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.
- Khawaja ZIAUDDIN vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF1984 PLC (C. S.) 646 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
- Khawaja SAIDUR RAHMAN AND ANOTHERS vs WAJIHUDDIN H. MEMON AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2324 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-05Read full judgment →
- Khawaja QASIMUDDIN vs IFTIKHAR BANO1984 MLD 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
- Khawaja MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION1984 MLD 761 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
- Khawaja IQBAL AHMAD vs SARDAR AHMAD QURESHI1984 MLD 104 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- Khawaja GUL MUHAMMAD vs LAL HUSSAIN and others1984 SCMR 1409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed the cancellation of land allotments. The core legal question was whether the summary cancellation of land allotments, based on findings of forgery in the original claimant’s verified units, was valid when executed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the subsequent transferees. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation of allotments without notice or hearing to the affected parties—the original claimant and the subsequent purchasers—was without jurisdiction and void. The Court determined that the proceedings initiated by the delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner were incomplete, as the necessary inquiry into the validity of the transferred units in the Rawalpindi District had not been concluded. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the proceedings to the notified officer under the relevant statute to conduct a proper inquiry, ensuring all concerned parties, including the respondents, are heard before a final determination is made regarding the legitimacy of the allotments.
Questions settled- Can land allotments be cancelled by settlement authorities without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected transferees?
- Does a finding of forgery in a claimant's verified units in one district necessitate a formal inquiry in another district before allotments can be cancelled?
- Is a summary cancellation of property rights without notice considered to be without jurisdiction?
- Khawaja ABDUL QADIR vs ABDUL MAJID1984 PLD C S (A J & K) 166 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-07-21Read full judgment →
- Khawaja ABDUL KHALIQ, vs AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
- KHATUMAL AND 3 OTHERS vs SITALDAS AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 3244 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
- KHATIJA KHATOON vs DR. BEGUM RAZIA KHALYLI1984 CLC 161 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
- KHARA vs ABDUL KARIM and 2 others1984 MLD 195 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-13Read full judgment →
- KHAQAN AHMAD vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 477 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- KHAN ZAMAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 28 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1278 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs THE CHIEF CORPORATION OFFICER, MUNICIPAL1984 PLC 1520 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND 4 OTHBRS1984 CLC 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs Collector Of Customs, Peshawar And OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 318 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
- Khan MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1984 CLC 1799 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs COMMITTEE FOR FORMULATION OF SCHEME OF ABANDONED CANAL FOR FISH CULTUREAND OTHERS1984 CLC 1634 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-11Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD alias MUHAMMAD KHAN alias KALU vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a jail appeal filed by Khan Muhammad against the judgment of the High Court upholding his conviction and sentence for murder. The appellant was originally tried along with others by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, and convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentenced to imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court acquitted one co-accused but maintained the conviction of the appellant, leading to the present appeal by leave of the Supreme Court for reappraisal of evidence. The core legal question involved the reliability of ocular and circumstantial evidence and whether reappraisal warranted interference with concurrent findings. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties and reappraising the evidence on record, held that the High Court was fully justified in maintaining the conviction and upholding the sentence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on properly appraised evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding a criminal conviction?
- Does the reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court justify setting aside a High Court judgment maintaining a murder conviction?
- Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code is sustainable when the evidence is duly reappraised?
- KHAN MUHAMMAD alias MHUAM MAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
- Khan MASOOD AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 CLC 1179 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-31Read full judgment →
- KHAN M UHAM MAD vs BARKAT ALI AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 582 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- KHAN BEG vs SAJAWAL AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition filed by the complainant challenging an order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 15-2-1984, which granted bail to respondents 1 to 7 in a murder case registered under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The respondents had earlier withdrawn their initial bail petition before one Judge on 4-2-1984, reserving the right to file a fresh petition if the trial was delayed, but subsequently filed a second petition ten days later before a different Judge, who entertained it and granted bail on the ground that the challan had not directly reached the trial Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the non-transmission of the challan from the Magistrate to the Court of Session constituted a fresh ground and whether a successive bail petition could be entertained by another Judge after such a brief interval. The Supreme Court held that police submit challans in Sessions-triable cases to the Magistrate under section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to be sent to the Court of Session, and that an interval of ten days did not constitute delay. The Court disapproved the practice of forum shopping, converted the petition into an appeal, and set aside the High Court's bail order.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a challan before a Magistrate under Section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a fresh ground to entertain a successive bail petition?
- Can a successive bail petition be entertained on the ground of trial delay within ten days of withdrawing a previous petition?
- Should a subsequent bail petition normally be placed before the same Judge who dealt with the earlier petition even if that Judge has moved to another bench?
- KHAN BAIG vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302 and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial where he pleaded guilty without oral evidence being recorded. The core legal questions involved the legality of the trial proceedings, particularly the failure to properly conclude an inquiry into the appellant's unsoundness of mind under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the absence of legal representation during crucial early stages, and the propriety of convicting on a plea of guilt without recording prosecution evidence in a capital case. The Lahore High Court held that the trial was conducted in a perfunctory and illegal manner, vitiating the proceedings due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding mental incapacity and trial procedure. The Court laid down that when an accused appears to be of unsound mind, holding and properly concluding an inquiry under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory, and failure to do so renders subsequent proceedings illegal and void. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the case remanded for a fresh trial.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of a trial court failing to conclude an inquiry into the unsoundness of mind of an accused under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether a conviction based solely on a plea of guilt in a capital case without recording prosecution evidence is sustainable in law?
- Is it mandatory to provide legal representation at State expense to an unrepresented accused facing a charge punishable with death?
- KHAN BAHADAR vs BARKAT AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 58(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court dated 10-2-1981, which had dismissed his writ petition challenging a Superdari order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge in a pending criminal matter. The Supreme Court reviewed the impugned judgment and heard the petitioner's Advocate-on-Record. Upon examination, the Court found the petition to be entirely frivolous and lacking in merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to uphold the Superdari order. The judgment underscores the principle that petitions lacking substantive legal grounds or merit are subject to summary dismissal by the Court.
Questions settled- Is a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition maintainable when the underlying petition is found to be frivolous?
- Can the Supreme Court dismiss a petition for leave to appeal after reviewing the impugned judgment and hearing the petitioner's counsel?
- Khan AMAN KHAN vs SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.W. F. P., PESHAWAR AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 169 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
- Khan AHMAD YAR KHAN vs GHULAM MURTAZA SHAH and 3 others1984 MLD 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
- KHAN AFSAR vs THE STATE1984 PLD Karachi 84 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
- KHAMISO AND ANOTHERS vs THE BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 3087 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-23Read full judgment →
- KHALIQURREHMAN vs KHILAFAT HUSSAIN1984 CLC 1339 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
- KHALIQUR RAHMAN vs AMMERUDDIN and another1984 MLD 664 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- KHALIQ DAD AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1312 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- KHALIQ DAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1401 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- KHALIQ DAD and 5 others vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the petitioners' convictions from Section 307/149 to Section 324/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reduced their sentences to the period already undergone. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, arguing that the appraisal of evidence was flawed, the provisions of Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were inapplicable, and that a sixteen-hour delay in lodging the First Information Report cast doubt on the prosecution's case, which they alleged was fabricated due to a long-standing feud. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the complainant and independent witnesses, and medical reports confirming injuries sustained by the victims. The Court held that the medical evidence refuted claims of self-inflicted injuries and that the delay in reporting was satisfactorily explained by the complainant's fear of the assailants. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Does a delay in lodging an FIR necessarily cast doubt on the prosecution's case when a reasonable explanation for the delay is provided?
- Can medical evidence of injuries sustained by victims be used to refute allegations that the injuries were self-inflicted?
- Is the appraisal of evidence by lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court when findings are supported by consistent testimony and medical reports?
- KHALIQ DAD . Pir ABDUL RAZZAQ vs KHALIQ DAD AND OTHERS THE S FATE1984 SCMR 991 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-petitions arising from a murder conviction. The trial court convicted two individuals, Khaliq Dad and Zubair Farooq, for murder, sentencing the former to death and the latter to life imprisonment. The High Court subsequently acquitted Zubair Farooq, citing a lack of evidence regarding common intention, and reduced Khaliq Dad’s sentence to life imprisonment, noting the existence of a prior grievance. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s appraisal of evidence and sentencing discretion were legally sound. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions. It held that while enmity between parties requires careful scrutiny of ocular testimony, such evidence remains credible if the witnesses are natural and disinterested. The Court affirmed that the acquittal of a co-accused does not invalidate the conviction of the principal offender when the evidence against the latter is consistent and reliable. Furthermore, the Court upheld the High Court’s discretion to consider the motive—a prior incident—as a mitigating factor in sentencing, finding no grounds to interfere with the reduced sentence or the acquittal.
Questions settled- Can ocular testimony be accepted in cases of enmity without independent corroboration?
- Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically invalidate the conviction of the principal offender?
- Is the existence of a prior grievance a valid factor for the High Court to consider when reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- KHALILUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered his conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence of rigorous imprisonment to five years along with a fine. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence, including medical evidence regarding blackening, delay in the First Information Report, and the reliability of eye-witness testimony in the absence of corroborative recovery evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had examined the case thoroughly and that the contentions raised pertained strictly to the appreciation of evidence, warranting no interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and reduced sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent factual findings and appreciation of evidence by the High Court?
- Does the presence of blackening at the injury site invalidate eye-witness testimony regarding firing distance?
- Whether discarding of recovery evidence necessitates the acquittal of the accused when eye-witnesses are available?
- KHALILUR REHMAN BHUTTA vs RAZIA NAZ AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 890 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged a Family Court decree in a suit for dissolution of marriage, where the petitioner's defense was struck off for failure to file a written statement. The core legal questions were whether a Family Court has the authority to strike off a defense for non-filing of a written statement and whether an ex parte decree precludes the defendant from cross-examining the plaintiff's witnesses. The Court held that while the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply in its entirety to Family Courts, the court possesses inherent authority to regulate its proceedings and may strike off a defense for contumacious default in filing a written statement. However, the Court further held that an ex parte order does not deprive a defendant of the right to participate in proceedings at any stage, specifically the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses. Consequently, the decree was set aside to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses, establishing that the right to cross-examination remains intact even during ex parte proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a Family Court strike off a defendant's right to file a written statement for persistent failure to do so?
- Does the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply in its entirety to proceedings before a Family Court?
- Does an ex parte order in a family suit deprive the defendant of the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses?
- KHALILUR REHM AN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-03Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AHMAD and others vs HAKIM ALI and others1984 MLD 479 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
- KHALID vs Mst. Hajiani WALLAYAT1984 CLC 2580 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
- KHALID SULTAN vs Mst. RABIA BIBI1984 CLC 2573 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- KHALID SAIGAL vs NATIONAL INVESTMENT TRUST LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 182 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-15Read full judgment →
- KHALID SAEED vs DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI and another1984 CLC 2903 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- KHALID NAWAZ KHAN vs MESSRS HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD.1984 PLC 694 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- KHALID MASOOD, SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, WAPDA vs THE ASSISTANT1984 P Cr. L J 1612 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs AUDITOR-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C.S.) 619 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN1984 PLC 830 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
- KHALID JAVED vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Khalid Javed against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Tanveer Ahmad, while reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life due to his young age and lack of premeditation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eye-witnesses with pending criminal allegations, the standard of evidence appraisal by the High Court, and whether the offense fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the mere pendency of unrelated criminal cases against witnesses does not require corroboration, that the High Court sufficiently applied its mind, and that Exception 4 was inapplicable as the petitioner took undue advantage of an unarmed deceased. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of unrelated criminal cases against an eye-witness necessitate corroboration of their testimony?
- Whether the High Court fails to apply its independent mind merely by agreeing with and referencing paragraphs of the trial court judgment?
- Does a sudden grappling between the deceased and the accused's brother attract Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code when the accused inflicts fatal blows on an unarmed person?
- KHALID JAVED GILLAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 100 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
- KHALID JAVED BUTT vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1200 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSHComplainant vs AFTAB HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 724 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
- KHALID JAVED ABBASI vs SHARAFAT ALI ABBASI AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 1803 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
- KHALID HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD.1984 PLC 987 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
- KHALID alias KHALIDI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2452 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- KHALID AHMAD SAEED vs MEMBER (WATER), WAPDA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 380 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-16Read full judgment →
- KHAIRA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2558 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and death sentence handed down by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz and the attempted murder of Nazar Ahmad. The core legal question is whether the lower courts erred in relying solely on the ocular testimony of interested witnesses—who were closely related to the accused and maintained a hostile relationship—without requiring independent corroboration. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the lower courts failed to properly apply established principles regarding the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. The Court observed that given the existing hostility between the parties, the possibility that innocent individuals were implicated could not be ruled out, and the identity of the perpetrators could not be determined with certainty in the absence of corroboratory evidence. The principle laid down is that where there is deep-seated enmity between parties, the testimony of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration to safely sustain a conviction, and courts must exercise extreme caution in relying on such evidence alone.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of interested witnesses in the presence of deep-seated enmity?
- Is independent corroboration required when the prosecution witnesses are closely related to the accused and hostile?
- Does the failure to seek corroboration in a criminal case involving hostile parties constitute an error in the appreciation of evidence?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH DISTRICT1984 PLC 1496 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2205 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-04Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs GHULAM RABBANI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1137 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs CLIMAX ENGINEERING COMPANY Ltd.1984 MLD 928 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN MALIK vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 71984 PLC (C. S.) 426 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
- KHA LID vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3060 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-31Read full judgment →
- KHA DIM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 781 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
- Kh. ZAHEER AHMAD vs DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, RAWALPINDI AND 31984 PLC (C. S.) 386 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
- Kh. MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1984 CLC 186 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
- Kh. MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 10 others1984 MLD 261 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
- Kh. MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.W. F. P., PESHAWAR1984 PLD Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
- KH A LIQURREHMAN vs KHILAFAT HUSSAIN1984 CLC 3486 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
- Kazi MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs KHAMISO1984 CLC 636 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- KAUSAR PERVAIZ BHATTI vs THE DIRECTOR' REGAL CERAMICS LTD.. LAHORE1984 PLC 1079 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- KAUSAR BIBI vs Sh. ABDUR RASHID1984 CLC 1144 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- KASSAM ALI vs NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES, KARACHI1984 CLC 1364 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- KASHMIR ENTERPRISES SILK FACTORY vs MUHAMMAD YOUNIS1984 PLC 795 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
- KARMAN MASIH vs MAYOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD1984 PLC 529 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
- KARIM DAD vs SARFRAZ KHAN1984SCMR 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of the petitioner's second appeal by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The core legal question concerns whether a party can challenge the correctness of a deliberate concession or admission made by their counsel during the hearing before the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a deliberate admission made by counsel after addressing arguments cannot be subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that admissions made by counsel during judicial proceedings are binding on the client and cannot be reopened or contested in appellate review before the apex court.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the correctness of a deliberate admission made by their counsel in the High Court?
- Whether a second appeal can be dismissed in limine when no question of pre-emption arises due to an assignment of occupancy rights rather than a sale of ownership?
- Is an admission made by counsel after addressing arguments binding on the petitioner in appellate proceedings?
- KARIM BAKHSH AND ANOTHERS vs HUSSAIN1984 CLC 2154 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-24Read full judgment →
- KARAMAT HUSSAIN vs WAPDA through its Chairman1984 SCMR 1282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a WAPDA employee, was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, by receiving 30 days' pay in lieu of notice without being provided reasons for his termination. While the petitioner was implicated in irregularities regarding tender processing, the Authority opted to invoke Section 17(1-A) rather than initiating proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, which would have afforded the petitioner an opportunity to clarify his position before an Inquiry Officer. The Service Tribunal upheld the removal, ruling that the Authority possesses absolute power under Section 17(1-A) to remove employees without assigning reasons. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that Section 17(1-A) cannot be utilized to circumvent the procedural safeguards mandated by the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, particularly noting that another implicated employee had been reinstated. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively interpret the scope and import of Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, specifically regarding whether it can be used to bypass established disciplinary procedures.
Questions settled- Does Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 grant the Authority absolute power to remove an employee without assigning reasons?
- Can the provisions of Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 be used to circumvent the procedure prescribed under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
- KARAMAT AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1330 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
- KARAMAT ALI CHAUDHRY AND 4 OTHERS vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1984 SCMR 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, appointed as Assistant Security Officers Grade 16 following an advertisement by the Federal Public Service Commission in 1976, claimed the benefit of a published Note in the relevant rules which provided for promotion to Grade 17 based on training and a test. Although the Establishment Division had not agreed to the Note, it was inadvertently published in the Gazette in January 1976 and later deleted by a corrigendum in January 1981 on the ground that it lacked the approval of the competent authority. The Federal Service Tribunal rejected the petitioners' appeal, holding that the Note never legally formed part of the rules and that the principle of locus poenitentiae was inapplicable as no decisive step had been taken under the unacted-upon clause. Upon petitions for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the petitioners, who had applied and been appointed on the faith of the published Note, should be denied its benefit following its subsequent deletion, and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a published rule in the official Gazette lacking the concurrence of the Establishment Division can be corrected by a subsequent corrigendum?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply when a rule conferring a benefit was never acted upon?
- What is the effect of non-compliance with the consultation requirements under the Rules of Business in the framing of statutory rules?
- KARAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 427 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-01Read full judgment →
- KARAM HUSSAIN vs MALIK MUHAMMAD ZARAIT AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 3222 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
- KARAM DIN vs ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2981 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- KARAM CHAND LEAL AND ANOTHERS Decree holders vs MEHDI1984 CLC 1941 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an execution application filed to enforce a foreign decree passed by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, England, against the defendant. The core legal question was whether a foreign judgment is executable in Pakistan when the defendant was neither a resident of the foreign jurisdiction at the time the action was initiated nor had submitted to the jurisdiction of that foreign court. The Court, relying on established precedents, held that such a foreign decree cannot be executed in Pakistan under these circumstances. The principle laid down is that the enforceability of a foreign judgment in Pakistan is contingent upon the defendant's residence in the foreign jurisdiction at the time of the action or the defendant's voluntary submission to that court's jurisdiction. As the defendant in the present case had neither resided in England nor submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court, the application for execution was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a foreign decree be executed in Pakistan if the defendant was not a resident of the foreign country at the time the action was brought?
- Is a foreign judgment enforceable in Pakistan if the defendant did not submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court?
- KARAM BAKHSH alias KAMA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1858 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
- KARAM ALI and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2523 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-29Read full judgment →
- Karachi] GEFULAM MUSTAFA vs MEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING &1984 MLD 654 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-29Read full judgment →
- KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. vs WORKMEN UNION AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2382 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
- KARACHI PORT TRUST AND ANOTHER vs SIBGHATULLA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1476 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- KARACHI PIPE MILLS vs GHULAM AKBAR AND OTHERS1984 PLC 1672 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-12-30Read full judgment →
- KARACHI PIPE MILLS LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1359 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the orders passed by the Sind Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had directed the petitioner to pay overtime wages to its workers based on various allowances. The core legal question was whether a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) is competent to file an application under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to enforce rights guaranteed or secured to individual workmen under other laws, such as the Factories Act, 1934. The Full Bench held that the application filed by the CBA under Section 34 was incompetent and not maintainable. The court reasoned that Section 34 allows a CBA to enforce only those rights guaranteed or secured to the CBA itself, not to individual workmen. The court clarified that rights guaranteed to individual workmen must be enforced through the specific mechanism provided in Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared to be without jurisdiction and lawful authority, establishing that a CBA cannot bypass the statutory grievance procedures of Section 25-A by invoking Section 34 for individual worker claims.
Questions settled- Can a Collective Bargaining Agent file an application under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to enforce rights guaranteed to individual workmen?
- Does the term 'it' in Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, refer to the Collective Bargaining Agent or to individual workmen?
- Is the procedure for enforcing rights guaranteed to individual workmen under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, distinct from the procedure for enforcing rights of a Collective Bargaining Agent?
- KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs ASHIQ ALI SULEMAN LALAN1984 MLD 1132 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
- KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION vs ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTORS LTD.1984 CLC 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal arises from a common judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing objections to two non-speaking arbitration awards and making them rules of the court. The appellant, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, contended that the awards lacked detailed reasons and sought their remand under section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940, introduced via Ordinance XV of 1981. The respondent argued that section 26-A applied only to pending suits and not appeals, and that the court held discretion regarding remittal. The Sindh High Court held that an appeal is a continuation of a suit and forms part of the same proceedings, making section 26-A applicable at the appellate stage. The court further held that the statutory requirement for the arbitrator to state reasons in sufficient detail is mandatory, and remitted the awards back to the sole arbitrator for reasoned decisions within a specified timeframe.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940 apply to appellate proceedings pending at the time of its enactment?
- Does the word 'shall' in section 26-A(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 impose a mandatory duty on the court to remit an unreasoned award?
- Can a non-speaking arbitration award be set aside or reviewed for insufficiency of evidence without a patent error of law on its face?
- Whether an appeal is a continuation of the original suit and constitutes a step in the same judicial proceedings?
- KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL1984 PLC 408 · National Industrial Relations CommissionRead full judgment →
- KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD AND ANOTHER vs KHAN MADIN AFRADI AND 31984 PLC 1570 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs DAWOOD1984 CLC 2080 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application arose from a dispute between the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) and an allottee regarding the cancellation of a plot allotment. The KDA cancelled the allotment, citing the allottee's failure to commence construction within the stipulated timeframe. The core legal questions were whether the KDA could penalize an allottee for delays caused by the KDA’s own administrative failures—specifically in delivering possession and approving building plans—and whether the cancellation, executed without a hearing after the allottee submitted a show-cause explanation, violated natural justice. The Court held that the KDA could not justify the cancellation when it was responsible for the delays that prevented the allottee from commencing construction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the KDA’s unilateral cancellation without affording the allottee a fair opportunity to be heard was arbitrary and violated fundamental principles of natural justice. The Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the appellate court's decree in favor of the allottee, establishing that administrative bodies must act fairly and cannot penalize parties for delays attributable to the authority's own conduct.
Questions settled- Can an authority cancel an allotment for failure to construct when the delay was caused by the authority's own administrative inaction?
- Does the cancellation of an allotment without providing the allottee an opportunity to be heard violate the principles of natural justice?
- Is a statutory body entitled to penalize an allottee for a breach of contract that resulted from the body's own failure to deliver possession or approve plans in a timely manner?
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY vs EVACUEE1984 PLD Karachi 34 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges an appellate court order that set aside the trial court's rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondents filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the Karachi Development Authority (KDA), claiming possession of land and challenging the KDA's acquisition. The KDA argued the suit was incompetent due to the absence of a mandatory notice under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order and barred by the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 1975. The High Court held that for the purpose of rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, the court must exclusively consider the averments made in the plaint, not the contentions or documents presented in the written statement. Because the plaintiffs disputed the KDA's title and the status of the land, the statutory bars could not be determined at the threshold. Consequently, the court affirmed the appellate order, directing the trial court to proceed with evidence to resolve the disputed title and maintain the status quo to prevent irreparable injury.
Questions settled- Can a court consider the contents of a written statement when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a mandatory notice under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order required when the plaintiff challenges the very authority and title of the KDA?
- Does the bar on civil court jurisdiction under the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 1975 apply before the status of the property as public property is established?
- KANSHI RAM WADHWA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1984 PTD 108 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
- KANIZ FATIMA vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZISH AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →