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.
- Syed GHULAM ALI SHAH vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & 1NCHARGE, SETTLEMENT CELL, SAN 3 AR AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1729 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed to challenge two orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar, which directed the cancellation of mutations in the record-of-rights regarding disputed survey numbers. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the land via registered sale-deeds from an allottee, whereas the respondents contended that the original allotment was obtained through bogus documents. The core legal questions were whether the Revenue Authorities could cancel mutations without issuing notice to the affected parties, and whether the availability of an alternative remedy barred the constitutional petition. The High Court held that even if an allotment is allegedly fraudulent, the resulting mutations cannot be cancelled without giving notice to the affected parties, as doing so violates the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction when the impugned order is attacked as being wholly without lawful authority. The Court set aside the impugned orders but remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to conduct a fresh inquiry after providing proper notice to all affected parties.
Questions settled- Can mutations in the record-of-rights be cancelled by revenue authorities on allegations of fraud without giving notice to the affected parties?
- Does the availability of an alternative remedy under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 bar a constitutional petition if the impugned order is challenged as being without lawful authority and in violation of natural justice?
- Do revenue authorities retain the power to investigate allegations of fraud and correct mutations under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 after the repeal of evacuee laws?
- Syed GAMA SHAH vs ZAHOOR QURESHI AND 5 OTHERS1984 SCMR 1004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a complainant in a criminal case against police officers, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that refused to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal. The Sessions Judge had acquitted the respondents under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, concluding that the prosecution was barred by the lack of prior sanction required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that there was no likelihood of conviction based on the available evidence. The petitioner argued that the acquittal was premature as only two witnesses had been examined by the Sessions Judge and that the initial High Court finding of a prima facie case precluded such an acquittal. The Supreme Court reviewed the proceedings and found that the Sessions Judge had extensively analyzed the evidence and the conduct of the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge correctly determined that the respondents' actions were protected under Section 197 and that conviction was unlikely. Consequently, the Court found no legal error in the High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it determines that the prosecution lacks the mandatory sanction required by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 premature if only a portion of the prosecution witnesses have been examined?
- Does a prior High Court finding of a prima facie case in a revision petition preclude a trial court from subsequently acquitting the accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Syed DAWAR HUSSAIN vs TOWN COMMITTEE SHAHKOT1984 PLD Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
- Syed BASHIR ALI vs SWAMI NARAIN TEMPLE ESTATE TRUST THROUGH THE RECEIVER APPOINTED BY HIGH COURT OF SIND1984 CLC 1949 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
- Syed BAHAUDDIN vs Mst. AFSAR SAEED1984 CLC 1998 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- Syed AZHA'R IMAM RIZVI vs Mst. SALMA KHATOON1984 MLD 46 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- SYED ASHRAF and 3 others vs MUKHTAR AHMAD KHAN and 5 others1984 MLD 991 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
- Syed ASHRAF ALI vs ABDUL RASHID1984 CLC 2632 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
- Syed ASADULLAH SHAH vs RAM CHAND1984 CLC 1910 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
- Syed ASAD ALI vs PACKAGES LTD. THROUGH BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1101 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed ARSHAD ALI AND ANOTHER vs NAVID RAZA AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 585 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed for the quashment of a private complaint under section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, instituted against the petitioners over matrimonial disputes and custody of minor children. The core legal questions involved whether a quashment petition is premature when an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the Magistrate has not been filed, and whether the impugned complaint constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The Lahore High Court held that while ordinarily an aggrieved party should first approach the trial magistrate, exceptions exist where the complaint is patently frivolous, motivated by malice, and stems from a series of coercive tactics in a matrimonial dispute. The court laid down the principle that high courts may exercise inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A to quash mala fide private complaints without requiring prior resort to the trial magistrate under section 249-A, especially where the proceedings are an abuse of the judicial process.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is premature if the petitioner has not first approached the trial magistrate under section 249-A?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed when a private complaint is found to be mala fide, frivolous, and an abuse of the process of the court?
- Whether the High Court can extend the benefit of quashment to a non-petitioning co-accused facing the same criminal proceedings?
