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.
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, RAWALPINDI SADDAR vs IFTIKHAR AHMAD /1984 PLC 1505 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE vs GHULAM DASTGIR1984 PLC 1226 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD vs NASIBULLAH1984 PLC 1522 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD S.HAFI1984 PLC 1206 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL , .1984 PLC 1231 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD1984 PLC 1220 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ZAHEER AHMAD1984 PLC 218 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs SAFDAR HUSSAIN1984 PLC 77 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs SAEED AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1137 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs RIASAT ALI /1984 PLC 47 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-01Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs R. T. C. LABOUR WELFARE UNION1984 PLC 1129 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ1984 PLC 1727 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1984 PLC 1171 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-20Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR , .1984 PLC 1490 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- SALIKA SEWING MACHINE Co. LTD. vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1984 PLC 903 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-31Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL HUSSAIN1984 PLC 376 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-19Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1984 PLC 1036 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1984 PLC 1203 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ AND 7 OTHERS1984 PLC 200 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MANZOOR AHMAD1984 PLC 1216 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MANZOOR AHMAD /(1984 PLC 82 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MAHMOOD AHMAD1984 PLC 847 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs INAYAT ALI1984 PLC 791 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs IFT1KHAR AHMAD AND OTHERS /Pb.1984 PLC 86 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs GHULAM MOHY-UD.D1N1984 PLC 1141 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs GHULAM MOHY-UD-DIN /1984 PLC 806 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ALLAH BAKHSH MAJBOOR AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 425 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs AHMAD BAKHSH1984 PLC 1489 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL SATTAR1984 PLC 1491 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL MAJID1984 PLC 71 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL HAMID1984 PLC 58 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL GHAFOOR NISHTAR1984 PLC 1027 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL GHAFFAR NIAZI1984 SCMR 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the employer, Punjab Road Transport Board, against the Lahore High Court judgment dated 8-6-1983, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's challenge to the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal orders directing the reinstatement of the respondent employee. The core legal question concerned the validity of the respondent's termination from service after he obtained a fresh conductor's licence following the cancellation of his previous licence due to a conviction for receiving fare without issuing tickets. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by time by 82 days with no application or explanation for condonation, and further noted that the High Court had already left open an avenue for the petitioner to seek the cancellation of the respondent's fresh licence on the stated grounds. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that petitions filed beyond the prescribed period without adequate explanation or an application for condonation are time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for leave to appeal filed beyond the period of limitation without an application or explanation for condonation can be entertained?
- Does the possession of a fresh conductor's licence preclude an employer from terminating an employee's services when the previous licence was cancelled for misconduct?
- Can leave to appeal be refused when alternative legal avenues remain available to the petitioner?
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, LAHORE1984 PLC 1436 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH ITS DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICES, JHANG vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1984 PLC 1256 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH GENERAL. MANAGER1984 PLC 1411 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, ADMINISTRATION vs ASHRAF ALI1984 PLC 1040 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN.), LAHORE vs SABIR HUSSAIN1984 PLC 1552 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN.) vs ASAD ULLAH KHAN1984 PLC 1086 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, RAWALPINDI vs ZAHOOR-UD-ABI D1984 PLC 1410 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, )HANG vs GHULAM SHABBIR, SECURITY GUARD, G. T. S., JHANG1984 PLC 1417 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1984 PLC 1096 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER vs HABIBULLAH1984 PLC 1085 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER vs ASHIQ1984 PLC 1014 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER vs ALI1984 PLC 1077 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANRPORT BOARD THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER1984 PLC 1409 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs NAZIR AHMAD1984 PLC 823 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 11 OTHERS1984 PLC 220 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-19Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB PROVINCE AND ANOTHER vs Raja HUKAM DAD KHAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 459 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-14Read full judgment →
- PUNHAL SHAH AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 PLD Supreme Court 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and related offences. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the First Information Report (FIR), the credibility of ocular evidence, and the reliability of recovery proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions and sentences. The Court held that a telephonic message to the police failing to disclose a specific cognizable offence does not constitute an FIR under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; rather, the subsequent detailed statement recorded at the crime scene serves as the valid FIR. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies in witness testimony, such as a slip regarding the weapon carried by an assailant, do not invalidate the entire prosecution case when the witnesses are natural and credible. Additionally, the Court ruled that where police guard the accused's residence, the absence of independent recovery witnesses does not undermine the integrity of the recovery of incriminating weapons and blood-stained clothing. The judgment reinforces principles regarding FIR registration and the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.
Questions settled- Does a telephonic message to the police that does not disclose a specific cognizable offence constitute a First Information Report?
- Can minor discrepancies in witness testimony regarding the weapons carried by assailants invalidate the entire prosecution case?
- Does the absence of independent recovery witnesses render the recovery of incriminating evidence inadmissible when the accused's premises were under police guard?
- Is a statement recorded at the crime scene by a police officer the valid First Information Report if an earlier telephonic message failed to disclose a cognizable offence?
- Provincial Industrial Deve-Lopment Corporation. vs Pakistan And AnotherPTCL 1984 (CL) 204 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a decree passed by the High Court in a civil suit. The respondents were originally accused in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the criminal proceedings, a truck belonging to the respondent was placed on sapurdari (custody) and specific cash sums were recovered from the accused. Although the respondents were initially convicted and the property confiscated, the appellate court subsequently set aside the conviction and sentence, directing the respondents to seek the return of the confiscated assets through civil litigation. The respondents successfully sued the Provincial Government, obtaining a decree for the value of the truck and the recovered cash. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the truck had since been recovered and was available for return. The core legal question concerns the liability of the Provincial Government for damages arising from proceedings conducted by a criminal court, specifically whether the state can be held civilly liable for property handled during criminal trial processes.
Questions settled- Can the Provincial Government be held civilly liable for the loss or value of property handled during criminal court proceedings?
- Does the recovery of property previously subject to a civil decree for its value affect the execution of that decree?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1984 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal by the Province of Punjab against a High Court judgment regarding the recruitment of Junior Clerks. The core legal question was whether the enforcement of the West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Service Rules, 1964, resulted in the implied repeal of paragraph 3.5 of the District Office Manual, which governed the maintenance of candidate lists for such appointments. The respondent, an apprentice Junior Clerk, challenged the Collector's decision to bypass the existing waiting list and recruit candidates directly. The Supreme Court held that the 1964 Rules did not repeal paragraph 3.5 of the District Office Manual. The Court reasoned that while the 1964 Rules defined 'initial recruitment' and prescribed qualifications, they failed to provide a specific mechanism or procedure for making such appointments. Conversely, paragraph 3.5 established a comprehensive code for testing, listing, and selecting candidates. Finding no repugnancy or inconsistency between the two instruments, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, establishing the principle that prior administrative instructions remain in force where they supplement, rather than contradict, subsequent service rules that lack specific procedural provisions.
Questions settled- Does the enactment of new service rules automatically repeal prior administrative instructions governing recruitment procedures?
- Can administrative instructions regarding recruitment coexist with subsequent service rules if the latter lack specific procedural provisions?
- Does the definition of 'initial recruitment' in the West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Service Rules, 1964, render paragraph 3.5 of the District Office Manual redundant?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs GHULAM RASOOL ZAHID/BWP (/LHR)1984 PLC (C.S.) 448 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, RAWALPINDI1984 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Government of Punjab sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which held that a civil servant could revoke a request for voluntary retirement and leave preparatory to retirement (LPR) at any time before actually retiring from service, even after the offer had been accepted and the civil servant had enjoyed a substantial part of the LPR. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can unilaterally withdraw or revoke an offer for voluntary retirement and LPR after it has been accepted and acted upon. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, holding that once an option for voluntary retirement and LPR is exercised, accepted, and acted upon, creating finality and binding consequences, the civil servant cannot subsequently go back on it or revoke it. The Court applied the principle of locus paenitentiae, distinguishing cases where revocation occurred prior to acceptance.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant revoke an offer for voluntary retirement and leave preparatory to retirement after it has been accepted and acted upon?
- Does a civil servant have the right to withdraw a request for retirement at any time prior to the actual date of retirement?
- What is the applicability of the principle of locus paenitentiae in matters of voluntary retirement of civil servants?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary,Irrigation and Power vs Ch.1984 MLD 232 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1984 PLD Lahore 515 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged an order passed by the District Judge in a revision petition arising from an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The core legal question concerned the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction for revisional proceedings under the Arbitration Act, specifically whether the District Judge was competent to hear a revision where the subject-matter of the arbitration reference exceeded Rs. 50,000. The High Court held that under Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act 1940, the term 'Court' is defined by the civil court having jurisdiction to decide the subject-matter of the reference as if it were a suit. Consequently, the value of the subject-matter of the reference determines the forum for both original applications and subsequent revisional proceedings. Since the claim value exceeded the pecuniary limit of the District Court's appellate jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The Court established that the pecuniary value of the arbitration reference governs the forum for all related judicial proceedings, rendering the District Judge's order without lawful authority.
Questions settled- How is the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court determined for applications filed under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Does the value of the subject-matter of an arbitration reference determine the forum for hearing a revision petition?
