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.
- NAIK MUHAMMAD vs KHAN MUHAMMAD and another1984 MLD 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- NAIK ALAM vs DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal, arising from a conflict of judicial opinion within the Lahore High Court regarding the powers of a Rent Controller during execution proceedings. The core legal question concerns whether, under Section 17 (as amended) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, a Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to entertain an objection petition during the execution of an eviction order, similar to the powers held by an ordinary executing court. The petitioner contended that the impugned judgment of the High Court, which denied such jurisdiction, conflicted with a prior decision of the same Court in Malik Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Saleem. Recognizing this conflict of views on a significant procedural question, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to settle the matter authoritatively. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Court issued an interim order restraining the respondents from alienating the property in dispute.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to entertain an objection petition while executing an order of eviction under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Is the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller in execution proceedings equivalent to that of an ordinary executing court?
- NAFEES BAIG MIRZA vs COVERNMENT OF SIND through Food and Co-1984 MLD 810 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
- NAEEM WAHID vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 352 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenge orders passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' appeals regarding their dismissal from service by the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Limited. The petitioners were employed as Assistant Analysers and Food Inspectors and had filed grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which were initially allowed by the Labour Court but subsequently dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the petitioners were not 'workmen' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether Assistant Analysers and Food Inspectors fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Ordinance of 1968. The Sindh High Court held that the primary and substantial duties performed by the petitioners—such as inspection, check weighment, sampling of stocks, and acting as sole representatives for rice procurement—did not involve manual or clerical work requiring routine physical exertion, but rather supervisory and decision-making responsibilities. Consequently, the court held that the petitioners were not workmen, dismissing the constitutional petitions and laying down the principle that the true nature of duties—specifically looking to the direct, immediate, and substantial part of the work—determines employee status under the Standing Orders Ordinance rather than sundry incidental tasks.
Questions settled- Whether an Assistant Analyser or Food Inspector employed by the Rice Export Corporation falls within the definition of a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- What is the true test for determining whether an employee is a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Does the performance of incidental manual or clerical duties make an employee a 'workman' when their primary and substantial duties are supervisory in nature?
- NAEEM HASAN vs FOURTH SIND LABOUR COURT AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 50 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
- NAEEM and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2548 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
- NAEEM AKRAM CHAUDHRY vs PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1301 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
- NADIR vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 177 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- NADIR SHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the High Court's judgment upholding the appellants' convictions for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony, provided by interested witnesses in a case marked by long-standing enmity, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court found the prosecution's version improbable, noting that the witnesses' claims of evading gunfire without cover were unbelievable and that the testimony of the alleged independent witness was riddled with improvements and contradictions. The Court held that in cases of deep-seated enmity, ocular testimony requires independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used to bolster a witness's credibility; it is admissible only to highlight contradictions in their evidence. Consequently, the Court found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt, and set aside their convictions.
Questions settled- Can a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to bolster the credibility of a prosecution witness?
- Is independent corroboration required for ocular testimony in cases involving long-standing enmity between parties?
- Does the failure of witnesses to explain how they evaded gunfire from a close distance render their testimony unreliable?
- NADIR KHAN vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION AND 21984 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NADHIM K. AHMAD vs QUAIDIAZAM UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 57 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
- NADEEMUZZAFAR vs Mst. SALIMA BEGUM1984 CLC 2272 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
- NADEEM TAHIR BHATTI vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1984 PLD Lahore 17 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
- NADEEM MANZAR MALIK vs THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, A DIVISION SAHIWAL AND 5 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- NADEEM AHMAD vs The PRINCIPAL/CHAIRMAN, Admission Board, King1984 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves civil petitions for special leave to appeal arising from the cancellation of the petitioners' admission to the First Year M.B.,B.S. Class of the Medical Colleges of the Punjab for the academic year 1981-82. The petitioners were admitted to King Edward Medical College, Lahore, but their admissions were subsequently cancelled by the Principal on the grounds that they had appeared in an intermediate examination in 1979 (Spring) after passing it in 1978, which they allegedly were not eligible to do, and that they had concealed this fact in their admission affidavits by only disclosing examinations taken in 1978 and 1980. The core legal question concerns whether there is any impediment preventing a student from appearing in the intermediate examination again from a different board, and how examinations taken in parts across multiple years should be computed. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals for an early hearing, noting that the issues relating to admission to educational institutions require prompt consideration.
Questions settled- Whether a student who has passed the Intermediate Examination from one board is eligible to appear in the Intermediate Examination again from a different board?
- How should an Intermediate Examination cleared in parts across different years be treated for the purpose of determining the year of passing?
- Does the failure to mention an intermediate examination attempt taken in parts constitute concealment of material facts warranting the cancellation of admission?
- NABOO and another vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2810 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- NABI KHAN AND OTHERS vs GHULAM MURTAZA AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed civil revisions filed by unsuccessful objectors to the execution of a pre-emption decree. The petitioners, who were not parties to the original pre-emption suit, resisted the delivery of possession to the decree-holder, claiming ownership of houses built on the disputed evacuee land and asserting rights as transferees under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners could resist execution based on their possession and whether the failure to formally frame issues in the execution proceedings invalidated the lower courts' decisions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners, having entered possession as tenants of the evacuees, could not claim adverse possession or title against the successors-in-interest of the evacuee owners. Furthermore, the Court held that the absence of formally framed issues did not invalidate the proceedings, as the grounds of objection were clearly enumerated and fully adjudicated upon evidence. The Court affirmed that civil courts cannot interfere with allotments made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958.
Questions settled- Can a tenant of evacuee property claim adverse possession against the successor-in-interest of the evacuee owner?
- Does the failure to formally frame issues in execution proceedings invalidate the judgment if the grounds of objection were clearly enumerated and adjudicated?
- Can a civil court examine the entitlement of a party under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- NAAZIR HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of two individuals, Yaqub Ali Shah and Sabir Hussain, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court and the Lahore High Court had upheld the convictions and sentences, including a death sentence for the primary appellant, Naazir Hussain. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances surrounding the motive. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence of the eye-witness, corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries, sufficient to establish guilt. However, the Court held that the motive—accusations of immorality leveled by the deceased against the sister of the appellants—constituted a significant extenuating circumstance. Consequently, the Court ruled that the maximum penalty of death was not justified. The holding reduced the death sentence of the primary appellant to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the convictions and sentences for the other appellants, and increased the fine imposed on the primary appellant to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a motive based on accusations of immorality against a family member constitute an extenuating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life if it finds the maximum penalty unjustified by the circumstances?
- Is it permissible to order the entire amount of a fine to be paid to the heirs of the deceased in lieu of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- NA WA B vs THE PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCILS ELECTION AUTHORITY, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 1564 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- N.W W. F. P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, MARDAN AND 2 OTHERS s vs FAIZ1984 PLD Peshawar 180 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-21Read full judgment →
- N. K IRFAN vs AMANULLAH and ohters1984 P Cr. L J 2306 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
- N. K IRANI vs AMANULLAH and ohters1984 P Cr. L J 2306 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
- M/S. Plasticrafters Ltd. vs Government Of Pakistan Through Secretary,PTCL 1984 CL 322 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Muhammad Boota and two others vs National Construction CompanyPTCL 1984 (CL) 171 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- M/S. Mir Qadir Bux And Bros, And Other vs Pakistan Through Secretary ToPTCL 1984 (CL) 268 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/S. Chaman Shoe Co vs Controller Of Imports & Exports Karachi AndPTCL 1984 (CL) 162 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/S. Aftab Medical Store D. G. Khan vs Commissioner, Income-Tax, Lahore.PTCL 1984 (CL) 326 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →
- M/S Pakistan Welding Electrodes Ltd., Karachi. vs Commissioner Of SalesPTCL 1984 (CL) 13 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/S Needle Industries Newey (India) Ltd. vs Needle Industries NeweyPTCL 1984 (CL) 54 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- M/S International Industries Ltd., Karachi. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax,PTCL 1984 (CL) 149 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NAZAR AHMED vs NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 867 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- M/S Dada Soap Factory Ltd., Karachi. vs Pakistan Through Seeretary Govt.PTCL 1984 (CL) 377 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR KHAN vs Mst. ROSHAN JAN AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
A civil appeal challenged the validity of a gift deed executed by a male owner in favor of his sisters, based on the contention that customary law restricted his power to alienate ancestral property. The core legal question was whether property inherited under customary law prior to the enactment of the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, remained subject to customary restrictions on alienation, or if the Shariat Acts applied retrospectively to grant full ownership rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the 1935 Act is retrospective in effect, meaning the deceased is deemed to have died under the domain of Muslim Law regardless of the date of death. Furthermore, the Court noted that the amendment to the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, following the Federal Shariat Court's ruling, removed the clause subjecting the Act to other enactments. Consequently, customary restrictions on the alienation of property inherited by a full owner no longer exist, and the appellant lacked the legal standing to challenge the gift.