- Syed AMJAD ALI AND OTHERS vs MIAN BROTHERS & CO. AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the scope of property auctioned by the Settlement Department. The petitioners, having purchased 'Chopra Building' (Property No. S-19-R-67) at a public auction, sought possession of an additional workshop, claiming it was part of the auctioned property. The Settlement Commissioner, however, determined that the workshop in question was a distinct property (No. S-19-R-67-A) and not included in the auction. The Lahore High Court upheld this finding, relying on the auction notice, property plans, and municipal records which clearly demarcated the two properties. The Supreme Court examined the auction bid-sheet and supporting documentation, finding that the bid was explicitly for Property No. S-19-R-67. The Court held that the petitioners were contractually bound by the specific property description and number auctioned. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the petitioners could not claim a separate property (No. S-19-R-67-A) that was not part of the original auction contract.
Questions settled- Does an auction bid for a specific property number include adjacent properties not explicitly described in the auction notice?
- Can a purchaser of property at a public auction claim possession of land that is separately numbered and distinct in municipal records?
- Is a purchaser bound by the property description and number provided in the official auction notice and bid-sheet?
- Syed ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of the wife of the first appellant. The core legal questions were whether the ocular testimony of a single witness, present at the scene, was sufficient to sustain a conviction despite allegations of interest, and whether the abscondence of the accused provided adequate corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction. The Court held that the ocular testimony was natural, credible, and independent, as the witness had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants. The Court established that abscondence, particularly when an accused fails to attend the funeral of their spouse, constitutes significant corroborative evidence of guilt. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that where ocular testimony is found to be truthful and the witness's presence at the scene is undisputed, it can sustain a conviction even if other pieces of evidence, such as the recovery of a weapon from a co-accused, are excluded or found inconclusive.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony if the witness is found to be independent and credible?
- Does the abscondence of an accused person following a murder provide sufficient corroboration to support a conviction?
- Is the failure to recover a weapon from the accused fatal to the prosecution's case when other evidence is present?
- Can a spouse's failure to attend the funeral of the deceased be considered as evidence of abscondence?
- Syed ALI MUQTADA WAHIDI vs THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 546 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI MUHAMMAD and another vs BASHIRUDDIN1984 MLD 197 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI IMAM RIZVI vs ASGHAR ALI and 3 others1984 MLD 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-11Read full judgment →
- Syed AKHTAR ABBAS vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of an evacuee house valued at Rs. 12,000 under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question involves determining whether the auction-purchaser or the local occupant was legally entitled to the transfer of the property under the applicable settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement authorities and the High Court correctly determined that the local occupant was entitled to the transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, rendering the subsequent auction of the house invalid and leaving the auction-purchaser without locus standi. The key principle laid down is that where an evacuee property is rightfully transferable to a local occupant under the operative settlement scheme, a prior auction-purchaser acquires no enforceable right or locus standi in the matter.
Questions settled- Whether a local occupant is entitled to the transfer of an evacuee house under Settlement Scheme No. VIII over an auction-purchaser?
- Does an auction-purchaser have locus standi to challenge the transfer of an evacuee house when the property was improperly put to auction?
- Syed AKBAR SHAH and5 others vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1984 MLD 406 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- Syed AIJAZ HUSSAIN vs AZIMULLAH1984 CLC 2908 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second rent appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the appellant on grounds of default, personal requirement, nuisance, and damage. The appellant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, asserting his own ownership of the property. The Rent Controller initially held that such a relationship existed and ordered ejectment. On first appeal, the matter was remanded to pass a tentative rent order, frame issues, and record evidence. Upon remand, the appellant failed to deposit rent pursuant to the tentative order, leading the Rent Controller to strike off his defence and order ejectment, which was affirmed in first appeal. The High Court considered whether the finding on the relationship had attained finality and whether the relationship was proved. The High Court held that the remand order was favorable to the appellant and not appealable, meaning the preliminary finding on tenancy had not attained finality. Furthermore, uncorroborated, contradictory oral testimony without any documentary evidence could not establish tenancy where title was disputed. The appeal was allowed, and the ejectment orders were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an order of the First Appellate Authority remanding an ejectment case after setting aside a final ejectment order can be appealed under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 by a party in whose favour the appeal was allowed?
- Does a preliminary finding by a Rent Controller regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship attain finality if the first appellate court remands the matter for fresh adjudication on merits without recording a contrary finding?
- Can the relationship of landlord and tenant be legally established solely through conflicting and uncorroborated oral testimony in the absence of any written tenancy agreement, rent receipts, or documentary evidence, particularly where title is disputed?