- Is a District Judge competent to hear a revision petition where the value of the subject-matter of the arbitration reference exceeds Rs. 50,000?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS vs Mufti MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns ten Regular First Appeals challenging a District Judge's award regarding land acquisition compensation. The core legal question was whether landowners, who accepted compensation payments after filing objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 but without explicitly endorsing 'under protest,' were barred from continuing their reference proceedings by the second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Act. Additionally, the court addressed whether the acquired land should be valued as agricultural or building (Sakni) land. The Court held that the appeals were meritless. It ruled that the statutory bar in Section 31(2) applies only to pre-reference acceptance of compensation; it does not invalidate references already validly instituted and pending before the court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that market value must reflect the land's potentiality, not merely its current agricultural use. The key principle laid down is that the competence of a reference under Section 18 is determined at the time of its institution, and subsequent receipt of compensation without formal protest does not extinguish the right to seek judicial determination of fair compensation.
Questions settled- Does the receipt of compensation without formal protest after the filing of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 invalidate the reference?
- Is the market value of acquired land to be determined solely by its current use or by its potentiality for future development?
- Does the second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 apply to compensation received during the pendency of court proceedings?
- Can a court determine the jurisdiction of a reference based on events occurring after the reference was validly instituted?
- PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD. vs S. M. SAYEDAIN1984 PLC 1177 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD. vs PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD. WORKERS' UNION1984 PLC 731 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
- PRAYL AND OTHERS vs SHER MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Sind High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, which had non-suited the respondents regarding a land dispute. The trial court had dismissed the respondents' suit on the basis that the vendor, Syed Muhammad Aala, lacked the authority to sell the land due to alleged non-payment of dues to the Settlement Department. The High Court, however, observed that the petitioners had failed to raise this specific plea in their written statement, rendering the lower courts' findings legally erroneous. Furthermore, the High Court held that the execution of the sale deed was sufficiently proved by the vendor's testimony, negating the need for attesting witnesses under the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the lower courts exceeded their jurisdiction by deciding on the validity of the Settlement Department's clearance certificate, a matter exclusively within the purview of the Settlement authorities under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. The petition was dismissed as the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a court non-suit a party on a ground not raised in the written statement?
- Is the testimony of a vendor sufficient to prove the execution of a sale deed without examining attesting witnesses under the Evidence Act?
- Does the civil court have jurisdiction to determine the legality of a clearance certificate issued by the Settlement Department?
- Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact in revision if they involve questions of law and jurisdiction?
- POSTMASTER-GENERAL, CENTRAL CIRCLE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs TAJ1984 PLC 444 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- PLASTIC EMPLOYEES' UNION (REGD.) vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS1984 PLC 42 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- Pirzada SAID-UL-AMIN & BROTHERS, CONTRACTORS DAWOOD HERCULES vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC 515 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
- Pirzada AMIR HASSAN AND OTHERS vs Mrs. SHAMIM SHAH NAWAZ AND OTHERS1984 CLC 3080 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal was filed by the defendants against a judgment and decree of the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, granting specific performance of an agreement to sell land to respondent No. 1. The appellants contended that the trial court erred in closing their evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code due to a pending suit for mandatory injunction, and that the contract was frustrated because the land was subsequently acquired by the Lahore Development Authority. The High Court held that although Order XVII Rule 3 was inapplicable because the adjournment was not granted at the appellants' request, the evidence closure was fully justified under Order XVII Rule 1(3) as introduced in Punjab, since the appellants failed to show sufficient cause or produce evidence after repeated opportunities. The Court also held that Order II Rule 2 did not bar the suit as the causes of action for mandatory injunction and specific performance were distinct and arose at different times. Finally, statutory acquisition of the property did not frustrate the contract to prevent a decree of specific performance. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a trial court close a party's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the adjournment for producing evidence was not granted at that party's specific instance?
- Does Order XVII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empower the trial court to close a party's evidence and proceed with the suit when no sufficient cause for adjournment is shown?
- Does Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit for specific performance when a prior suit for mandatory injunction based on a distinct cause of action is pending?
- Does the dismissal of a suit for mandatory injunction as infructuous operate as res judicata against a simultaneously decided suit for specific performance?
- Does the acquisition of land by a statutory authority frustrate an agreement to sell so as to preclude a decree for specific performance?
- PIRAN DITTA vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 423 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- PIRA alias PHIRA and others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
- Pir RIAZ ALI SHAH vs ZAMIRUL HAQUE and another1984 SCMR 1257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a leave to appeal granted to examine whether a Press-note dated 24 October 1960 contravened section 13 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and paragraph 22 of the Schedule, and whether the appellant, a local government servant, was entitled to the transfer of an evacuee house in Multan. The core legal question concerns the eligibility of an applicant relying on the extended definition of possession under the second proviso to section 2(6) of the Act and whether compliance with the condition precedent of clearing rent and public dues by the specified deadline is mandatory. The Supreme Court held that while applicants qualifying under the strict statutory definition of possession cannot be burdened with rent clearance as a pre-condition, those seeking the benefit of the extended definition of possession via notification are bound by its provisos, making the timely clearance of rent a mandatory condition precedent. Since the appellant failed to clear the rent before the property was lawfully transferred to the respondent, his subsequent compliance could not displace the completed transfer. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement of clearing arrears of rent is a valid condition precedent for a person claiming the benefit of the extended definition of possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act?
- Can an applicant who fails to meet the pre-conditions of the notification granting an extended definition of possession challenge a prior lawful transfer of evacuee property to a respondent?
- Does a Press-note or notification imposing rent clearance requirements conflict with section 13 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act when applied to non-statutory possessors?
- PIR MUHAMMAD JATOI and others vs PROVINCE OF SIND through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Sind; Karachi and others1984 MLD 222 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
- PIR BUX-- Appellant vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1984 MLD 828 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- PIONEER STEEL MILLS vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB , .1984 PLC 171 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD., MURIDKE vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1984 PLC 1201 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD JAMIL , . Industrial dispute- --1984 PLC 815 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD. vs ALLAH RAKHA1984 PLC 586 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- PIARO vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 149 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application for cancellation of bail was filed by the complainant against the respondent who, along with other co-accused, was facing trial for murder. The respondent had been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. The complainant contended that the bail was granted in disregard of legal principles and the material on record, arguing that the incident occurred in broad daylight and the F.I.R. was promptly lodged. The High Court observed that the police had dropped two co-accused, one of whom raised a plea of alibi supported by medical records, which created inconsistency in the ocular evidence and necessitated further enquiry. Additionally, the Court noted that the F.I.R. was delayed, the prosecution witnesses were interested, and there was no ballistic report linking the recovered gun to the crime. Furthermore, the respondent had enjoyed the concession of bail for nearly three years without abusing it, and had previously undergone over two years of statutory detention. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application, holding that once bail is granted, it should not be cancelled unless the concession is abused.
Questions settled- Whether the exclusion of certain co-accused by the police during investigation makes the case against the remaining accused one of further enquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail once granted be cancelled in the absence of evidence showing that the accused has abused the concession of bail?
- What is the effect of an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. on an application for cancellation of bail?
- Does a private complainant's delay in filing an application for cancellation of bail affect its maintainability?
- Petitioners: Darsons Rubber Works Industries Ltd, Wazirabad AndPTCL 1984 (CL) 285 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Petitioner : M/S. Muhammad Boota And Two Other vs M/S. MuhammadPTCL 1984 (CL) 171 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- PERVEZ AKHTAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2483 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
- PEHLWAN vs AHMAD KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1855 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
- PEERU AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1465 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- PEERA AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 565 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
- PEER MUHAMMAD vs MINISTRY OF PRODUCTION, ISLAMABAD1984 SCMR 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad, which rejected an application for the restoration of an appeal. The petitioner, having been dismissed from service, challenged his dismissal before the Service Tribunal. During the regular hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment to contact his client, and the case was adjourned. On the adjourned date, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution pursuant to the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974. The Supreme Court heard the matter, found no plausible argument presented to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution upon the non-appearance of the appellant and their counsel?
- Does the failure to present a plausible argument to set aside an order of the Service Tribunal warrant the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- PAYO DIN vs HAMIDULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, father of the deceased, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent for murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and acquitted him. The prosecution case was based on an eyewitness account of a broad daylight murder in a bazar, supported by medical evidence and recoveries. The High Court had acquitted the respondent, holding the case doubtful due to alleged enmity between the co-accused and improper conduct of the investigating officer. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court's grounds for acquittal appeared to be based on a misreading of the evidence, noting that the enmity between the co-accused had been compromised and that the First Information Report was promptly recorded by another officer in the absence of the allegedly biased station house officer. Finding that the circumstances warranted re-examination, the Supreme Court allowed the petition and granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused on the ground of enmity between the co-accused when the record showed a compromise?
- Does the prompt recording of the First Information Report by an officer other than the allegedly biased investigating officer exclude the possibility of false implication?
- When can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment of the High Court?
- PASHAM KHAN AND 7 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 PLD Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences of eight appellants under sections 302, 307, 404, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected murder reference and a revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of partisan ocular evidence, the reliability of chance witnesses, and the presence of material contradictions between ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the site plan in a murder trial involving a prior blood-feud. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from major doubts, including unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, glaring contradictions between the eye-witnesses' accounts and the medical evidence regarding the nature and direction of injuries, and the exaggerated involvement of the entire male family of the accused. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, laying down the principle that interested ocular testimony contradicted by medical evidence and physical circumstances cannot form the basis of a safe conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of interested and closely related eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration when contradicted by medical evidence?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
- How does a material conflict between the site plan, weapon recovery locations, and the medical evidence regarding the direction of injuries affect the prosecution's narrative?
- Whether the involvement of an entire family in a criminal case due to previous blood-feud enmity warrants closer scrutiny of partisan witnesses?
- PARTRADERIET FOER M. T. SONJA & CO. AND ANOTHER vs MUSLIM1984 SCMR 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition filed by the petitioners against an order of the High Court. During the proceedings, the parties reached a mutual agreement regarding the relief sought, which was formally submitted in writing and signed by the respective counsel for both the petitioners and the respondent. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and accepted it, directing an amendment to paragraph 6 of the impugned High Court order dated 26-10-1983. The Court ordered that the distribution of the disputed amount would abide by the final decision in the suit, with the specific exception that the petitioners would be entitled to immediate payment, in priority to other claims, of such amounts as adjudicated by the trial judge following their application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court mandated that this adjudication process, including the resolution of any objections, should occur as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs was issued.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition into an appeal based on the mutual agreement of the parties?
- Does an agreement between parties regarding the distribution of funds in a pending suit allow for the amendment of an impugned High Court order?
- Under what circumstances can a party be granted priority payment of claims pending the final decision in a suit?
- PARKE,DAVIS 8 COMPANY vs The DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE1984 CLC 2623 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1940 against the decision of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks refusing the registration of the trade mark "Bardase" for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The Deputy Registrar had rejected the application under section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act on the ground that the mark was close to the word "Bardash" and had a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods. The core legal question was whether the trade mark "Bardase" had a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods or was otherwise unregistrable under the Act. The court held that the word "Bardase" is an invented word having no direct reference to the character or quality of the pharmaceutical preparations, nor is it descriptive in the sense understood by the ordinary person in Pakistan. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the decision of the Deputy Registrar was set aside, and the Deputy Registrar was directed to proceed with the registration of the mark.
Questions settled- Whether the trade mark "Bardase" has a direct reference to the character or quality of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
- Can a trade mark be refused registration merely on the ground that it resembles an obscure foreign dictionary word when it is an invented word with no such ordinary meaning in Pakistan?
- Whether the discretion of the Registrar of Trade Marks in refusing registration must be exercised upon judicial principles without being affected by caprice or overcaution?
- PAKISTAN WESTERN RAILWAYS UNION vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS1984 PLC 313 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM1984 PLC 817 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD., KARACHI vs PAKISTAN CIGARETTE1984 PLC 1583 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-12-30Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SALARY CIRCLE1984 PTD 255 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD. vs GHULAM HAIDER1984 PLC 906 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-12Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLC 1706 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs GULZAR AHMAD1984 PLC 1314 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs FAZ ALUR REHMAN AND OTHERS1984 PLC 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs ABDUL MAJID KHOKHAR1984 PLC 281 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS THROUGH DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT vs SIND LABOUR1984 PLC 178 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-06Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ AND OTHERS, .1984 PLC 1661 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL KARIM KHALID1984 PLC 1087 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD., CHARSADDA vs DIRECTOR N.W. F. P.1984 PLD Peshawar 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD. vs SECRETARY, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2456 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a public limited company challenging orders issued under Section 22 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance 1969, imposing penalties for failure to submit half-yearly accounts for the period ending 31st December 1973, as well as orders refusing an extension of time and dismissing a revision petition. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to chaotic affairs following management changes, rendering the default non-wilful and beyond control. The respondents maintained that the prescribed timeframe was sufficient and the failure constituted a wilful default.
The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned orders were neither perverse, arbitrary, nor passed without jurisdiction. The Court refused to re-examine factual matters, noting that the inability of the petitioner's accountants to prepare accounts in time did not constitute a circumstance beyond control. It laid down the principle that high courts in constitutional jurisdiction will not interfere with factual determinations of administrative authorities absent perversity, arbitrariness, or lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of accountants to prepare financial statements in time constitutes a ground beyond the control of a company so as to negate wilful default?
- Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction re-evaluate purely factual findings of administrative authorities under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance 1969?
- Under what circumstances will an order imposing penalties under Section 22 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance 1969 be declared to be without lawful authority?