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.

• MESSRS HIGHLAND MANUFACTURERS (PAK.) LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (WEST), KARACHI1984 PTD 250 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MESSRS HAMDARD THREAD HOUSE, KARACHI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET-TAX (EAST),KARACHI1984 PTD 419 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-07Read full judgment →
• MESSRS HAJI FAZAL DIN AND 5 OTHERS vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1984 CLC 1706 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
• MESSRS H. R. & BROTHERS vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 1796 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• MESSRS GHULAM MUHAMMAD DOSSUL & Co. vs MESSRS VULCAN Co. LTD AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 1024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-14
  trade marktemporary injunctionprima facie caseprior userexclusive selling rightscustoms authoritiesinfringement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a suit for permanent injunction and an application for temporary injunction concerning the trade mark "ARMINIUS" registered in favour of the petitioner for arms and ammunition. The petitioner challenged the import of revolvers bearing the same trade mark by respondent No. 1. The trial court and the High Court both dismissed the petitioner's application for a temporary injunction, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, noting evidence that goods bearing the mark were imported prior to the petitioner's registration, and applying the principle that prior users have preference under section 25 of the Trade Marks Act 1940. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the documents on record did not sufficiently establish that the original foreign owner had abandoned its rights or transferred full proprietary and manufacturing rights to the petitioner, and that the goods in question had already been released and partly sold. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the High Court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the holder of a registered trade mark is entitled to a temporary injunction against the import of goods bearing the same mark by a third party when prior user by others is established?
  • Does a grant of exclusive selling rights by a foreign manufacturer confer proprietary rights in a trade mark sufficient to restrain third-party imports?
  • Can a appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts refusing a temporary injunction in a trade mark matter without clear error?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS GHULAM HUSSAIN HIDAYATULLAH TEXTILEMILLS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 771 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
• MESSRS GHANDHARA INDUSTRIES LTD., vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1984 CLC 1913(1) · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION vs JOINT SECRETARY, GOVT, OF PAKISTAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 3 others1984 MLD 289 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-11Read full judgment →
• MESSRS GALAXY CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-26
  bank guaranteetemporary injunctioncivil suitwithdrawal of suitinterim reliefencashment of bank guarantee
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court order refusing to grant a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from encashing a bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner in a civil suit. The petitioner had previously filed a suit which was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit, where the current application for injunction was made. The High Court, relying on previous litigation between the parties regarding the same bank guarantee, refused the injunction. However, the High Court also directed that a portion of the bank guarantee amount be paid to the respondent, while ordering the remaining balance to be invested in Khas Deposit Certificates, despite no claim having been made by the respondent for that specific balance. The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of the injunction but set aside the High Court's order regarding the investment of the balance sum. The Court held that in the absence of any claim by the respondent for the specific amount, there was no justification for withholding it from the petitioner, and ordered its release.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the retention of a portion of a bank guarantee amount when no claim has been made by the respondent for that specific sum?
  • Does the refusal of a temporary injunction in a subsequent suit remain valid when based on the adjudication of the same issue in prior litigation between the same parties?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS G.M. PFAFF A.G. vs DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another1984 CLC 2478 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
• MESSRS FIRDOUS SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Karachi 522 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-17
  customs dutyexemption notificationautomatic-cone-winderstextile industryultra viresdelegated legislationpolicy decisiontaxing statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of constitutional petitions involves the interpretation and vires of Explanation (ii) in Notification No. S. R. O. 702(1)/80 dated June 26, 1980, issued under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, which excluded automatic-cone-winders from customs duty exemptions available to the textile industry. The core legal questions relate to whether the notification's phrasing rendered the exception conditional upon actual local substitutability, whether the executive's policy decision regarding substitutes was reviewable, and whether the provision was ultra vires due to unreasonableness. The Sindh High Court held that the notification unambiguously declared automatic-cone-winders to be substitutes for locally manufactured cone-winders as a matter of executive policy, which was a non-justiciable policy decision within the unconditional powers of the Federal Government under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court concluded that the provision was neither unreasonable nor ultra vires. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government has unconditional power under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to withdraw or restrict previously granted customs duty exemptions?
  • Whether Explanation (ii) of Notification No. S. R. O. 702(1)/80 is capable of more than one interpretation regarding the local substitutability of automatic-cone-winders?
  • Can the factual assumptions underlying an executive policy decision in a statutory notification be questioned and reviewed by the courts in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether a delegated legislative instrument such as a notification can be struck down as ultra vires on the ground of unreasonableness?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs FEEDAI AGENCY LTD. and anothers vs PAKISTAN THROUGH FEDERAL1984 CLC 2761 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs FARSIGHT TRADING Co.--Applicant vs THE COMMISSIONER OF1984 MLD 808 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-08Read full judgment →
• MESSRS EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY vs GUL MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 721 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ESSKAY LTD. vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1984 PTD 142 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-20Read full judgment →
• MESSRS EASTERN STEELS vs NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION1984 CLC 1640 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-14Read full judgment →
• MESSRS DEWAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI vs PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 1740 · Sindh High Court · 1916-11-18
  production capacity dutyexcise dutydouble taxationsubordinate legislationultra viresconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the imposition of additional excise duty on synthetic staple yarn manufactured by a textile mill whose plant and machinery had already been subjected to production capacity duty for cotton yarn under section 3(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal question was whether the authorities could levy excise duty on actual production under section 3(1) of the Act in addition to production capacity duty on the same machinery, and whether an administrative formula providing relief for such dual production had statutory backing. The court held that taxation on production capacity is levied in lieu of, and not in addition to, actual production excise duties under Entry 52 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, and imposing both without excluding the relevant machinery amounts to impermissible double taxation. Furthermore, the administrative rebate formula lacked statutory sanction under Article 77 of the Constitution. The court declared the extra duty demand to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can excise duty on actual production under section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 be levied on goods manufactured using plant and machinery already subjected to production capacity duty under section 3(4) without revising the capacity?
  • Whether the phrase 'in lieu of' in Entry 52 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution permits the simultaneous imposition of both production capacity duty and actual production excise duty on the same machinery?
  • Does an administrative formula introduced by the Central Board of Revenue without statutory backing provide a valid legal basis for adjusting duties to prevent double taxation?
  • Are subordinate rules that result in double taxation or conflict with constitutional mandates ultra vires?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3209 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
• MESSRS DADA SOAP FACTORY LTD. vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Karachi 302 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-08
  customs tariff classificationdepartmental practiceexecutive constructionremandconstitutional petitionchemical classificationsales tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of fifty-one constitutional petitions involving common questions of law and fact regarding the proper classification of a chemical known as Tetra Propylene Benzene Sulphonic Acid 97% under the Pakistan Customs Tariff (P. C. T.). The core legal question was whether the chemical falls under P. C. T. Heading 29.03 as claimed by the petitioners, or under P. C. T. Heading 34.02 as claimed by the Customs Department, and whether a consistent past departmental practice of assessment precluded the department from changing its stance. The Sindh High Court held that the determination of the chemical's ingredients and its appropriate classification is a disputed question of fact best resolved by the hierarchy of tribunals under the Customs Act rather than the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that the material presented was insufficient to conclusively establish a binding long-term consistent departmental practice. Consequently, the court set aside the classification dispute, remanded the cases to the Collector of Customs for fresh adjudication after affording opportunities for further evidence, and ordered existing bank guarantees to remain intact subject to timely extensions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a long-standing departmental practice of classifying an imported item under a specific tariff heading is binding on the Customs Department?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the chemical composition and tariff classification of imported goods in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is the Collector of Customs under a statutory duty to apply independent judgment to the facts rather than solely relying on the opinion of a foreign agency or council?
  • Whether the Customs Department can depart from an existing assessment practice without obtaining the approval of the Central Board of Revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS DADA LTD. vs MESSRS ABDUL SATTAR & Co.1984 SCMR 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-28
  frustration of contractSection 144 CrPCcollateral challengevoidable orderforward contractsimpossibility of performanceadministrative order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the frustration of forward contracts for the supply of rapeseed, following a District Magistrate's order under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, prohibiting the movement of oilseeds out of the district. The core legal question was whether the contracts were frustrated by this order and whether the validity of such an order could be challenged collaterally in a civil suit. The Supreme Court held that the District Magistrate acted within his jurisdiction, rendering the order voidable rather than void ab initio. Consequently, the order could not be challenged collaterally in a civil suit without joining the issuing authority as a party. The Court affirmed that the contracts were frustrated immediately upon the imposition of the ban, as the stipulated mode of performance—rail transport from the district—became impossible. The Court rejected the argument that the sellers were obligated to procure goods from alternative sources, as this was not contemplated by the parties. The appeal was dismissed, establishing that frustration of contract is automatic when performance becomes legally impossible.

  Questions settled

  • Can the validity of an order passed under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be challenged collaterally in a civil suit?
  • Does the frustration of a contract occur automatically upon the imposition of a legal ban rendering performance impossible?
  • Is a party to a forward contract obligated to procure goods from alternative sources when the specific mode of delivery stipulated in the contract becomes legally impossible?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs DADA ENTERPRISE vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and another1984 MLD 895 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs D A WOOD BUILDERS vs MRs, P. HAMEEDULLAH1984 MLD 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
• MESSRS COWASJEE FAMILY FUNDS vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI1984 PTD 192 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
• MESSRS CORONET PAINTS & CHEMICALS LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER1984 PTD 355 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02
  income tax referencerejection of book resultsgross profit estimationnatural justiceunverifiable salesaccounting systemSection 13 Income-tax Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This income tax reference application concerns the rejection of an assessee’s book results by the Income-tax Officer and the subsequent estimation of profits under the first proviso to Section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal question was whether the tax authorities were justified in rejecting the assessee's accounts due to unverifiable cash sales and lower gross profit margins compared to other manufacturers. The High Court held that the rejection was unjustified, ruling in favor of the assessee. The Court established that low gross profit margins or the existence of minor unverifiable transactions do not, by themselves, warrant the rejection of an assessee's entire accounting system unless the system is proven defective. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that relying on undisclosed data from other manufacturers to determine an assessee's profit rate violates principles of natural justice. The judgment clarifies that tax authorities cannot reject accounts based on mere suspicion or conjectures; they must demonstrate that the accounting system itself is fundamentally flawed or spurious.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Income-tax Officer reject an assessee's book results solely because the gross profit rate is lower than that of other manufacturers?
  • Does the rejection of book results under Section 13 of the Income-tax Act 1922 require proof that the accounting system itself is defective?
  • Is it a violation of natural justice for tax authorities to rely on data from other manufacturers without disclosing their identities to the assessee?
  • Can tax authorities reject an entire set of accounts based on the unverifiability of a small proportion of transactions?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS CONSOLIDATED SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs SIND SOCIAL SECURITY COURT, KARACHIAND OTHERS1984 PLC 1456 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
• MESSRS CONSOLIDATED EXPORTS LTD.. vs MESSRS DYER TEXTILE AND PRINTING1984 PLD Karachi 541 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-01
  winding-up proceedingsscheme of arrangementcontributoryCompanies Act 1913stay of proceedingsfully paid-up sharespublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 173 read with Section 239 of the Companies Act, 1913, filed by shareholders/contributories of a company in liquidation, seeking to stay winding-up proceedings and implement a revised scheme of arrangement. The core legal questions were whether the applicants, as shareholders, had the standing to move the court as 'contributories,' whether the application was maintainable, and whether the proposed scheme was bona fide. The Court held that the application was maintainable, affirming that the term 'contributory' under the Companies Act, 1913, encompasses holders of fully paid-up shares. Furthermore, the Court determined that staying winding-up proceedings to allow the revival of a textile mill was in the public interest, provided that the interests of creditors, including secured creditors and the Income-tax Department, were safeguarded. The Court sanctioned the scheme and stayed the winding-up proceedings for two years, subject to strict conditions regarding the payment of outstanding dues, the production of company books, and the preparation of the statement of affairs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'contributory' under the Companies Act, 1913, include holders of fully paid-up shares?
  • Can the court stay winding-up proceedings under Section 173 of the Companies Act, 1913, based on a scheme of arrangement supported by creditors?
  • Are allegations of non-compliance with statutory duties, such as failing to file a statement of affairs, sufficient to dismiss an application for staying winding-up proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs COLONY TEXTILE MILLS, Ltd. vs REH MA TULLAH1984 SCMR 1390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-09-07
  ejectmentpersonal requirementconcurrent findingslandlord and tenantspecial leave to appealbona fide need
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind upholding the concurrent orders of ejectment of the petitioner-company from the disputed premises on the ground of the respondent-landlord's personal requirement. The core legal question concerned the bona fides of the landlord's claim for personal use and whether the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts suffered from misreading of evidence regarding family size and available accommodation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the submissions raised pure questions of fact concluded by concurrent findings, and that a family of nine or twelve members cannot conveniently reside in a two-bed room house. The Court laid down that concurrent factual findings regarding personal requirement in ejectment matters, supported by evidence of family size and inadequacy of present accommodation, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement for ejectment can be interfered with under special leave to appeal?
  • Is a two-bedroom house considered sufficient for a family consisting of nine to twelve members including married couples and children?
  • Whether an ejectment application based on personal requirement is vitiated without proof of malafides or alternative accommodation?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS CHURIGAR PLASTIC INDUSTRIES LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1984 PTD 194 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs BROTHERS WEAVING FACTORY and another vs Messrs HABIB SILK1984 SCMR 1565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-11
  rent controlinterim orderfinal orderleave to appealevictionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal regarding the nature of an order passed by a Rent Controller under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether an order issued under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, constitutes a final order or an interim order. This inquiry necessitates a comparative analysis of the legislative language used in Section 16(1) of the 1979 Ordinance against the provisions of Section 13(6) and (8) of the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 1959. Recognizing that this issue involves a substantial question of law with significant implications for numerous pending cases, the Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative interpretation. The Court declined to grant interim relief against eviction, noting the petitioners' failure to comply with a previous conditional order requiring the deposit of rent. The Court further clarified that its refusal of interim relief did not preclude the High Court from exercising its discretion to grant appropriate relief in the interest of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by a Rent Controller under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, considered a final order or an interim order?
  • Does the language of Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, differ in legal effect from Section 13(6) and (8) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS BIRJIS SARFRAZ AND ANOTHERS vs MESSRS NUSRAT ARA AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2060 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-08Read full judgment →
• MESSRS BELA ENGINEERING LTD., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1984 PLC 1561 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
• MESSRS BATA SHOE Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs MESSRS HUSSAIN D'SILVA1984 CLC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs BANK OF CREDIT & COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) Ltd. vs Messrs RUDOLF DONILL Ltd. and 2 others1984 MLD 1062 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs BAMHROULI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. and another--1984 MLD 419 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• MESSRS BALUCHISTAN LAMINATES vs MUHAMMAD EHTISHAMUDDIN1984 PLC 783 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-07-24Read full judgment →
• MESSRS BAHAWALNAGAR SUGAR MILLS I TD. vs N.ASRULLAH KHAN1984 PLC 1105 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
• MESSRS BABA FARID SUGAR MILLS LTD., OKARA vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERs1984 CLC 1943 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
• MESSRS B. P. BISCUIT FACTORY vs MAKHDOOM SHAH1984 PLC 892 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-03Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ASPRO-NICHOLAS (PAK.) LTD. vs MUHAMMAD FAIZ1984 PLC 549 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ASAD BROTHERS vs IBADAT YAR KHAN1984 CLC 1990 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs ARAG INDUSTRIES Ltd. vs PAKISTAN and 3 others1984 MLD 38 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
• MESSRS AMEER BUX BADARUDDIN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI1984 PTD 347 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ALPHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2177 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MESSRS ALPHA CONTRACTING COMPANY vs MESSRS NATIONAL MOTORS LTD.1984 CLC 3458 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs ALLY BROTHERS & Co.Limited vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and others1984 SCMR 1212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-04
  ejectmentpersonal uselandlord and tenantabatement of proceedingsfinality of judgmentvesting of rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had refused to set aside an eviction order following the death of the landlord. The respondent landlord had successfully obtained an eviction order against the petitioner for personal use, which was upheld on appeal and subsequently challenged in a writ petition that was dismissed. After the landlord's death, the petitioner sought review, arguing that the personal need for the premises had extinguished with her demise. The High Court dismissed the review, holding that the eviction proceedings had concluded during the landlord's lifetime, thereby vesting the right to possession in her heirs. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, ruling that once eviction proceedings have reached a final conclusion during the lifetime of the landlord, the right to repossess the property vests in the landlord and subsequently passes to their heirs. Consequently, the petitioner's plea that the cause of action abated upon the landlord's death was rejected as the legal proceedings had already attained finality.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's right to evict a tenant for personal use abate if the landlord dies after the eviction order has attained finality?
  • Can an eviction order based on personal need be challenged on the ground of the landlord's death after the proceedings have concluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs ALLY BROTHERS & CO. vs Dr. MUHAMMAD DAOOD KHAN1984 MLD 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
• MESSRS AJAZ & COMPANY vs THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS1984 CLC 1659 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
• MESSRS AEG-TELEFUNKEN PAKISTAN LTD. vs M UHAMMAD SHARIF1984 PLC 569 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-07Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ADAM LTD. vs MESSRS GENERAL AND RUBBER TRADING COMPANY1984 CLC 794 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs ABDUL KHALIQ ICE FACTORY vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY1984 CLC 2720 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
• Messes ZAFAR SALEEM BROS. LTD., KARACHI vs Tm COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI1984 PTD 225 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22
  income taxmethod of accountingrejection of book resultsgross profit ratecotton ginning businessoil milling businessreference to high court
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court resolves three direct references filed under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 concerning assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1967-68, arising from a consolidated order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal questions involve whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in invoking the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 to reject the assessee's book results, estimate sales, apply a flat gross profit rate of 15%, and disallow certain expenses for cotton ginning and oil milling businesses. The court held that where an assessee employs a regular method of accounting, authorities cannot arbitrarily reject book results without identifying specific defects, nor apply flat rates or make additions without a rational basis and supporting material. The court answered the referred questions largely in the negative, setting aside the Tribunal's orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act could be invoked and book results rejected in cotton ginning and oil milling businesses?
  • Whether there was any material on record for the basis adopted by the Tribunal for computing the income and estimating sales?
  • Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in applying a flat gross profit rate of 15% without a rational basis?
  • Whether disallowance of railway freight and other expenses was sustainable without cogent reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Messes GANGA SARAN & SONS (PRIVATE) LTD., CALCUTTA vs INCOME-TAX1984 PTD 210 · Supreme Court of India · 1981-04-23Read full judgment →
• Messers SPINZAR SNACKS vs Mrs. ANJUM A. RAB and another1984 SCMR 1414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-15
  ejectmenttenantcompromiseundertakingleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the dismissal of a constitutional petition that had upheld an order of ejectment passed by the District Judge, Karachi. The core legal question concerned the tenant's continued occupation and eviction from the disputed premises. During the hearing, the parties reached an amicable settlement. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition as not pressed in terms of the compromise, allowing the tenant to retain possession for a specified period until September 16, 1984, subject to the condition that the tenant pays the agreed rent in a lump sum by February 1, 1984, and furnishes an undertaking to voluntarily and peacefully hand over vacant possession to the landlord upon the expiry of the stipulated period. The key principle laid down is that the court may dispose of ejectment matters on the basis of a lawful compromise and undertakings given by the parties regarding peaceful surrender of possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal in an ejectment matter be disposed of on the basis of a compromise between the landlord and tenant?
  • What is the effect of an undertaking given by a tenant to voluntarily vacate premises within a stipulated period?
  Read full judgment →
• MESRS GABOL & BROS. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, ISLAMABAD1984 CLC 2112 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
• MES'RS PAKISTAN FISHERIES LTD. vs M. SALEEM AND 63 OTHERS1984 PLC 553 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• Member. Raja SAID MUHAMMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LEIAH AND 31984 PLC (C. S.) 628 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-16Read full judgment →
• MEHRBAN KHAN vs Mst. FAYYAZ BEGUM AND OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 202 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-03
  ex parte decreelimitationultra viressubordinate legislationfamily suitmaintenancereasonable time
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a suit for maintenance where an ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner, who was residing abroad. The petitioner's subsequent application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the Family Court as time-barred under Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965, which prescribes a 30-day limitation period. This dismissal was upheld in revision. The core legal question before the High Court was whether Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965, which restricts the limitation period to 30 days, is ultra vires of Section 9(6) of the parent Act, the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, which allows such applications to be filed within a 'reasonable time'. The High Court held that in case of conflict between principal and subordinate legislation, the principal legislation prevails. Consequently, Rule 13 is ultra vires of Section 9(6) of the Act. The Court accepted the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the matter to the Family Court to determine whether the application was filed within a reasonable time under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965 is ultra vires of Section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Which provision prevails in the event of a conflict between principal legislation and subordinate rules regarding the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree?
  • How should a Family Court determine the limitation period for an application to set aside an ex parte decree under Section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• MEHRBAN HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORY AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 603 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
• MEHRAJ BEGUM AND OTHERS vs Mst. NUZHAT MAJEED1984 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-24
  leave to appeallandlord and tenantevictionrelationship of landlord and tenantappreciation of evidencejudgment of variance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the appellate court's judgment and restored the Rent Controller's eviction order. The core legal question concerned the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the tenancy vested in an individual partner or a firm. The Supreme Court held that the arguments raised by the petitioners related purely to the appreciation of evidence and that the High Court's judgment did not violate established principles regarding interference with a judgment of variance in second appeal. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with a two-month extension granted for voluntary surrender of possession upon an undertaking to pay due rent. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent factual findings regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant unless the lower court's appreciation of evidence suffers from a legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Does a denial of tenancy by the tenant result in forfeiture of the tenancy?
  • Can a tenancy be created through oral agreement or the conduct of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• MEHRAB AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 277 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-17Read full judgment →
• Mehr REHAN KHAN AND ANOTHERS vs TEHSILDAR, SHORKOT AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 2946 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
• MEHR MUHAMMAD, S.I., S.H.O., P.S. MIANI, DISTRICT SARGODHA and 5 others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mehr LAL KABIR vs TEHSILDAR, SHORKOT AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 2978 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
• MEHR KHAN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1103 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
• Mehr GHULAM RASOOL vs FALAK. SHER AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 431 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-29Read full judgment →
• MEHMOOD BASHIR vs Mst.MOBINA BEGUM1984 CLC 2620 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
• MEHFOOZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3004 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• MEHDI KHAN vs ZULFIQAR AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1666 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
• MEHDI KHAN and others vs THE ST ATE1984 MLD 1535 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-25Read full judgment →
• MEHDI HASSAN vs ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN1984 CLC 2076 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
• MEHBOOB JEWELLERS AND 3 others vs NOOR AHMAD1984 CLC 1097 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• MEHAR HUSSAIN vs ALLAH WASAYA and others1984 SCMR 1386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-11
  murderacquittalleave to appealocular testimonymedical evidencegunshot injuryrecurrent appreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting three respondents who were initially tried and convicted by the trial court for the murder of Abdur Rahman under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case was based on ocular testimony, medical evidence, recoveries, and a previous motive relating to a prior murder. The High Court acquitted the respondents, leading to the current petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in disbelieving natural eye-witnesses, ignoring certain witness testimonies entirely, and misinterpreting medical evidence regarding injuries sustained by an injured witness as self-suffered. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner required detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against the acquittal and ordered non-bailable warrants to issue against the respondents. The key principle laid down is that where a High Court fails to consider material witness testimonies and draws unsound conclusions regarding medical and ocular evidence in an acquittal appeal, the Supreme Court may grant leave to examine the correctness of the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can disbelieve natural witnesses without properly discussing their testimony?
  • Can an appellate court classify an injury as self-suffered against the unequivocal opinion of the medical officer?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment rendered by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MEHAR HUSSAIN vs ALLAH WASAYA AND 2 OTHERS1984 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-29
  bail pending appealacquittal appealsuspension of sentencemedical grounds for bailcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed by three respondents who were initially convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, subsequently acquitted by the High Court, and then arrested following the Supreme Court's grant of leave to appeal against their acquittal. The core legal question was whether the respondents were entitled to bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal against their acquittal. The Supreme Court held that no case for bail was established for two of the respondents, Allah Wasaya and Khadim Hussain, and consequently rejected their applications. However, regarding the third respondent, Ghulam Muhammad, the Court granted bail based on medical grounds, specifically a fractured leg that remained untreated despite efforts within the jail, a fact which the complainant's counsel did not refute. The key principle laid down is that while bail pending appeal against acquittal is not automatic, the court may exercise its discretion to grant bail where specific, substantiated medical exigencies exist that cannot be addressed within the prison system.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be granted to an accused pending an appeal against their acquittal?
  • Does a substantiated, untreated medical condition constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail to a respondent in an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• MEENHON AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3178 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
• MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs Khawaja MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 619 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN CENTRAL EMPLOYEES FEDERATION, FAISALABAD vs MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1579 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-07-22Read full judgment →
• MECHANICAL MOVERS INC. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, `B' RANGE, KARACHI1984 PTD 101 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
• Me.ssrs EASTERN GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd. vs Mst. KHATIJA BEGUM1984 CLC 2927 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
• MAZHAR ALI and another--Applicants vs GHULAM MUliAMMAD KHAN and 81984 MLD 908 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
• MAZH AR and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2666 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
• MAZDOOR UNION vs LAWRENCEPUR WOOLLEN AND TEXTILE MILLS LT131984 PLC 1237 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
• MAZDOOR UNION AFSAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE1984 PLC 1233 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Maulvi MUHAMMAD JAN vs THE STATE1984 PLD Peshawar 207 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• Maulvi MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-21
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valueseverance of landdamagescivil court reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, wherein the petitioners' land measuring 41 kanals and 19 marlas was acquired. Dissatisfied with the Collector's compensation award, the petitioners sought a reference to the civil court. The Additional District Judge enhanced the market value, which was further challenged through an appeal and cross-objections before the Peshawar High Court. The High Court maintained the compensation rates and dismissed the cross-objections. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the provisions of section 23(1) thirdly and section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were overlooked, specifically regarding severance and the acquisition of the remaining block of land. The Supreme Court examined the record and held that the lower courts had properly evaluated the evidence on issues of severance and damages, noting the lack of evidence quantifying the actual loss sustained. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums.

  Questions settled

  • Whether compensation for severance of land under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 requires specific evidence showing the quantum of damages suffered?
  • Whether the High Court's determination of market value for acquired land warrants interference when based on proper appraisal of evidence?
  • Whether a landowner can compel the acquisition of an entire block of land under section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 without proving adverse effects in terms of money?
  Read full judgment →
• Maulana SHAH AHMAD NOORANI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1984 PLD Lahore 222 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-16
  externment orderdetention orderpublic ordervagueness of groundsstatutory representationconstitutional jurisdictionvoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three writ petitions challenging separate externment and detention orders passed against the petitioners under Section 5(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960. The impugned orders directed one petitioner to remove himself from the Province of the Punjab and restricted the movements of the other two within the Lahore Municipal Corporation limits for three months. The petitioners contended that they only addressed religious conferences and challenged the orders primarily on the ground of vagueness. The High Court held that under Section 5 of the Ordinance, the grounds for such restrictive orders must be adequately particularized to enable the restrictee to make an effective statutory representation. In the absence of specific details regarding the speeches, their substance, or the exact language used, the grounds were held to be vague. The Court further ruled that subsequent clarifications in the Government's reply or press reports cannot cure this initial vagueness, and a departure from the mandatory provisions of Section 5 renders the orders void ab initio, allowing direct recourse to constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal test to determine whether the grounds of an externment or restriction order under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 are vague?
  • Can the vagueness of grounds in a preventive restriction order be cured subsequently by details provided in the Government's reply or comments during court proceedings?
  • Does the failure of a petitioner to file a statutory representation before the Government bar them from invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court if the impugned order is void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• MATIN & Co. vs The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and 3 others1984 MLD 1185 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
• MATARO vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1724 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
• Mat. SHERBANOO vs SADRUDDIN and another through her Legal1984 MLD 803 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mat. JANNA T vs RASOOL BUX1984 MLD 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
• MAT I URREHM A N vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2959 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-14Read full judgment →
• Master YUSUF MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2230 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
• Master MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Mst. AMINA BIB AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-07
  constitutional jurisdictiondisputed questions of factpublic auctionSettlement DepartmentPermanent Transfer Deedproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a house property in Lahore claimed by both the petitioner, who allegedly purchased it in an unrestricted public auction held by the Settlement Department, and the first respondent, who claimed ownership based on an agreement of association and a Permanent Transfer Deed. The core legal question involved the genuineness of the competing transfer documents and whether disputed questions of fact could be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to resolve disputed questions of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction and correctly remanded the matter to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for a proper enquiry in the presence of the parties. The key principle laid down is that disputed questions of fact regarding transfer documents in settlement matters ought to be resolved through factual inquiry by the competent administrative authority rather than through constitutional petitions in the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding property transfer documents be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a matter involving disputed settlement documents to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for enquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• MASSAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2324 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-28Read full judgment →
• MASSA N vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2324 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-28Read full judgment →
• MASROOR ISLAM USMANI vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and 4 others1984 CLC 2696 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
• MASROOR HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI vs Mst.QUDSIE BEGUM1984 MLD 308 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
• MASOOD JAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAHBAN1984 PLD Karachi 139 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
• MASOOD HUSSAIN ZAHIDI vs AZIZ AHMAD KHAN1984 CLC 941 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
• MASOOD AKHTAR vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI1984 PLC 1179 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
• MASOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-29
  post-conviction bailcriminal appealsentence of whippingrigorous imprisonmentbail pending appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail pending the final decision of a criminal appeal (Crl.A.6(S)/82). The convict-appellant, having already served nine months of rigorous imprisonment in addition to the one-year sentence awarded in appeal, sought bail primarily on the basis that the remaining sentence of whipping should be set aside due to the duration of imprisonment already undergone. The Supreme Court, noting that the question regarding the potential setting aside of the whipping sentence required further determination, granted the bail application. The Court held that the applicant is entitled to release pending the final adjudication of the appeal, subject to the provision of bail and surety bonds. The key principle established is that where a convict has served a substantial portion of their sentence and raises a valid legal question regarding the appropriateness of the remaining sentence (such as whipping), the court may exercise its discretion to grant bail pending the final disposal of the appeal, provided the applicant remains available to receive any sentence upheld or modified by the final judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a convict-appellant be granted bail pending the final decision of an appeal if they have already served a significant portion of their sentence?
  • Is a sentence of whipping subject to judicial review or potential setting aside when a convict has served additional imprisonment beyond the awarded term?
  Read full judgment →