- Syed AHMAD SAYEED JAFFERY vs QAMARUZZAMAN KHAN1984 MLD 1151 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
- SYED ABUUL LATIF vs Mrs. SHAKILA YAQOB1984 CLC 2645 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- Syed ABRAR SAEED vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1984 PLC 1715 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUR REHMAN vs MESSRS KHAWAJA AUTO CARS LTD.1984 PLC 591 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUR REHMAN vs MESSRS KHAWAJA AUTO CARS LTD., HEAD OFFICE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1554 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUL SALEEM vs HABIB BANK LTD.1984 PLC 211 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUL RASHID vs MUHAMMAD FAZLUR REHMAN1984 CLC 453 · Sindh High Court · 1968-04-03Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUL QADEEM vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 774 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-08Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUL HAMEED SHAH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THARPARKAR and 61984 MLD 300 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-10Read full judgment →
- Syed ABBAS ALI SHAH AND ANOTHERS vs Syed FARHAT ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 881 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- SWISS DRILLERS & CONSTRUCTORS, KARACHI vs SALIM SHAH1984 PLC 544 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- SWAT CORN PRODUCTS LTD., SAKHAKOT, MALAKAND vs FIRM MIR WALI KHAN &1984 SCMR 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns five civil petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Peshawar High Court, which affirmed trial court decrees awarding the respondents (foodgrain merchants) the price of goods supplied to the petitioner (a limited company), along with interest. The core legal question was whether the respondents were entitled to claim interest on the outstanding amounts in the absence of an express contractual agreement, and whether the courts below erred in awarding such interest. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents had supplied goods to the petitioner, and the lower courts had concurrently found the respondents entitled to the claimed amounts based on evidence. The Court held that while a seller suing for damages for breach of contract may face restrictions regarding interest, the respondents here were suing for the price of goods sold and delivered. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitions, affirming the lower courts' decisions to award interest from the date of the institution of the suits until recovery, as the findings were supported by the evidence on record.
Questions settled- Can a seller recover interest on the price of goods sold in the absence of an express contract?
- Does Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 allow for interest on the price of goods from the date of tender?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to interest on the decretal amount from the date of the institution of the suit?
- SURAJ GHEE INDUSTRIES LTD. SHEIKHUPURA vs ABDUL RAZZAQ1984 PLC 487 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PROVINCE BUILDING CIRCLE, BUILDING1984 SCMR 1450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which had set aside an order of compulsory retirement passed against a Sub-Engineer upon completion of 25 years of service. The appellant department contended that the respondent was a permanent Sub-Engineer whose competent appointing and removing authority was the Superintending Engineer under the relevant delegation of power rules. The department further argued that the respondent's temporary posting as an officiating S.D.O. in his own pay and grade did not alter his substantive status or controlling authority. Additionally, the department highlighted that the respondent had requested and enjoyed one year of leave preparatory to retirement after the retirement order. The Supreme Court examined the appointment order and relevant statutory provisions, holding that the review and retirement order passed by the competent Superintending Engineer under Section 12(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 was valid. The Court further ruled that having availed the leave benefits, the respondent could not approbate and reprobate. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Service Tribunal's judgment.
Questions settled- Does a temporary posting of a civil servant in their own pay and grade alter their substantive status or competent controlling authority?
- Can a civil servant challenge a retirement order after applying for and enjoying leave preparatory to retirement benefits under the principle of approbate and reprobate?
- Is an order of retirement passed under Section 12(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 by the competent authority valid after completion of 25 years of service?
- SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IIND CIRCLES ELECTRICITY, WAPDA, LAHORE vs SHABBIR AHMAD1984 PLC 1081 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (E) WAPDA, LAHORE CIRCLE, LAHORE vs HABIBULLAH1984 PLC 1089 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SUPERINTENDENT POST OFFICES, LAHORE DIVISION vs MUHAMMAD YASIN1984 PLC 979 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
- SULTAN vs KARACHI PORT TRUST1984 PLC 535 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-07Read full judgment →
- Sultan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax Karachi. West, KarachiPTCL 1984 (CL) 270 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SULTAN TEXTILE MILLS KARACHI LTD., vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI1984 PTD 298 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
- SULTAN SAFDAR KHAN vs Syed MUHAMMAD RAZA1984 CLC 2340 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MAHMOOD vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, SARGODHA1984 PLC (C. S.) 697 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SULTAN MAHMOOD and others vs MEMBER (REVENUE) BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE and others1984 SCMR 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgments and orders of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dismissing writ petitions concerning a pre-emption matter. The core legal question revolves around whether the pre-emptor possessed a preferential right of pre-emption as a tenant on the relevant dates—namely the date of sale, the date of the suit, and the date of the decree—under section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, read with paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation (MLR 115) of 1972. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower revenue authorities and the High Court regarding the tenant's continuous possession of the land for over a decade were unexceptionable, as no misreading of evidence was established. The key principle laid down is that concurrent factual determinations regarding possession and tenancy in pre-emption suits, supported by Khasra Girdawari entries, will not be interfered with in leave to appeal proceedings unless misreading of evidence is shown.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emptor is required to possess a preferential right on the date of sale, the date of suit, and the date of decree?
- Does paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation (MLR 115) of 1972 form part of section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities and the High Court regarding tenancy and possession without proof of misreading of evidence?
- SULTAN ALI and 22 others vs KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY1984 MLD 917 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD vs The VTH SENIOR CLIVIL JUDGE/ASSISTANT SESSIONS1984 CLC 101 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Rent Controller restoring an ejectment application that had previously been dismissed for default. The petitioner argued that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to restore the application under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and that the dismissal was on merits, precluding restoration. The Court held that the initial dismissal for default was not a decision on merits. Regarding the Rent Controller's power to restore, the Court affirmed that while Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not strictly apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller, its principles may be invoked in the interest of justice. Crucially, the Court determined that the petition was not maintainable because the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance provides no appeal against interlocutory orders, aiming to prevent delays caused by fragmentary litigation. The Court ruled that the petitioner must wait for a final order in the ejectment proceedings, at which point they may challenge both the final order and the impugned interlocutory order in a single appeal.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller restore an ejectment application dismissed for default by applying the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Is an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller appealable under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a dismissal of an ejectment application due to the non-appearance of the applicant constitute a decision on merits?
- SULTAN AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, LABOUR AND CO-1984 PLC (C. S.) 357 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD vs MALIK AMAN and another1984 SCMR 1476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed with special leave of the Supreme Court, challenged an order granting bail to the respondent in a case involving Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and a subsequent order by the Peshawar High Court refusing to cancel that bail. The respondent failed to appear before the Supreme Court despite being served with bailable warrants. The Court declined to adjudicate the cancellation of bail on the merits of the underlying criminal case in the respondent's absence. However, the Court held that bail may be cancelled due to the accused's failure to ensure their appearance before the Court. Consequently, the bail previously granted by the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate was cancelled. The Court clarified that this order did not preclude the respondent from filing a fresh bail petition before the Sessions Court, which would then be decided on its own merits in accordance with the law as amended.
Questions settled- Can bail be cancelled by an appellate court due to the accused's failure to appear?
- Does the cancellation of bail by an appellate court for non-appearance bar the accused from filing a fresh bail application in the trial court?
- SULLEMAN vs THE STATE and another1984 P Cr. L J 2484 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN MOTALA vs TURAB ALI1984 CLC 2469 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN GHAZI vs GHULAM HYDER AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2213 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal under section 21(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arose from an order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant's ejectment from the demised bungalow on the grounds of default in rent and bona fide personal requirement by the respondent-landlords. The core legal question concerned whether the landlords established a genuine, good-faith personal requirement for the premises, considering their social status, family circumstances, and the tenant's objections regarding the size of the house and the landlords' ownership of other properties. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlords successfully proved their bona fide personal requirement, which withstood cross-examination, and that a tenant cannot dictate the standard of living or required accommodation of a landlord. The court reaffirmed that a demand for higher rent or ownership of other properties does not negate a genuine personal need, and statutory safeguards adequately protect tenants against misuse of eviction orders.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord's demand for higher rent by itself casts doubt on the bona fide personal requirement of the premises?
- Can a tenant dictate or prescribe the amount of accommodation suitable for the landlord's needs?
- Does the mere ownership of other property in the same urban area serve as a ground to refuse eviction for personal requirement?
- Is a landlord residing in a property belonging to their father considered to be in possession of a suitable building owned by them for the purposes of avoiding eviction claims?
- SULEMAN GABA vs NA SEEB ZADA1984 PLC 406 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- SULEM AN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1209 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- SULAIMAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-17Read full judgment →
- SUI-NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD., LAHORE vs ABDUL HAQ1984 PLC 1264 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- Suhail Jute Mills Ltd. Other. vs Federation Of Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1984 (CL.) 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan on a petition for leave to appeal concerning the legality of levying a 5% additional customs duty as a surcharge on the value of imported plant and machinery. The core legal question revolves around whether the said surcharge could be imposed under section 2 of the Finance Ordinance, 1982, notwithstanding a specific Notification dated 26th of June, 1982 issued under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, which exempted the import of plant and machinery intended for installation in exempt areas such as Noshehra from such surcharges and additional customs duties. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question, confirmed the earlier interim order subject to conditions regarding the deposit of interest on the bank guarantee, and directed that the appeal be heard at an early date. The key principle entails interpreting the scope of statutory exemption notifications issued under customs laws vis-a-vis subsequent or general taxing provisions under finance ordinances.
Questions settled- Whether 5% additional customs duty as surcharge can be levied on the value of plant and machinery pursuant to section 2 of the Finance Ordinance, 1982?
- Does a notification issued under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 exempting the import of plant and machinery in exempt areas override the levy of additional customs duty?
- Sufi SIDDIQUE AKBAR vs SECRETARY, F.W.L. and FISHERIES, PUNJAB1984 SCMR 1416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a civil servant against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal on the ground of limitation. The core legal question concerns the determination of the correct starting point for limitation in a service appeal where the petitioner challenged a departmental order regarding his scale of pay. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the special order passed on 5-6-1978 correctly served as the starting point for agitating the grievance, and subsequent delayed representations could not bridge the long gap of limitation. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on limitation as unexceptionable and dismissed the petition without entering into the merits. The key principle laid down is that repeated departmental representations do not extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- What is the starting point for limitation in a service appeal involving a departmental grievance?
- Do repeated departmental representations extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- SUBEDAR GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH vs FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, FAUJI SUGAR MILLS1984 PLC 1545 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SUBAH SADIQ vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT1984 PLC (C. S.) 718 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
- SU BHANU DDIN vs DIRECTOR, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, G.H.Q., RAWALPINDI1984 SCMR 1233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition directed against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's service appeal before the Tribunal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation after the communication of the departmental order regarding his claim for a selection grade as a Stenographer. The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed as the petitioner failed to file his appeal before the Tribunal within 30 days of the receipt of the order of the Ministry of Defence and did not file any application for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that statutory limitation periods for service appeals must be strictly adhered to, and an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period without an application for condonation of delay is incompetent and liable to be dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal filed beyond the period of thirty days from the communication of the departmental order is barred by limitation?
- Is it mandatory to file an application for condonation of delay when an appeal is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation?
- SU A LI H OON vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which had resulted in a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment by a Magistrate, and was subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Lahore High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in appreciating the evidence and sustaining the conviction where the petitioner failed to offer a reasonable explanation for possessing stolen articles and falsely alleged enmity with the Investigating Officer. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that sufficient legal evidence sustained the conviction, noting the lack of any claim of ownership or reasonable explanation regarding the stolen property, and the falsehood of the alleged enmity. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that concurrent findings based on legal evidence regarding possession of stolen property without a plausible explanation will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a criminal petition where concurrent findings of guilt have been rendered by the lower courts?
- Does a conviction under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 stand when the accused fails to give a reasonable explanation for possession of stolen articles?
- STATE vs ZIAULHASSAN1984 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ZAFAR AHM AD1984 P Cr. L J 3159 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- STATE vs TAUQIR HUSSAIN1984 PLD Lahore 315 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- STATE vs Sheikh MANZAR MASUD1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 127 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
- State vs Sh. Salim Ali Chairman, Ali Brother & Company Lahore, AlongwithPTCL 1984 (CL) 1 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three criminal appeals against a High Court judgment that quashed proceedings against respondents accused of importing ammunition in contravention of the Import Policy Order, 1974. The prosecution alleged that the imported ammunition was of 'job-lot' or 'stock-lot' quality, which was prohibited, thereby constituting smuggling under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established that the goods were indeed prohibited 'job-lot' or 'stock-lot' items, and whether the Special Judge, Customs, had jurisdiction to try the matter as smuggling. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the ammunition was of the alleged prohibited quality. Prosecution witnesses admitted the goods were brand new and in original packaging, and the definition of the prohibited terms was not established by any official notification. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate its allegations on merit. The appeals were dismissed, and the Court observed that no case remained for adjudication, allowing the respondents to seek the release of their goods from the Customs Authorities.
Questions settled- Does the import of goods alleged to be of 'job-lot' or 'stock-lot' quality without a specific notification defining such terms constitute smuggling under the Customs Act 1969?
- Can criminal proceedings be sustained when the prosecution fails to provide evidence that the imported goods fall within a prohibited category?
- Is the High Court empowered to quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution's case lacks evidentiary support?
- STATE vs SA HIBZA DA1984 P Cr. L J 603 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
- STATE vs PARVEZ IQBAL alias BALLO1984 P Cr. L J 748 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-26Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MURAD ALI1984 P Cr. L J 828 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-21Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB KHAN1984 SCMR 1045 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court acquitting the respondent of an offence under section 9 of the N.-W. F. P. Hazara Forest Act, 1936, and setting aside his conviction by the trial Magistrate. The core legal question concerned whether the petition, barred by limitation, warranted condonation of delay and whether interference on merits was justified against the acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by limitation by 15 days due to a mistake by the State, and since the respondent had acquired a valuable right to liberty, no sufficient ground existed for condonation of delay. Furthermore, upon examining the impugned judgment, the Court found it unsuitable for interference on merits. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that delay by the State in filing appeals against acquittal will not be condoned lightly, particularly when valuable rights of liberty have accrued to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against an acquittal can be entertained when it is barred by limitation?
- Will a mistake on the part of the State constitute sufficient ground for the condonation of delay in filing a criminal petition?
- Is interference warranted against an acquittal where the respondent has acquired a valuable right to liberty?
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD RAFEEQUE1984 P Cr. L J 961 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-24Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1984 P Cr. L J 2617 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
- STATE vs Mst. GRAN BIBI AND 4 OTHERSAccused1984 P Cr. L J 122 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MESSRS GENERAL TRACTOR MACHINERY & CO. LTD.1984 P Cr. L J 858 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
- STATE vs LT.Cot. (Ram) MUHAMMAD MANSHA KHAN AND 16 OTHERS1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 56 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ISLAMUDDIN alias CHANGHA1984 P Cr. L J 273 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- STATE vs BASHARAT AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 16 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses multiple appeals concerning the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of "drinking" as an offence under Article 11, the applicability of Rule 6 of the Punjab Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Rules, 1979, to police officers, and the consequences of non-compliance with the arrest procedure mandated by Article 12(1) of the Order. The Court held that the offence of drinking is not restricted to the act of consumption in the presence of witnesses but includes being found in a state of intoxication. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Rule 6, which required forwarding arrested persons to a Prohibition Officer, did not apply to police officers, who possess independent powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Regarding Article 12(1), the Court ruled that while police must follow the prescribed medical examination procedure before arrest, failure to do so renders the officer liable but does not vitiate the trial or the court's jurisdiction. The principle established is that procedural irregularities in arrest do not automatically invalidate a subsequent criminal trial.
Questions settled- Does the offence of drinking under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, require the accused to be caught in the act of drinking?
- Does the failure of a police officer to follow the arrest procedure in Article 12(1) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, vitiate the trial?
- Are police officers required to forward arrested persons to a Prohibition Officer under Rule 6 of the Punjab Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Rules, 1979?
- Is the offence of drinking under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, restricted to consumption in a public place?
- STATE THROUGH THE ADVOCATEGENERAL, N.W. F. P., PESHAWAR vs MUHAMMAD IRSHAD SALIK LODHI AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 139 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- STATE THROUGH NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUMTAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order passed by the Lahore High Court upholding the decision of a Special Judge that dismissed an application filed by the counsel for the complainant-Bank to recall and re-examine prosecution witnesses under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a corruption trial under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a private complainant's counsel has the independent locus standi to file applications and conduct prosecution proceedings independently of the Public Prosecutor under section 6(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that criminal prosecution is a matter for the State and that under the applicable statutory framework, the person conducting the prosecution before a Special Judge shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the complainant may only assist the Public Prosecutor and cannot act independently or possess an independent status, avoiding confusion from multiple prosecutors. The key principle laid down is that while a complainant's counsel can assist, the active conduct of prosecution vests exclusively in the Public Prosecutor unless the State appoints the private counsel as a Special Public Prosecutor.
Questions settled- Does a complainant's counsel have the independent locus standi to file applications and conduct prosecution before a Special Judge without the Public Prosecutor?
- Whether the counsel for a private complainant can act independently of the Public Prosecutor under section 6(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
- Can a private counsel be permitted to conduct prosecution in place of a Public Prosecutor if appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor by the State?
- STATE THROUGH LIAQUAT ALI AND ANOTHER vs AMANULLAH AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 593 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- STATE THROUGH ASSISTANT ADVOCATEGENERAL AND EXOFFICIO PUBLIC1984 P Cr. L J 621 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
- STATE THROUGH ADVOCATEGENERAL, SIND, KARACHI vs ABDUL RAHIM AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 1508 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
- STATE THROUGH ADVOCATEGENERAL, SIND AND EX OFFICO PUBLIC1984 P Cr. L J 226 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCECORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs NASIM AHMAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 159 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-01Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION vs Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM alias NASIM1984 CLC 1046 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs ABDUL LATIF1984 CLC 155 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN vs JEHANGIR RUSTOM KAKALIA1984 MLD 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
- STANDARD FINIS OIL COMPANY AND OTHERS vs NATIONAL DETERGENTS LTD.1984 CLC 781 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order of the High Court of Sindh concerns an application for interim injunction filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit filed by Standard Finis Oil Company against National Detergents Ltd. and others. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendants from prosecuting 34 rectification proceedings pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks (defendant No. 3) to expunge the trade mark 'Finis'. The plaintiffs contended that the registered marks enjoyed conclusive validity under Section 24 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 as seven years had elapsed, that the marks were registered after prior opposition proceedings, and that under Section 72 of the Act, pending proceedings before the High Court barred the Registrar from proceeding. The High Court granted an interim stay of the rectification proceedings pending before the Registrar, holding that the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case regarding the unmaintainability of the rectification proceedings, while the balance of convenience and irreparable injury also weighed in their favour.
Questions settled- Does Section 24 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 protect a registered trade mark from rectification proceedings after seven years from the date of original registration except on grounds of fraud or violation of Section 8?
- Whether the pendency of a civil suit before a High Court concerning a trade mark acts as a bar to the Registrar of Trade Marks entertaining or proceeding with rectification applications under Section 72 of the Trade Marks Act 1940?
- Can a party seek rectification of a trade mark under Section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 on grounds that were already adjudicated and rejected during opposition proceedings at the time of registration?
- SOHBAT KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs NOOR ALAM KHAN AND 11 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-20Read full judgment →
- SOHAIL JUTE MILLS LTD. vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the imposition of a 5% additional customs duty, characterized as a surcharge, on the value of imported plant and machinery. The core legal question presented is whether this surcharge can be validly levied under Section 2 of the Finance Ordinance, 1982, notwithstanding a prior Notification dated 26th of June, 1980, issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969. The 1980 Notification had specifically granted an exemption from such additional customs duties for plant and machinery intended for installation in designated exempt areas, such as Noshehra. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine the interplay between the subsequent Finance Ordinance and the earlier exemption notification. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Court confirmed the interim order previously passed, directing that interest payable on the bank guarantee provided by the petitioner must remain deposited in the bank until the final decision of the appeal. The Court further ordered an early hearing of the appeal on the existing record, granting parties liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Can a 5% additional customs duty be levied on plant and machinery under the Finance Ordinance 1982 if such machinery was previously exempted by a notification under the Customs Act 1969?
- Does a notification issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act 1969 exempting machinery from customs duty prevail over a subsequent surcharge imposed by the Finance Ordinance 1982?
- Smt. KEMAT BAI and another vs SURESH KUMAR and 2 others1984 MLD 1195 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- SITALDAS AND 2 OTHERS vs Haji MUHAMMAD SAFFAR/Opponent1984 PLD Karachi 87 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1238 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Hajran. The core legal question pertained to whether the ocular evidence was sufficient and trustworthy to sustain a capital conviction, given allegations of pre-statement consultation, interested/chance witnesses, non-examination of an independent witness, and conflict with medical evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Court observed that the primary eye-witness admitted to pre-statement deliberation at the police station before charging the appellant, rendering the prosecution case doubtful. Additionally, the presence of chance witnesses was unconvincing, the sole independent witness was withheld, and medical findings regarding the contents of the deceased's stomach and bladder directly contradicted the claim that she was returning after answering the call of nature. The Court held that deliberate consultation, unexplainable chance witnesses, and sharp medical contradictions create reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 302 PPC be sustained where eye-witnesses deliberate and consult at the police station prior to recording their statements?
- What is the evidentiary value of a chance witness who resides far from the place of occurrence and fails to offer a plausible reason for his presence?
- Does a material conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the state of the deceased's body create reasonable doubt?
- SIRAJ DIN vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA1984 PLC (C. S.) 617 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-20Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ DIN vs SUBA (THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS)1984 SCMR 722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave addresses whether the establishment of a free dispensary constitutes a valid ground for the eviction of a tenant under rent restriction law. The appellant sought the eviction of the respondent tenant from residential premises to set up a free dispensary for poor people. The Rent Controller and the first appellate court ruled in favor of the appellant, but the High Court reversed this decision, holding that opening a free dispensary is a charitable object for public benefit and does not fall within the scope of landlord's personal need under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory ground permitting eviction for the landlord's own occupation requires physical possession and personal use by the landlord or their dependents, which cannot be extended to running a charitable free dispensary for others. The principle laid down is that a landlord cannot seek ejectment for a charitable purpose under the guise of personal need unless the requirement is directly co-related to the landlord's own physical occupation.
Questions settled- Is the setting up of a free dispensary a ground recognised for eviction under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can the personal need of a landlord for eviction be extended to encompass charitable activities for the public benefit?
- Does the requirement of 'his own occupation' under the rent restriction law include running a dispensary for poor people?
- SIRAJ DIN AND OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1984 CLC 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision addresses whether the requirement of issuing a pre-presentation notice to the respondent under rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory, and whether an appeal admitted to regular hearing can subsequently be dismissed for non-compliance with this provision. The petitioners filed appeals against interlocutory orders refusing temporary injunctions without serving the mandatory pre-presentation notice to the respondent. The appellate court dismissed the appeals on this ground. Relying on precedent from the Supreme Court, the High Court held that the issuance of notice under rule 3 is a mandatory condition precedent to the entertainability of an appeal, and failure to comply goes to the root of the competency of the appeal. The Court further held that an appellate court is not barred from dismissing an incompetent appeal merely because it had previously been admitted to regular hearing. Consequently, the revision petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the issuance of notice under rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory before presenting an appeal against an interlocutory order?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal after its admission to regular hearing for failure to comply with the pre-presentation notice requirement under rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure to issue a pre-presentation notice to the respondent render an appeal incompetent?
- SIRAFI TRADING ESTABLISHMENT vs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.1984 CLC 381 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from encashing bank guarantees/performance bonds furnished by the plaintiffs for the supply of edible oil. The plaintiffs argued that time was not of the essence, and delays were caused by the defendants, thus the guarantees should not be encashed. The defendants contended that the guarantees were unconditional and akin to confirmed letters of credit. The Court held that bank guarantees are governed by the same principles as confirmed letters of credit, imposing an absolute obligation on the issuing bank to pay on demand, irrespective of disputes between the contracting parties. The only exception to this rule is clear and obvious fraud to the knowledge of the bank. Finding no prima facie case of such fraud, the Court discharged the interim injunction, directing the encashment of the bank guarantees and investment of the proceeds for the benefit of the ultimately successful party.
Questions settled- Are bank guarantees and performance bonds governed by the same principles of law as confirmed letters of credit?
- Does a bank issuing a performance guarantee have an absolute obligation to pay according to its terms, irrespective of disputes between the contracting parties?
- What is the sole exception to a bank's obligation to honor a performance guarantee or confirmed letter of credit?
- Can an injunction be granted to restrain the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee in the absence of clear and obvious fraud?
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION `AIWANE-MEHNATKASH' vs FATEHALLY CHEMICAL LTD1984 PLC 1323 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION vs KOHINOOR CHEMICAL CO., TIBET CENTRE, KARACHI1984 PLC 663 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-05Read full judgment →
- SIND ALKALIS LTD. vs PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI1984 SCMR 712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addressed whether Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance filed by an employee against his employer, Sind Alkalis Limited. The employee, who worked at the company's factory in Landhi (within the jurisdiction of Labour Court No. IV), was transferred and subsequently dismissed. The company argued that only Labour Court No. V, where the Head Office was located, possessed jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed that the company failed to raise the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction in its reply statement or at the commencement of proceedings. Instead, the company fully participated in the litigation, cross-examined witnesses, and produced evidence on the merits. Given this inordinate delay and the advanced stage of the proceedings, the Court declined to adjudicate the abstract question of whether the proceedings were coram non judice. Consequently, the Court rescinded the leave to appeal previously granted, resulting in the automatic dismissal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the territorial jurisdiction of a Labour Court after fully participating in the proceedings on the merits?
- Does the location of a factory versus the location of a Head Office determine the territorial jurisdiction for an application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- SIND AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES ORGANISATION AND 2 OTHERS vs ASGHAR ALI1984 PLC 1701 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-31Read full judgment →