Questions settled- Is the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, retrospective in its application to succession?
- Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, permit customary restrictions on the alienation of property inherited by a full owner?
- What is the effect of the removal of the phrase 'subject to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force' from the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
- MUZAFFAR KHAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 701 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-10Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for murder and attempted murder. The petitioner, Muzaffar Hussain, was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence and imprisonment, respectively. While the High Court acquitted the co-accused, it maintained the petitioner's conviction, reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction could be sustained based on the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses, particularly when the recovery evidence was discarded and co-accused were acquitted on similar grounds. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt were unexceptionable. The Court affirmed that the presence of the injured eye-witnesses was beyond doubt, providing sufficient basis for conviction despite the acquittal of co-accused. The petition was dismissed, though the Court directed that the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of injured eye-witnesses even if co-accused are acquitted due to lack of corroboration?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the ground of interested testimony automatically necessitate the acquittal of a petitioner convicted on the same evidence?
- Is the presence of injured witnesses sufficient to establish their credibility in a criminal trial?
- MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN KAZMI vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, AND 62 OTHERS1984 PLC (C.S.) 670 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
- MUTTALI AND ANOTHER vs MUTTALI AND OTHERSPLD 1984 Rev. 13 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1983-09-24Read full judgment →
- MUTTAL AND 15 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 209 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
- MUTI-UL-HAQ vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS1984 PLC (C. S.) 207 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
- MUSTOO alias GHULAM MUSTAFA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1535 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-26Read full judgment →
- MUSTAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2919 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- MUSTAFA HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI vs Malik ISLAM AKBAR1984 CLC 2869 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM SHER vs Mst. QUDRAT BIBI AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM INSURANCE LTD. vs DR. MUHAMMAD SHARIF MUTTAQI1984 CLC 1408 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM CQMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs RIASAT ALI GHUMAN1984 PLC 1146 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK, SARGODHA vs RIAZ AHMAD SHAHID1984 PLC 1247 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK STAFF UNION, LAHORE vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE1984 PLC 1246 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., SIALKOT vs MUHAMMAD SAEED1984 PLC 439 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., SIALKOT vs GHULAM RASOOL GHUMAN1984 PLC 506 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 1276 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., FAISALABAD vs MOHY-UD-DIN MAHMOOD1984 PLC 521 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., FAISALABAD vs ABDUL HAMEED1984 PLC 1196 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs NAZEER HUSSAIN ZAFAR1984 PLC 437 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-24Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. vs INTERICE Ltd . and 9 others1984 MLD 391 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs GUL SHAMSHIR JANG1984 PLC 127 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. GUJRAT vs BASHIR AHMAD1984 PLC 1492 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. and others--Decree-holders vs Mst. AMNA1984 MLD 710 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND 21984 PLC 275 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- MUSHVILLE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE vs KHAN MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 518 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-06Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, SERVICES HOSPITAL, LAHORE1984 PLC (C. S.) 752 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ ALI vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH DISTRICT1984 PLC 1075 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMED KHAN vs Khawaja MUSTAFAUL HASSAN1984 SCMR 1509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the High Court of Sind, which ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises. The core legal question was whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises, given that the landlord's family comprised ten members and that the landlord suffered from arthritis, making it difficult to climb stairs to the first floor. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums regarding the landlord's personal requirement were sustainable and based on sufficient evidence, noting that the existing four rooms on the first floor were inadequate for a large family of ten members. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact by statutory forums regarding personal bona fide requirement are normally within their exclusive jurisdiction to determine conclusively, and findings of fact will not be interfered with in the absence of a substantial question of law.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower forums regarding personal requirement of a landlord can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Is medical evidence mandatory to establish a landlord's physical ailment pleaded as part of personal bona fide requirement?
- Whether a family size of ten members residing in four rooms sufficiently establishes bona fide personal requirement for additional premises?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs THE ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTY AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing his writ petition. The dispute concerned the transfer of a Deorhi and courtyard forming part of a composite building comprising shops on the ground floor and a residential unit on the first floor. The petitioner, who was transferred a shop on the ground floor, asserted that the Deorhi and courtyard were included in his original transfer order dated 4-4-1973, making them unavailable for subsequent transfer to respondent No. 3. However, both the Deputy Administrator and the Administrator, Residual Property, concluded that only the shop consisting of two rooms was transferred to the petitioner and that he lacked physical possession of or link to the Deorhi and courtyard. The Lahore High Court declined to interfere with these concurrent factual findings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that factual findings regarding physical possession and scope of transfer orders cannot be re-agitated where unsupported by the initial transfer record. The leave petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding physical possession and the scope of a property transfer order can be interfered with in extraordinary writ jurisdiction?
- Can a claim to additional property be sustained if the initial transfer order contains no mention of such property?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the respondents shot the deceased, Muhammad Siddiq, and stole his rifle and personal belongings. The trial court convicted the respondents, but the High Court acquitted them. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence, specifically the ocular testimony and forensic recoveries, was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from fatal defects: the eye-witnesses materially changed their version of events to align with medical evidence; the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the weapon used; the recovery of the crime empty was suspicious due to the sequence of dates suggesting fabrication; and the state of the deceased's stomach contents contradicted the alleged time of occurrence. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions, improvements, and suspicious forensic timelines, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the material improvement of a witness's statement to align with medical evidence undermine the credibility of the ocular account?
- Can the recovery of crime empties be considered unreliable if the timeline of submission to the forensic laboratory suggests post-recovery fabrication?
- Does the state of a deceased's stomach contents at the time of post-mortem examination serve as a reliable indicator to challenge the alleged time of occurrence?
- Is an appellate court justified in maintaining an acquittal when the prosecution's case is riddled with significant factual inconsistencies?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SIALKOT1984 PLC 1218 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 3451 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs AHMED BUX1984 SCMR 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent landlord under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had ordered the petitioner tenant to deposit arrears and future rent under Section 16(1) of the Ordinance. Upon non-compliance, the Controller struck off the tenant's defense and ordered ejectment on merits. The High Court affirmed this decision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his counsel was absent when the deposit order was passed, that arrears covered by previous proceedings were improperly included, and that the Controller lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the record clearly noted the presence of the petitioner's counsel, that the period of arrears was not shown to overlap or be time-barred, and that the plea of territorial jurisdiction had not been raised in the lower forums and could not be entertained for the first time.
Questions settled- Can a plea regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a Rent Controller be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if not raised earlier?
- Whether the striking off of a tenant's defence under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 is valid where the order of deposit was passed in the recorded presence of the tenant's counsel?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs ABDUL SATTAR1984 MLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD QURESHI vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 283 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN vs Khawaja MUSTAFAULHASAN1984 CLC 3093 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal arising from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant under Section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking vacation of the ground floor premises on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement due to insufficient accommodation on the first floor and health issues, specifically arthritic pain preventing him from climbing stairs. The Rent Controller allowed the application, directing the tenant to vacate. The appellant challenged the order, contending mala fides aimed at rent enhancement, lack of personal examination of the landlord, and failure to prove genuine need. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlord's large family of twelve members residing in cramped conditions established a pressing and reasonable need, that examination of the landlord's attorney was legally sufficient, that the demand for higher rent does not negate bona fide need when independently proved, and that the term 'need' must not be unduly stretched to defeat statutory eviction grounds.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a landlord to examine himself as a witness is fatal to an ejectment application where his attorney has testified?
- Does a demand for higher rent by itself negate the landlord's bona fide personal requirement of the rented premises?
- What is the distinction between desire and need in the context of a landlord's personal requirement for eviction under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a landlord's assertion of personal requirement on oath sufficient if it remains consistent and is not shaken in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND 25 OTHERS vs THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, H. Q. OFFICE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1634 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AH MAD vs THE S. H. 0., POLICE STATION, MUNAWAN1984 P Cr. L J 1454 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a counter-version of a criminal occurrence for which a case under Section 302/307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 had already been registered against the appellant. The core legal question was whether the police are legally obligated to register a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) when an accused party seeks to present a counter-version of the same incident. The Court held that once a case has been registered regarding an occurrence, no second case can be registered for a counter-version by the accused persons. The Court reasoned that allowing such a practice would lead to an unmanageable multiplicity of F.I.Rs for every crime. The key principle laid down is that the police cannot be directed to register a second F.I.R. for a counter-version of an incident already under investigation; the appropriate legal remedy for the aggrieved party in such circumstances is to file a private complaint before the relevant court.
Questions settled- Is the police duty-bound to register a second F.I.R. when an accused party presents a counter-version of an occurrence for which a case is already registered?
- Can a court issue a direction to the police to register a second F.I.R. regarding the same criminal occurrence?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for an accused party wishing to present a counter-version of an incident already under police investigation?
- MUSA KHAN vs THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 1052(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner husband's constitutional petition arising out of a matrimonial dispute. The core legal questions pertained to the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court and whether valid grounds existed for the grant of khula to the respondent wife. The Supreme Court observed that both issues were concluded by findings of fact recorded by the lower forums. Holding that the High Court's reluctance to interfere with factual findings in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction did not suffer from any legal infirmity, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms the established principle that concurrent or concluded findings of fact by subordinate tribunals in matrimonial matters are generally not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction or on further appeal unless a patent illegality or jurisdictional defect is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether findings of fact regarding territorial jurisdiction of a Family Court can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether the High Court should re-examine findings of fact relating to the grant of khula in a constitutional petition?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against a High Court judgment refusing to disturb factual findings in a matrimonial matter?
- MURID KAZIM AND OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 428 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- MURID HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs GHULAM AHMAD alias GHULAM MUHAMMAD1984 PLD Supreme Court 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over agricultural land gifted by Ahmad Hussain to his fiancee, Mst. Saeed Fatima, shortly before their marriage in 1957. Both parties tragically committed suicide shortly after their marriage. The core legal question was whether the gift made prior to the marriage (nikah) was complete without formal delivery of possession and acceptance, and whether subsequent collection of rents by the donor husband negated the completion of the gift. The Supreme Court held that although gifts made before nikah ordinarily require proof of delivery of possession, the specific circumstances—wherein the gift was made in lieu of dower, the marriage followed shortly, and the couple remained deeply attached until their joint demise—rendered the gift complete as Hiba-bil-iwaz. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court correctly restored the trial court's decree in favour of the donee's parents, laying down the principle that the strict presumption regarding pre-nikah gifts of possession can be satisfied by surrounding circumstances demonstrating the donor's unwavering intent and subsequent marital unity.
Questions settled- Whether a gift made by a person to his fiancee before nikah requires proof of delivery of possession to be complete?
- Does the collection of rents by a husband from land gifted to his wife raise a presumption that he held it on his own behalf?
- Whether a gift in lieu of dower can be treated as Hiba-bil-iwaz exempting the strict requirements of delivery of possession under specific circumstances?
- MURID AND ANOTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES)AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1185 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-12Read full judgment →
- MURAD ALI vs MEMBER (S&R)/CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1984 SCMR 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the entitlement to purchase agricultural land previously allotted to a party whose allotment was subsequently cancelled due to excess entitlement. The respondent, having purchased land from the original allottee, sought to purchase the land, as did the petitioner, who was in actual possession as a tenant at will. The core legal question is the interpretation of the phrase 'land occupied by any person' as found in the proviso to clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. Specifically, the Court must determine whether this statutory language refers to the original allottee or purchaser, or to the tenant in actual physical occupation of the land. Finding that this issue is similar to a question pending in another matter, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the interpretation of the statutory provision regarding the right of first offer for sale to occupants of agricultural land.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'land occupied by any person' in the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 refer to the original allottee or the tenant in actual occupation?
- Who is entitled to the first offer of sale for agricultural land under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- MURAD ALI AND ANOTHERs vs AHMAD KHAN1984 CLC 683 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-01Read full judgment →
- MUQARRAB KHAN NIAZI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the petitioner's reversion from the post of Senior Broadcast Engineer to Broadcast Engineer under section 3 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. The core legal question concerns the computation of limitation for filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal against the rejection of a departmental representation, and whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was time-barred. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Federal Service Tribunal correctly found the appeal to be barred by time, noting that even if the communication regarding the rejection of the representation was not received, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed 120 days from the lodging of the representation as established by precedent. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred by limitation if filed beyond the prescribed period from the rejection of a departmental representation?
- When does time begin to run for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal if no communication regarding the disposal of a departmental representation is received?
- MUNSHI KHAN vs CHHAITOO KHAN and 6 others1984 MLD 174 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
- Munshi JAN MUHAMMAD vs IDA AND OTHERS1984 CLC 878 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
- MUNNA (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Cap. MUHAMMAD MURTAZA alias1984 MLD 226 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
- MUNIRA MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3018 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
- MUNIR-UD-DIN vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1984 PLC 1227 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- MUNIR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2481 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-23Read full judgment →
- MUNIR HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE1984 PLC 1182 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD vs Mst. SALMA BEGUM1984 MLD 1058 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, INDUSTRIES & MINERAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND 13 OTHERS , _1984 PLC (C. S.) 734 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-26Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MULTAN vs Mst. ANWAR BIBI1984 PLC 1312 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUJRANWALA vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1984 PLC 514 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD vs IFTIKHAR AHMAD /1984 PLC 807 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, LYALLP UR vs BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE &1984 SCMR 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment declaring a municipal demand for octroi duty unlawful. The Municipal Committee, Lyallpur, sought to recover octroi charges from Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Limited, alleging that the company violated the conditions of the 'Re-export Pass System' by supplying petroleum products to 'non-company premises' outside municipal limits. The core legal question was whether the Municipality could impose octroi duty on this basis and whether it could subsequently justify the demand on alternative grounds, such as the location where the sale transaction was completed. The Supreme Court held that the Municipality was bound by the specific grounds cited in its original demand notice. Since the allegation of supplying to 'non-company premises' was insufficient in law to create liability for octroi, the demand was invalid. The Court affirmed that an authority cannot justify an impugned action on grounds other than those forming the foundation of the original departmental proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the legality of a tax demand must be assessed based on the reasons originally provided by the levying authority.
Questions settled- Can a municipal authority justify a tax demand on grounds other than those originally stated in the demand notice?
- Does the supply of goods to non-company premises outside municipal limits automatically invalidate the use of a re-export pass system?
- Is the determination of the place of sale for octroi purposes a question of fact dependent on the specific terms of the contract?
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KABIR WALA vs Mst. ASMIT CHAUDHARY1984 PLC 1064 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHANG vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ1984 CLC 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR MEH MOOD vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION1984 PLC 618 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUNAWAR ALI vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR ALI vs ABDULLAH and 2 others1984 CLC 2920 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →