSRS I.C. I. (PAK.)1984 PTD 8 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI vs MESSRS CALCUTTA1984 PTD 44 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/SALES TAX (CENTRAL ZONE KARACHI vs1984 PTD 381 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-26Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER of INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI vs Mian1984 PTD 74 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-10Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PTD 11 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-10Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (EAST), KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PTD 405 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-16Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (CENTRAL) KARACHI vs ABDUL1984 PTD 48 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI vs MESSRS ASAF INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI1984 PTD 113 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (CENTRAL ZONE) vs MESSRS1984 PTD 337 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04
  income taxpension fundsalaryforeign companytax deduction at sourcereference application
  Summary & questions settled

  This income-tax reference from the Sindh High Court addresses whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing employer contributions to a foreign pension fund where no effective arrangements for tax deduction at source were made. The core legal question involved whether such contributions constituted part of the employees' salary under Section 7 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, thereby attracting the disallowance provision under Section 10(4)(a). The Court held that contributions made towards a pension fund maintained by a foreign company abroad are of a contingent nature and do not constitute part of the salary of the employees, but rather represent a reimbursement for future liabilities. Consequently, the Court answered the reframed question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee and holding that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the contributions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has the power to reframe a question of law referred by the Tribunal at the stage of arguments?
  • Whether contributions made by an employer to a foreign pension fund constitute part of the salary of the employees under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • Whether employer contributions to a foreign pension fund of a contingent nature attract the disallowance provisions under Section 10(4)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs MESSRS PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LTD.1984 PTD 179 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs MESSRS DADABHOY SILK MILLS LTD, KARACHI1984 PTD 271 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-08Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs ISMAIL YOUSUF SAEDAT AND OTHBM1984 PTD 231 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (WEST ZONE), -KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PTD 218 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-17
  income taxrejection of accountsgross profitestimation of profitsreference applicationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application before the Sindh High Court arose from income tax assessment proceedings concerning the respondent assessee for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73. The core legal question was whether the Income-tax Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Income-tax Officer's rejection of the assessee's book version and estimation of profits under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Tribunal's findings. The Court held that the Tribunal was fully justified in accepting the assessee's accounts, as the Income-tax Officer had acted arbitrarily by rejecting them merely on the basis of a drop in gross profit without providing details of comparable cases, and without rebutting the reasonable explanations and consistent accounting methods offered by the assessee. The key principle laid down is that where an assessee maintains accounts on the same lines as accepted in previous years and provides plausible explanations for a fall in gross profits, the Income-tax Officer cannot arbitrarily reject the book version and apply discretionary profit estimation under Section 13.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Income-tax Officer is justified in rejecting the assessee's book version merely on the ground of a fall in gross profits without giving specific details of comparable cases?
  • Can the Income-tax Officer reject accounts maintained on the same lines as in previous years when the assessee has provided reasonable explanations for deviations?
  • Whether the Tribunal's decision to accept the book version of the assessee based on consistent accounting methods and explanations is sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION), LAHORE vs MESSRS1984 PTD 190 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EAST), KARACHI vs MESSRS S. M. YUSUF1984 PTD 84 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EAST ZONE), KARACHI vs MOSSA1984 PTD 394 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL). KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PTD 47 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI vs Messrs1984 MLD 529 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PTD 364 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CEN t RAL), KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PTD 200 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI vs NISAR AHMED1984 PTD 189 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (WEST), KARACHI vs MESSRS PAN1984 PTD 154 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PTD 187 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-01Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EAST), KARACHI vs VOLKMAR ROEDDEE1984 PTD 169 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
• The COMMERCE BANK Ltd. vs Mian MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and 6 others1984 MLD 547 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
• THE COINIMISS10NER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI vs SADRUDDIN1984 PTD 234 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
• THE CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS vs Syed JAMIL AHMAD1984 CLC 2299 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
• THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS vs Hafiz ABDUL1984 PLD Peshawar 285 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-26
  arbitration awardobjections to awardlimitation periodnotice of filing awarddewatering chargesaward made rule of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arose from an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, dismissing the appellants' objections as time-barred and making an arbitration award a rule of the court, resulting in a decree against the appellants for dewatering charges. The core legal questions involved whether the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitration award under Article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908 runs from the date of the award's filing when the parties' counsel had knowledge and presence in court, and whether an award allowing a disputed rate based on conflicting contractual documents is void on its face. The Peshawar High Court held that oral or constructive notice, established through the presence of a party's counsel in court on the date the arbitrator files the award, is sufficient to commence the limitation period under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940, and that an award based on an evaluation of competing contractual evidence is not void on its face. The court laid down that lack of a formal written notice under Section 14(2) does not vitiate limitation where parties have clear constructive knowledge through counsel's presence, and that objections filed beyond the statutory thirty-day period are rightly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing objections against an arbitration award commence from the date of constructive notice when counsel is present in court upon the filing of the award?
  • Can an arbitration award be treated as void on its face merely because it adopts a disputed contractual rate supported by one version of the agreement?
  • Is a formal written notice mandatory under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 when the parties have actual knowledge of the filing of the award through their counsel's presence in court?
  Read full judgment →
• THE AGRICULTURAL. ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING WORKSHOP, BAHAWALPUR vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1984 PLC 1271 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• THE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING WORKSHOP, FAISALABAD vs NAZIR AHMAD1984 PLC 1270 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• THAKURDAS vs THE RETURNING OFFICER AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 1024 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21
  nomination paperelectoral rollprinting mistakelocal councils electionappellate authoritysubstantial defectwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the appellate authority setting aside the acceptance of the petitioner's nomination paper for a local council election on the ground of a discrepancy in his father's name. The core legal question was whether a printing mistake in the published electoral roll regarding a candidate's parentage constitutes a defect of a substantial nature under election rules, and whether the original manuscript electoral roll prevails. The Sindh High Court held that a misprint in the printed electoral roll is not a substantial defect when the original manuscript contains the correct parentage and is supported by a certificate from the relevant registration officer. The Court laid down the principle that the original manuscript of the electoral roll is the authentic record, and a printing discrepancy therein does not justify rejecting a nomination paper as it constitutes a remediable non-substantial defect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a printing mistake of a candidate's father's name in a printed electoral roll constitutes a defect of a substantial nature?
  • Can a Returning Officer accept a nomination paper relying on the original manuscript electoral roll and a certificate from the Assistant Registration Officer despite a misprint in the published electoral roll?
  • Does a misprint in the electoral roll fall under the prohibition of inquiring into the correctness or validity of an entry under the election rules?
  Read full judgment →
• TEJU MASIH vs CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, SAMMUNDRI1984 PLC 599 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-14Read full judgment →
• Tea COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (WEST ZONE), KARACHI vs MESSERS1984 PTD 221 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-08Read full judgment →
• TAZA KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1308 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
• TAYYA B vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER/SETTLEMENT1984 CLC 2347 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
• TAYAB AND 4 OTHERS vs THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1984 CLC 2098 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-20Read full judgment →
• TAUSIFUL ISLAM and 13 others vs PROVINCE OF SIND and 3 others1984 MLD 972 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
• TASSADUQ HUSSA1N vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 243 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-31Read full judgment →
• TASLEEM AKHTAR' vs HAFADAT1984 CLC 2301 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
• TASLEEM AKHTAR vs HAFADAT1984 KLR Civil Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
• TASADUQ HUSSAIN vs THE ST A TE1984 SCMR 1271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-17
  murderleave to appealocular evidencecircumstantial evidenceappreciation of evidencelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, carrying a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution's case rested on the petitioner allegedly killing the deceased in a servant quarter, motivated by resentment over the deceased divorcing the petitioner's sister. The conviction was based on the ocular testimony of the deceased's brother and circumstantial evidence, including the petitioner's arrest near the crime scene with the weapon. The petitioner challenged the reliability of the eyewitness and alleged discrepancies in the arrest circumstances. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after reviewing the record, held that both the trial court and the High Court had appreciated the evidence in full accord with well-settled legal principles. Finding no justification for interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies in the manner of an accused's arrest soon after a crime are sufficient to discard reliable ocular and circumstantial evidence?
  • Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained primarily on the ocular testimony of a single close relative of the deceased supported by circumstantial evidence?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• TASA WAR 1QBAL AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 994 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-30Read full judgment →
• TARIQ YAHYA KHAN AND OTHERS vs ALI NAWAZ AND OTHERS1984 CLC 935 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
• TARIQ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1967 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MUKHTAR vs Mst. NASIM ZAIDI1984 MLD 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MAJEED BUTT vs THE STATE1984 P. Cr. L J 2956 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MAHMOOD QAMAR vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1327 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• TARIQ MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 189 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-08-27Read full judgment →
• TARIQ JAVED vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1984 CLC 662 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
• TARIQ AHMAD vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT1984 PLC 1251 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• TANVEER RAZA vs M.KHALID MAHMOOD and 4 others1984 MLD 80 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• TALIB MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1787 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• TALIB MASIH alias TALIB HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2494 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 429 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD.,JHELUM1984 PLC 941 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN and 7 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2259 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• TALIB DIN AND 101 OTHERS vs THE CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER AND OTHERSP LD 1984 Supreme Court 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land reformsstate landresumption of landtenants' rightssale schemeproprietary rightsland commission jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a series of civil appeals raising common questions of law concerning whether State land surrendered by grantees under various Land Reforms Regulations, notably the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959, is available for disposal by sale to tenants in cultivating possession or under subsequent sale schemes. The Supreme Court examined the legal nature of State-owned land leased to grantees, which upon surrender or resumption reverts directly to the Government rather than vesting in the Land Commission for disposal under the Land Reforms Regulations. The Court held that proprietary interests of the Provincial Government remain untouched and unaffected by the Land Reforms Regulations, and the Land Commission lacks jurisdiction to dispose of such State-owned reverted lands to tenants under its sale schemes. Consequently, cultivating tenants cannot legally claim transfer or purchase rights over such State land from the Land Commission. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether State land surrendered by grantees under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959 is available for disposal by sale to cultivating tenants by the Land Commission?
  • Does the Land Commission have jurisdiction over the proprietary interests of the Provincial Government in State-owned lands leased to grantees?
  • Are cultivating tenants entitled to claim the purchase of State land resumed from lessees under the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulations or related sale schemes?
  Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD vs WASI HAIDER and 5 others1984 MLD 863 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-20Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 204 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD vs REHMATULLAH AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-03Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN vs N.W. F. P. FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
• TAJ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-18
  murderdeath sentenceinjured witnesseyewitness testimonycriminal petitionmedical corroborationparricide
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner for the murder of his father and mother, as well as a conviction for a murderous assault on his sister-in-law. The core legal question involved the reliability of eyewitness testimony, including an injured witness, in establishing the petitioner's guilt for patricide, matricide, and assault over a land dispute. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through credible eyewitness accounts and supporting medical evidence. The court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, establishing that the testimony of an injured eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence and unaffected by any false implication motive, is sufficient to maintain a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without independent corroboration?
  • Can a death sentence be upheld on the basis of concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts when eyewitness and medical evidence corroborate each other?
  • Does a family dispute over property provide sufficient motive for murder when established by credible prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →