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.
- MIR BALUCH KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and another1984 MLD 583 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-17Read full judgment →
- Mir ALLAH BACHAYO AND 4 OTHERS vs 0. S. D., FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1984 CLC 2045 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-03Read full judgment →
- Mir ALAM KHAN vs MUHAMMAD JI alias ASLAM1984 PLD Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mir AIMAL KHAN vs SELECTION COMMITTEE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
- Mir AIJAZ ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs Mir HMI AND 11 OTHERS1984 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. When the case was called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent was present and noted that the petitioners' counsel had prior knowledge of the hearing date. The record showed that an earlier application for adjournment and for hearing at Karachi had been rejected by the Chief Justice. Furthermore, the petition had previously been adjourned on four occasions at the request of the petitioners' counsel. Finding no justification for a further adjournment in the continued absence of the petitioners or their counsel, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. Additionally, the Court noted that a separate reference lodged in the Court did not require a separate order, as the questions raised therein were governed by an earlier final judgment of the Court. Finally, a belated adjournment application received by post after the announcement of the dismissal order was held to be of no avail.
Questions settled- Can a petition be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioners and their counsel fail to appear at the hearing?
- Whether an adjournment application received by post after the announcement of an order dismissing a case is maintainable?
- Mir AIJAZ ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs Mir HAJI AND 11 OTHERS1984 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan following a series of adjournment requests by the petitioners. Despite previous adjournments granted on four separate occasions, the petitioners failed to appear for the scheduled hearing. The court noted that the petitioners were fully aware of the hearing date, as evidenced by their prior unsuccessful attempt to have the matter adjourned or transferred to Karachi, a request which had been explicitly rejected by the Chief Justice. Given the petitioners' absence and the history of repeated delays, the court found no justification for further postponement. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. The court further observed that a belated application for adjournment, received by post after the order of dismissal had already been announced, was of no legal effect. The court also noted that no separate order was required regarding a reference pending before it, as the issues therein were governed by a previous final judgment of the Court.
Questions settled- Can a petition be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioners fail to appear after multiple previous adjournments?
- Is a belated application for adjournment received after the announcement of a dismissal order legally effective?
- Mir AHMAD SHAH vs PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 897 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-26Read full judgment →
- MIR AFZAL AND OTHERS vs COLLECTORII, LAND ACQUISITION, TARBELA DAM1984 CLC 1216 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mir ABDUS SAMAD BADINI vs POLITICAL AGENT AND RETURNING1984 CLC 564 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- MINHAJ BARNA vs MESSRS PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD1984 PLC 1595 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
- MILLAT SULTAN vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SANGHAR AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1862 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- MIJHAMMAD ASHRAF vs Mst. NOOR JEHAN1984 CLC 1938 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- Mian ZIAUDDIN vs PUNJAB LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION TRIBUNAL, LAHORE1984 CLC 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the election of the respondent to the Lahore Municipal Corporation, alleging the respondent was disqualified due to his association with a defunct political party and that the election process was flawed due to the failure to record National Identity Card numbers on ballot counterfoils as per administrative instructions. The core legal questions were whether the non-compliance with administrative instructions regarding identity card recording rendered the election void under the Election Petition Rules, 1979, and whether the Election Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the respondent's disqualification and alleged corrupt practices were subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the election could not be declared void absent proof that the result was materially affected by the alleged irregularities. It further held that administrative instructions are directory, not mandatory, and that mere irregularities do not invalidate an election. The Court affirmed that findings of fact by the Election Tribunal, based on evidence, cannot be re-appraised in constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, emphasizing that election results should not be overturned for minor irregularities absent proof of material impact.
Questions settled- Does the failure to record National Identity Card numbers on ballot counterfoils, as required by administrative instructions, automatically render an election void?
- Can a High Court re-appraise findings of fact made by an Election Tribunal while exercising constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is an election liable to be declared void under the Election Petition Rules, 1979, without proof that the result was materially affected by irregularities?
- Can newspaper reports and uncorroborated statements be relied upon as legal evidence to prove a candidate's disqualification?
- Mian WAHEED-UD-DIN vs The CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN1984 MLD 481 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-16Read full judgment →
- Mian SHER REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN AND OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 2 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-02Read full judgment →
- Mian SHAN AHMAD vs KHURSHID ALAM BHATTI AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 818 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mian SARDAR alias Mian SAFDAR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1408 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- Mian RIASAT ALI vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, CANAL OFFICES, FAISALABAD1984 PLC (C. S.) 789 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mian KHUDA BUX AND OTHERS vs TAHIR PERVAIZ, CIVIL JUDGE, 1sT CLASS, VEHRRI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1521 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-30Read full judgment →
- Mian INAYAT ULLAH vs MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 537 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mian INAM KARIM and others vs Mirza ISRARULQADIR and others1984 SCMR 1427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a High Court order permitting the sale of immovable properties constituting a Wakf Alal Aulad. The core legal question was whether a Court possesses the authority to sanction the sale of Wakf property and the reinvestment of proceeds when the Wakif (founder) did not expressly reserve such a power, particularly when the properties had become dilapidated. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court affirmed that while it must strive to give effect to the founder's express wishes, the Court, acting in the capacity of the Kazi, retains the judicial discretion to authorize the sale and change of investment of Wakf property if it is deemed conducive to the proper maintenance and benefit of the Wakf. The key principle laid down is that the absence of an express power of sale in the Wakf deed does not preclude the Court from permitting a sale and reinvestment, provided the Court is satisfied that such action is necessary and beneficial for the preservation and maintenance of the trust.
Questions settled- Can a Court authorize the sale of immovable property constituting a Wakf Alal Aulad if the Wakif did not expressly reserve the power of sale?
- Does the Court have the authority to permit a change of investment of Wakf property for the benefit of the trust?
- Is the Court, in its capacity as the Kazi, empowered to vary the management of a Wakf to ensure its proper maintenance?
- Mian HAMAD SAEED vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY1984 PLC (C. S.) 398 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-08-01Read full judgment →
- Mian HABIBUR REHMAN vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT1984 PLC (C. S.) 149 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-13Read full judgment →
- Mian BASHIR HAIDER vs MRS. NUR JEHAN KIRMANI1984 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the tenant in respect of a residential-cum-commercial building in Karachi. The proceedings were initially instituted under Martial Law Order No. 20 by the husband of the respondent-landlady and subsequently validated under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved were whether eviction proceedings initiated by the husband of the landlady instead of the landlady herself were maintainable, and whether the landlord's claim for personal bona fide requirement was established. The Supreme Court held that the initial defect, if any, stood cured by subsequent proceedings, the remand of the case by consent, and the active participation of the respondent-landlady. The Court further held that the landlord has a preferential right to occupy his own premises and that isolated statements regarding enhanced rent do not negate a substantiated claim of personal requirement. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether eviction proceedings initiated by the husband of a landlady under Martial Law Order No. 20 are null and void?
- Does a consent order remanding a case to the Rent Controller preclude a party from challenging the initial maintainability of the proceedings?
- Whether a landlord has a preferential right to occupy his own premises even if residing in government accommodation?
- Does an offer by a landlord regarding enhanced rent during continued occupation destroy a bona fide personal requirement claim?
- Mian ABDUL QADUS vs SAHIB ALI AND OTHERS1984 PLD Federal Sharial Court 69 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
- Mian ABDUL MAJID vs MESSRS GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.1984 PLC 691 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
- Mian ABDUL HAFEEZ vs Mst. FARIDUN NISA1984 CLC 1917 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
- MIA N KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- MFSSRS ATIQ SILK MILLS vs TAR MUHAMMAD1984 CLC 997 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-11Read full judgment →
- METRO GARMENT INDUSTRIES vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 21984 PLC 241 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRSSAIFEE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE C-5,1984 PTD 104 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
- Mirza HASSAN AKHTAR BAIG vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3013 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs ZIMRAN ENTERPRISES vs The SPECIAL DIRECTOR/COLLECTOR, EXCISE &1984 MLD 262 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-10Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ZA1BA TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI vs GHULAM HAIDER AND 5 OTHERS1984 PLC 460 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs VALIKA WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. vs OP (ARMY) KARACHI1984 CLC 2515 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS UNITED WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. vs WORKERS' UNION AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the applicability of a set-off provision under the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether a settlement agreement signed on 16-6-1980, which covered two distinct periods (1979-80 and 1980-81), could be treated as effective from 1-7-1980 for the latter period, thereby allowing the employer to set off the statutory cost of living allowance against emoluments payable for that year under proviso (a) to subsection (4) of section 3 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the settlement contained two distinct agreements. While one part was effective from 1-7-1979, the part governing the 1980-81 period was effective from 1-7-1980. The Court established the principle that when interpreting the 'effective date' of a settlement or agreement, the intention of the parties regarding the date of effectiveness must be determined first, rather than relying solely on the date of signing. Consequently, the employer was entitled to set off the allowance against the emoluments for the 1980-81 period, but not for the 1979-80 period.
Questions settled- Can an employer set off a statutory cost of living allowance against emoluments payable under a settlement agreement?
- How is the effective date of a settlement determined under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can a single settlement document contain multiple agreements with different effective dates?
- Does the date of signing a settlement automatically dictate its effective date if the parties have otherwise agreed on a specific commencement date?
- MESSRS UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION, MIRPUR vs THE COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX, GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD1984 PTD 137 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference under section 136(2) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, arises from orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 34-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the subsequent dismissal of an appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the lawful scope of supervisory powers exercised by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in setting aside an assessment order of the Income-tax Officer, and the requirement of providing an adequate opportunity of hearing and confronting the assessee with inquiry materials. The High Court held that powers under section 34-A are supervisory and can only be invoked when an order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, rather than merely based on a difference of opinion or vague assumptions. Furthermore, the authority must confront the assessee with the results of any private inquiry and cannot travel beyond the scope of the original notice. The court ruled that the proceedings of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were unlawful and restored the original assessment order of the Income-tax Officer.
Questions settled- Whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner can invoke powers under section 34-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, merely on a difference of opinion or disagreement with the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer?
- Is it mandatory for the assessing authority to confront the assessee with the results of a local inquiry or material utilized against them before finalizing an assessment?
- Does the failure of the Appellate Tribunal to decide all objections raised in the memorandum of appeal amount to a refusal to exercise vested jurisdiction?
- Can the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner travel beyond the scope of objections raised in the original notice issued under section 34-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Messrs UNITED BANK Ltd. vs Qazi AMIR ALI1984 CLC 2509 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD. vs MESSRS TEXTILE ACCESSORIES (PAKISTAN) LTD.1984 CLC 3189 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS TRANSIMPEX (PAKISTAN), KARACHI vs EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, KARACHI1984 CLC 1911 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs TAR MUHAMMAD JAN00 & COMPANY vs TAHER ALI and 2 others1984 MLD 719 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SYED BROTHERS vs MESSRS FILM EXHIBITORS LTD. AND 10 OTHERS1984 CLC 3434 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SUN LINE AGENCIES LTD. vs VESSEL M. v. "PSILORITIS" AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the arrest of the vessel "Psiloritis" under the admiralty jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court. The plaintiff sought to arrest the ship to recover dues owed by the ship's time charterer, arguing that the charterer was the "beneficial owner" of the vessel under section 4(4) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980. The core legal question was whether a time charterer qualifies as a "beneficial owner" of a ship, thereby rendering the vessel liable to arrest in an action in rem for the charterer's debts. The Court held that the expression "beneficially owned as respects majority shares" refers strictly to equitable ownership and does not encompass mere possession or control by a charterer. Consequently, the Court ruled that a time charterer is not a beneficial owner, and the vessel could not be arrested for the charterer's liabilities. The Court preferred the interpretation established in The St. Merriel and The I Congreso del Partido, rejecting the broader interpretation of possession and control. The arrest order was vacated.
Questions settled- Does the expression 'beneficially owned' in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 include a time charterer?
- Can a vessel be arrested in an action in rem for the debts of a time charterer?
- Does possession and control of a ship by a charterer constitute beneficial ownership for the purposes of ship arrest?
- Messrs SULTAN AHMAD SAMI AHMAD & Bros. vs K.B. HASSAN ALI and 3 others1984 MLD 775 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 95 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS STERLING ENGINEERING CORPORATION vs THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 857 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs STANDARD FISHERIES CORPORATION vs Messrs INTERNATIONAL1984 MLD 1173 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SPINZER SNACKS vs MRS. ANJUM A. RAB AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Karachi 147 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SPENCER & Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs MESSRS NATIONAL AGENCIES1984 CLC 3432 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-02Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SKYROOMS LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs SINE TRADING AGENCIES vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and another1984 CLC 2584 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS SILVER COTTON MILLS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI1984 PTD 216 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax reference application under the Sales Tax Act addresses whether an assessee manufacturer was entitled to sales tax exemption on sales made to holders of manufacturer's licences who were subsequently found by the department to be non-existent or bogus. The assessee sold cotton yarn to various licensed parties without charging sales tax, obtaining photostat copies of their licences and certificates under the Sales Tax Rules. The assessing officer and Tribunal rejected the exemption because the purchasers were untraceable and their licences were allegedly cancelled. The core legal question was whether a registered manufacturer selling goods to a holder of a valid sales tax licence can be held liable for sales tax when the department later discovers the purchaser's licence was improperly issued or the purchaser is bogus. The High Court held that unless the licence was cancelled before the sale or the assessee had knowledge of the licensee's non-existence, the seller cannot be burdened with verifying the licensee's genuineness, as issuing licences is the department's statutory responsibility. The court answered the reference questions in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee except where no licence copy was maintained.
Questions settled- Whether sales made to holders of manufacturer's licences are entitled to exemption under the Sales Tax Act even if the purchasers are subsequently found to be non-existent?
- Did the applicant discharge the burden of proving sales to licensed manufacturers by producing photostat copies of licences and certificates under the Sales Tax Rules?
- Can a registered manufacturer be held liable for sales tax due to the department's failure to properly verify licensees before issuing sales tax licences?
- MESSRS SHOBRA HOTELS LTD. vs EMPLOYEES UNION1984 PLC 1426 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SHAKOOR ALI MUHAMMAD, HYDERABAD vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (WEST), KARACHI1984 PTD 248 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-06Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SERVICE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs MUNAWAR SULTANA1984 CLC 3011 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS S. S. SALAR & Co. vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SARFARAZ AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 77 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs RUBY TRADING COMPANY vs Mst. ZAINAB KHANUM AND 5 OTHERs1984 CLC 169 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs REX TALKIES Ltd. vs LINTAS Ltd.1984 MLD 795 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- MESSRS RASHID INDUSTRIES LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHER1984 PLC 700 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS RAFIQUE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs MESSRS CONFORCE LTD.1984 SCMR 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision concerning the amendment of a compromise decree in a suit for specific performance. The petitioners filed a suit which was resolved via a compromise agreement requiring certain payments by specified dates, failing which the agreement would terminate and possession of the property would revert to the respondents. The petitioners defaulted on the payments, leading to the dismissal of the suit and a decree reflecting the compromise terms. Subsequent challenges via application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, revision petitions, and a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court were all dismissed. The petitioners also sought amendment of the decree under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to delete the relief of possession, which was rejected by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not take advantage of their own failure to honour their commitment, that the restoration of possession is a necessary consequence of the default, and that the jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and should be exercised whenever justice demands. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the restoration of possession is a necessary consequence of a default in a compromise decree for specific performance?
- Does every court possess the inherent jurisdiction to make restitution whenever justice demands?
- Can a party who fails to honour the terms of a compromise agreement seek to amend the resulting decree to avoid adverse consequences?
- Messrs RAFIQ INDUSTRIES Ltd. vs Messrs CONFORCE Limited1984 SCMR 1452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which upheld the dismissal of a civil suit following the petitioner's failure to comply with a court-recorded compromise agreement. The core legal question was whether the compromise, as recorded in the statements of the parties before the Senior Civil Judge, was binding and whether the subsequent dismissal of the suit for non-compliance with the payment terms was legally justified. The Supreme Court held that the compromise was unambiguous and binding, noting that the petitioner had repeatedly failed to honor the payment schedule despite multiple opportunities granted by both the trial court and the High Court. The Court refused to interfere with the lower courts' orders, emphasizing that a party cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of its own breach of a solemn commitment made before the court. The key principle laid down is that where parties enter into a compromise in the presence of the court, they are bound by its terms, and failure to comply with such terms justifies the dismissal of the suit.
Questions settled- Is a compromise agreement recorded in the statements of parties before a court binding on the parties?
- Can a court dismiss a suit where a party fails to comply with the payment terms of a recorded compromise?
- Does a party have the right to challenge a dismissal order when they have repeatedly failed to honor a court-sanctioned undertaking?
- MESSRS R. B. AWARI & CO, LTD. vs MESSRS BADRUDDIN H. MAWANI AND 21983 CLC 1877 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS QAMARDIN AND OTHERS vs MESSRS PAKISTAN SHIPPING AGENCIES1984 CLC 2005 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PLASTICRAFTERS LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2295 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS PARAMOUNT HOSIERY MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs Syed MUSTAFA HYDER1984 PLD Karachi 143 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenges an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller in favour of the respondent-landlord on the ground of personal use of the premises for his son. The appellant-tenant contested the application, raising a preliminary objection of res judicata based on an earlier dismissed ejectment application, and denying the bona fides of the landlord's claim. During the appeal, the tenant filed an application under section 21(3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 seeking to bring additional evidence on record regarding concurrent ejectment proceedings initiated by the landlord for other premises. The High Court considered the question of res judicata, holding that it was not attracted because the earlier application was based on the landlord's personal need whereas the present application was for his son. However, noting the appellant's allegations of mala fides and the provisions for further inquiry, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Rent Controller to record further evidence on the bona fides of the landlord's requirement and write a fresh order.
Questions settled- Does a previous dismissal of an ejectment application bar a subsequent application filed for the personal use of the landlord's son under the principle of res judicata?
- Can an appellate authority remand a rent case for recording additional evidence regarding the bona fides of a landlord's personal requirement under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- MESSRS PAKMALAYA TRADING COMPANY vs HELLENIC NAVIGATOR AND 21984 CLC 1771 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PAKISTAN PIPE & CONSTRUCTION Co. LTD. vs CITY MUKHTIARKAR, KARACHI EAST, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution Petition challenged a demand notice issued by the City Mukhtiarkar for the recovery of alleged arrears of rent owed to the Sind Industrial Trading Estate (SITE) as arrears of land revenue under the Sind Industrial Trading Estate Recovery of Dues Act, 1973. The petitioners disputed the liability, citing the non-provision of promised amenities and arguing that the claim was time-barred. The core legal question was whether disputed dues could be recovered through summary proceedings as arrears of land revenue without prior judicial determination. The Court held that the recovery notice was illegal. It established the principle that statutory provisions allowing the recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue are intended only for admitted or established debts. Where a claim is disputed by the alleged defaulter, the summary recovery mechanism cannot be invoked; the creditor must first have the liability fixed, determined, and established by a competent court of law. Consequently, the impugned notice was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Can disputed dues be recovered as arrears of land revenue without prior determination by a competent court?
- Does the Sind Industrial Trading Estate Recovery of Dues Act, 1973, allow for the summary recovery of claims that are denied and disputed by the alleged debtor?
- Is the Limitation Act applicable to claims made by the Government?
- MESSRS PACKAGES LID. AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD YOUNIS1984 PLC 1508 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NORWICH UNION FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD. vs MUHAMMAD1984 PLD Karachi 519 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS NISHAT TALKIES vs MESSRS ZERAY ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2366 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NATIONAL CONSTRUTCION LTD., FAISALABAD vs ABDUL RAHMAN1984 PLC 508 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs NATIONAL AND GRINDLAYS BANK Ltd. vs ARSHAD ALI KHALID QURESHI1984 MLD 362 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NADEEM CORPORATION, KARACHI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (WEST), KARACHI1984 PTD 186 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs N.HASSAN ALI & COMPANY vs Mrs. RUBY CAWAS NOSHERWANI1984 CLC 2466 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MUSTAFA PRESTRESSED R. C. C. PIPE WORKS LTD., KARACHI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INVESTIGATION, CIRCLE II, KARACHI1984 PTD 415 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs QAIYUM SHAH1984 PLC 864 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs MUNSHI FLOUR MILLS vs Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM1984 CLC 2671 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL THAKAR SONS LIMITEDs vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others1984 CLC 2944 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS MOGHAL FILMS CORPORATION vs CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CENSORS, ISLAMABAD THROUGH ITSCHAIRMAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2148 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MIR QADIR BUX & BROX. AND OTHERS vs PAKISTAN FHROUGH1984 PTD 122 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs MANZOOR TEXTILE WORKS and another vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT1984 SCMR 1546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed the decision of a learned Single Judge and dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding a property dispute. The core legal question concerns whether a specific portion of the property, known as Piara Singh Workshop, was lawfully included in the auction and subsequent Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued to respondent M.M. Khalil, or whether it constituted a separate property. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention regarding the inclusion of the workshop in the auction requires detailed consideration by the court. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal, ordered security to be furnished, and directed that the status quo shall continue to be maintained.
Questions settled- Whether the Piara Singh Workshop portion was included in the property subject-matter of the auction held in favour of the respondent?
- Can separate allotments made by rehabilitation and settlement authorities be treated as distinct properties despite subsequent transfer deeds covering a larger area?
- MESSRS MANSOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS vs ASSISTANT1984 P Cr. L J 1021 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs LIBERTY CLOTH STORES and another vs Messrs YAKUB & SONS and 31984 CLC 2809 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs KASHMIR CORNER vs AHSAN KHAWAJA and another1984 P Cr. L J 2737 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KARIM INDUSTRIES vs MESSRS NAHAN FOUNDRY1984 CLC 648 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KARIM HOUSING ENTERPRISES vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1984 CLC 3021 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS KARACHI TEXTILE DYEING AND PRINTINGWORKS, KARACHI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI1984 PTD 150 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference application under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act arose out of income tax proceedings for the assessment year 1968-69. The tax authorities rejected the applicant assessee's book results regarding its art silk manufacturing business and estimated higher sales and gross profit rates, primarily because the assessee maintained daily accounts in prescribed excise registers rather than maintaining separate day-to-day production and raw material consumption accounts for income tax purposes, and because comparable cases showed higher profits. The core legal questions were whether the rejection of book results under Section 13 of the Income-tax Act was supported by evidence and whether the department could rely on undisclosed comparable cases. The High Court answered both questions in the negative, holding that the Income-tax Act prescribes no specific accounting format. Assesses are free to adopt any regular accounting method, such as excise registers, provided proper profits can be deduced. Non-maintenance of day-to-day registers alone cannot justify rejecting accounts without specific findings of defect. Furthermore, relying on comparable cases without disclosing them to the assessee violates natural justice.
Questions settled- Whether the non-maintenance of day-to-day raw material consumption registers by itself justifies the rejection of book results under Section 13 of the Income-tax Act?
- Can the Income-tax Officer reject account books maintained regularly under Excise Rules without identifying specific defects showing that profits cannot be deduced therefrom?
- Whether the tax department can rely upon parallel or comparable cases to reject an assessee's gross profit rate without disclosing the details of those cases to the assessee for rebuttal?
- MESSRS KARACHI GAS COMPANY LTD. vs MESSRS FANCY FOUNDATION1984 PLD Karachi 233 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property arose from a dispute regarding the delivery of 'vacant possession.' The plaintiff sought specific performance or, alternatively, damages and refund of the sale consideration. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1908, whether the agreement was valid despite the absence of a formal written contract, and whether the plaintiff's demand for possession free from the tenants' right of re-instatement—guaranteed under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959—was justified. The Court held that the suit was within the limitation period as the contract remained alive until its termination by the defendant. However, it found that the plaintiff was aware of the tenants' re-instatement rights, making the demand for 'clear' possession unjustified. Consequently, the Court refused specific performance due to the plaintiff's lack of readiness and willingness, but decreed the refund of the advance sale consideration with interest from the date of the contract's termination, as the defendant had no right to forfeit the amount.
Questions settled- Does a contract for the sale of immovable property require a specific formal written instrument to be legally binding?
- Does the right of re-instatement of an evicted tenant under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 constitute a clog on the title of the property?
- When does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance begin if no date for performance is fixed in the agreement?
- Is a seller entitled to forfeit the advance sale consideration if the buyer refuses to complete the transaction due to a mutual mistake regarding the terms of possession?
- MESSRS KAKAKHEL INDUSTRIES vs Mst. MUNIRAN BIBI1984 PLC 1695 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- MESSRS JUPITER TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX1984 PTD 133 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-13Read full judgment →
- MESSRS JOOSAB PEER MUHAMMAD & Co. vs THE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE1984 CLC 2032 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-31Read full judgment →
- MESSRS JANG PUBLICATIONS LTD. vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, SIND AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Karachi 292 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a constitutional petition against the Registrar of Trade Unions, who certified a trade union as the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) for the Karachi branch of "Jang Publications Limited." The appellant argued that because the company operates establishments in multiple provinces, a single national-level bargaining agent was required, rendering the provincial Registrar's certification illegal. The core legal question was whether the Registrar’s jurisdiction is ousted by the multi-provincial nature of the employer. The Court held that the Registrar’s authority under Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance remains valid for provincial establishments unless and until the specific mechanism under Section 22-EE is invoked by a union or the Government to determine a collective bargaining unit. The Court affirmed that while Section 22-EE provides a framework for consolidating bargaining units across provincial boundaries, it does not automatically invalidate existing provincial certifications. Consequently, the Registrar’s certification was upheld as lawful, establishing that provincial jurisdiction persists until the National Industrial Relations Commission formally intervenes to restructure the bargaining unit.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a multi-provincial establishment automatically oust the jurisdiction of a provincial Registrar of Trade Unions to certify a bargaining agent?
- Can a provincial Registrar certify a collective bargaining agent for a branch of an establishment that operates in multiple provinces?
- Does the certification of a collective bargaining agent under Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance remain valid until the specific mechanism of Section 22-EE is invoked?
- Is an employer entitled to approach the National Industrial Relations Commission to determine a collective bargaining unit under Section 22-EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Messrs JAHANIA SONS and another vs S.M. YOUNIS and 2 others1984 CLC 2898 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs J.V. KOCKS KG/Rist vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another1984 SCMR 1543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition, which was subsequently converted into an appeal. The dispute concerned arbitration proceedings involving Messrs J.V. KOCKS KG/Rist and the Government of Pakistan. The parties, their legal representatives, and the appointed umpire reached a consensus regarding the procedural conduct of the arbitration. The Court, acting upon this agreement, ordered that additional evidence, as specified in the Government's application, be admitted before the umpire, subject to the right of rebuttal. The Government was tasked with producing the necessary evidence and witnesses, excluding the expert witness to be appointed by the umpire. Furthermore, the Court extended the deadline for the issuance of the arbitration award by two months, effective from the date of the parties' appearance before the umpire. The Government also undertook to withdraw its pending application for the removal of the umpire, while retaining its right to challenge the arbitration proceedings and the final award in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can parties to an arbitration agreement mutually agree to the admission of additional evidence before the umpire?
- Is the court empowered to extend the time for the issuance of an arbitration award based on the consent of the parties?
- May a party withdraw an application for the removal of an umpire while reserving the right to challenge the arbitration proceedings later?
- MESSRS INTRACO LTD. vs GLOBE CHEMICALS BV, HOLLAND1984 CLC 1840 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- MESSRS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MESSRS YOUSUF1984 PLD Karachi 345 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-05Read full judgment →
- MESSRS INDUS VALLEY CONSTRUCTION CO, vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1984 PTD 426 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HUSSAIN EBRAHIM AGENCIES LTD., KARACHI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI1984 PTD 197 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HUSEIN SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs DILDAR KHAN1984 PLC 1147 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HOTEL METROPOLE LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1984 PTD 49 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →