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.

• HABIBULLAH vs MAHMOOD1984 CLC 309 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Director Headquarters, Excise And Taxations Punjab And OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01
  property taxevacuee propertyprovisional transfereeannual valueurban immovable property taxtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether a provisional transferee of evacuee property by the Settlement Department is liable to pay property tax under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, and whether such tax can be levied repeatedly on an annual or half-yearly basis or only once. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of the definition of 'owner' under the amended West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act in relation to properties vested in the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the frequency of tax levy under section 3 read with section 12 of the Property Tax Act. The Court held that a provisional transferee is legally liable to pay property tax as an owner under the provincial law, and that the tax is payable yearly or half-yearly as prescribed by the statute, rather than only once. The key principle laid down is that provincial tax legislation may validly designate provisional transferees of evacuee property as owners for tax liability, and property tax under the Act is a recurring annual or half-yearly levy based on annual value.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a provisional transferee of an evacuee property by the Settlement Department is liable to pay property tax under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act?
  • Can property tax under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act be levied repeatedly on an annual or half-yearly basis or only once?
  • Does the inclusion of provisional transferees in the definition of owner under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act contravene superior law regarding properties vested in the Central Government?
  Read full judgment →
• HABIBULLAH KHAN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL (LOCAL COUNCIL), D. I. KHAN AND 21984 PLD Peshawar 173 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
• HABIBULLAH KHAN AND 4 OTHERS vs COLLECTOR, QUETTA1984 PLD Quetta 11 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-10-30
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuereference under Section 18administrative inquiryburden of proofpotential value
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenged a District Judge's decision regarding compensation for land acquired by the Provincial Government of Baluchistan. The appellants contested the acquisition's validity and the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Collector. The core legal questions concerned the scope of the Court's jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the Collector’s inquiry constitutes a judicial proceeding. The Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 18 is strictly limited to the specific objections regarding compensation or apportionment raised by the interested parties; it does not extend to challenging the legality or validity of the acquisition proceedings themselves. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Collector acts as an administrative agent of the government, not a judicial officer, and is entitled to use external information in determining compensation. The key principles laid down are that claimants in a reference are in the position of plaintiffs and bear the burden of proving the inadequacy of the Collector's award through legal evidence, and that potential land value must be based on concrete evidence rather than speculation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the validity of acquisition proceedings be challenged in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Is the inquiry conducted by a Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a judicial proceeding?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the claimant to demonstrate that the Collector's award of compensation is inadequate?
  • Is the Collector entitled to use information obtained outside the formal inquiry to determine the market value of acquired land?
  Read full judgment →
• HABIBULLAH AKHTAR and another vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1984 MLD 678 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-08Read full judgment →
• HABIB vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2474 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-08Read full judgment →
• HABIB HASAN QADRI AND OTHERS vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 438 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK WORKERS' UNION vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1984 PLC 1667 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK STAFF UNION vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1984 PLC 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK STAFF UNION (C.B.A.), LAHORE ZONE vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE1984 PLC 418 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-22Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD., SHEIKHUPURA vs Malik NASRULLAH NASIR1984 PLC 1300 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD HADEES1984 PLC 1042 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. vs KAMAL AHMAD SIDDIQUI AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1871 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. vs IQBAL MUJEEB AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 151 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. vs IJAZ AHMAD BUTT AND OTHERS1984 PLC 253 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. BAHAWALPUR vs IKRAM-UL-HAQ1984 PLC 934 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD AMIN BHATTI AND ANOTHER /1984 PLC 997 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. AND 2 OTHERS vs KARACHI PROPERTIES INVESTMENT CO, LTD.1984 PLD Karachi 257 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-06
  leave to defendsummary suitbanking recoveryspecial courtmortgage suitoriginal civil jurisdictionprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications for leave to defend suits filed by banking companies against borrowers, which were transferred to the High Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, as amended by the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Ordinance 1983. The core legal question was whether the High Court, acting as a 'Special Court,' is bound to follow the summary procedure under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for suits based on mortgages or statements of accounts, or if such suits require leave to defend. The Court held that the High Court, when exercising jurisdiction as a 'Special Court,' is mandated by Section 7 of the Ordinance of 1979 to follow the summary procedure of Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, regardless of whether the suit is based on negotiable instruments or other claims like mortgages. Consequently, defendants must obtain leave to defend. The Court further determined that the defendants raised plausible factual defenses, warranting the grant of unconditional leave to defend the suits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court, when acting as a 'Special Court' under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, have to follow the summary procedure of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is leave to defend required for suits based on mortgages or statements of accounts under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the expression 'in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction' in the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 exempt the High Court from following the procedure prescribed in Section 7 of the Ordinance of 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LIMITED vs ASIAN SHIPPING AND LIGHTERAGE CO. LTD. and 41984 MLD 631 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-02Read full judgment →
• HABIB AHMAD VAHIDY vs SIND SMALL INDUSTRIES AND HANDICRAFTS1984 MLD 1010 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-27Read full judgment →
• HA MZO vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 985 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
• HA BIBURREHMAN vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others1984 SCMR 1430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-11
  dissolution of marriagedower recoveryKhulacrueltyconcurrent findings of factNikahnama fraudleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Habib-ur-Rehman petitioned for leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the lower appellate court's judgment decreeing a suit for the recovery of a dower amount of rupees one lakh filed by his former wife, Mst. Yasmin Habib. The core legal questions involved whether an entry of dower in the Nikahnama vitiated by alleged fraud could be re-examined as a question of fact, whether a wife is disentitled to dower when a marriage is dissolved on grounds including both cruelty and Khula, and whether a point regarding the closure of evidence not argued before the lower forums could be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding the dower entry cannot be interfered with, that a wife's right to dower is not forfeited when dissolution is granted on grounds including cruelty alongside Khula, and that points not urged during the hearing of appeal or writ petition cannot be raised at the leave stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a dower amount entered in a Nikahnama can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • Is a wife entitled to recover her dower amount when a decree for dissolution of marriage is passed on multiple grounds including both cruelty and Khula?
  • Can a legal point regarding the closure of evidence, which was not argued during the hearing of the appeal or writ petition, be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• H. MUMTAZ vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others1984 MLD 421 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
• H. MUHAMMAD BALOCH AND 2 OTHERS vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1984 CLC 1345 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
• H. M. MOINUDDIN ANSARI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1654 · Sindh High Court · 1967-04-27Read full judgment →
• H. M. ASHRAFULLAH vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-11
  Service TribunalRetrospective promotionAppellate jurisdictionDepartmental promotionService appealConfidential records
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's claim for retrospective promotion to the post of Section Officer. The appellant, having secured retrospective promotions as Assistant and Superintendent, sought further promotion to Section Officer, arguing that had he been promoted earlier, he would have met the eligibility criteria. The Tribunal rejected his appeal, concluding that his performance record rendered him unsuitable for the position regardless of his seniority status. The Supreme Court granted leave to determine whether the Tribunal erred by considering confidential material without disclosure and whether it could deny relief based on its own assessment of the appellant's unsuitability rather than remanding the matter. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Service Tribunal, as an appellate authority, possesses the competence to examine all questions of law and fact. It affirmed that the Tribunal is not obligated to refer matters to departmental authorities if such a reference would be futile, and it may substitute its own opinion for that of the departmental authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Service Tribunal competent to examine all questions of law and fact in an appeal against a departmental order?
  • Can the Service Tribunal substitute its own opinion for that of the departmental authority regarding an employee's suitability for promotion?
  • Is the Service Tribunal required to refer a matter back to the departmental authority if it determines that such a reference would serve no purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• H ABIB-UR-REHMAN vs DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SAVINGS, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 113 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
• H A BI B vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-05Read full judgment →
• GULZBAGH RABBANI vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS-1984 PLC 125 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
• GULZAR vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1984 PLC 1639 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-11-09Read full judgment →
• GULZAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs REHMAT ULLAH AND ANOTHERS1984 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-06
  evacuee propertytransfer of propertylocus standipermanent transfer deedsettlement commissionerleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of urban evacuee property previously held jointly. The core legal question involves the entitlement of rival claimants to the disputed share after initial transfers and subsequent cancellations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the High Court's legal premise regarding the finality of a Permanent Transfer Deed might be questionable, the petition lacked merit because the petitioners had already received their lawful share in 1960 and possessed no locus standi to challenge the eligibility of the respondent. The key principle laid down is that parties fully satisfied with their initial joint transfer of property cannot subsequently claim additional portions not in their possession, nor do they have the standing to question the transfer of remaining portions to eligible rival claimants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party satisfied with an initial joint property transfer is entitled to seek transfer of another portion not in their possession?
  • Does a party have locus standi to challenge the eligibility of a rival claimant for property transfer?
  • Can a Settlement Commissioner interfere with a transfer after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
  Read full judgment →
• GULZAR M ASIH vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,WAPDA, SIALKOT1984 PLC 1165 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• GULZAR HUSSAIN AWAN vs AKBAR1984 CLC 3164 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
• GULZAMAN AND ANOTHER vs COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-21
  land acquisitionlimitation periodobjection petitioncollector's awardwrit jurisdictionservice of notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three writ petitions challenging the rejection of objection petitions by the Land Acquisition Collector, who dismissed them as time-barred. The petitioners argued that because they were not served with notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the limitation period for filing objections should commence from the date of their knowledge of the award rather than the date of the award itself. The core legal question was whether the six-month limitation period under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act runs from the date of the award or from the date of the claimant's knowledge. The Court held that the limitation period is fixed by statute and cannot be extended by importing the concept of 'date of knowledge.' Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court affirmed that the maximum period for filing an objection petition is six months from the date of the Collector's award, regardless of whether notice under Section 12(2) was served. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the Collector acted within his jurisdiction in determining the limitation issue.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing an objection petition under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 run from the date of the award or the date of knowledge of the award?
  • Is the Land Acquisition Collector empowered to decide the question of limitation regarding objection petitions?
  • Does the failure to serve notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 extend the statutory limitation period for filing an objection petition?
  • Are the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to objection petitions filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• GULSHER vs AZAD GOVERNMENT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Azad J & K 6 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
• GULOO alias GUL MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2519 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• GULANDER KHAN and another vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 3 others1984 MLD 206 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• GULAB DIN and 4 others vs IBRAHIM ALI KHAN and 12 others1984 MLD 361 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
• GULAB AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1781 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
• GUL ZAMIN vs SARFRAZ KHAN1984 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-05
  pre-emption suitProvincially Administered Tribal Areajurisdiction of civil courtsMartial Law Regulation No. 115constitutional interpretationlimitationArticle 247(3)
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a pre-emption suit regarding land located in the Malakand Agency, a Provincially Administered Tribal Area. The appellant, a tenant, challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, arguing that the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act (XLVIII of 1976) had ousted the civil court's jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters. The core legal question was whether this amending legislation, which restricted civil court jurisdiction, applied to the Provincially Administered Tribal Area. The Supreme Court held that the amendment was not applicable because it had not been extended to the Provincially Administered Tribal Area in accordance with Article 247(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the Civil Judge retained jurisdiction, and the appellant's contention failed. Furthermore, the Court observed that the appellant’s first appeal before the District Judge was time-barred, and as no application for condonation of delay was filed, the appellant had no remaining remedy. The key principle laid down is that acts of Parliament or Provincial Assemblies do not apply to Provincially Administered Tribal Areas unless explicitly extended by the Governor with the President's approval.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Act of Parliament or Provincial Assembly apply to a Provincially Administered Tribal Area without a specific directive from the Governor with the President's approval?
  • Is the jurisdiction of a civil court in a Provincially Administered Tribal Area ousted by an amendment to Martial Law Regulation No. 115 that has not been extended to that territory?
  • Can a party successfully challenge a court's jurisdiction based on a statute that has not been legally extended to the territory where the cause of action arose?
  Read full judgment →
• GUL ZAMAN vs NAGARIA TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1984 PLC 1395 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
• GUL ZAMAN AND OTHERS vs PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD.1984 PLC 1541 · Labour Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• GUL SHER vs YOUNAS KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-16
  post-arrest bailattempted murderdiscretionary jurisdictionappellate interferencefurther inquirybail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the complainant, Gul Sher, challenging an order of the Peshawar High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, Younas Khan. The respondent was charged under Section 307/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for firing shots at the complainant, causing injury. While the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had previously refused bail, the High Court granted it, reasoning that identifying the specific shot fired by the respondent among seven or eight total shots fired by the accused group was a matter requiring further inquiry. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and noted that although the complainant specifically attributed the effective shot to the respondent, the respondent's shot was not the first one fired. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail did not warrant interference by the appellate court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts should not interfere with the discretionary exercise of bail jurisdiction by the High Court unless a clear error is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the identification of a specific shot fired by an accused among multiple shots fired by a group constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail?
  • Is the fact that an accused's shot was not the first one fired a relevant factor in determining bail in a case involving multiple accused?
  Read full judgment →
• GUL SANOBAR vs NAZIR AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 1 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• GUL REHMAN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN AMD OTHERS1984 SCMR 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-19
  ex parte decreesetting aside decreesufficient causecivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision against a civil court's order setting aside an ex parte decree previously passed in their favour. The core legal question concerned whether the trial court's finding that the defendants were not at fault and had shown sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners pertained purely to factual aspects and that the findings of the lower courts suffered from no legal infirmity. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that concurrent factual findings regarding sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte decree, free from legal infirmity, do not invite interference or leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent factual findings regarding sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte decree warrant interference in civil revision?
  • Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against concurrent factual findings that involve no substantial point of law?
  • Are defendants-judgment-debtors entitled to have an ex parte decree set aside upon showing sufficient cause and lack of fault?
  Read full judgment →
• GUL RAHIM KHAN alias KHAN vs MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN alias NAEEM1984 CLC 521 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
• GUL MUHAMMADs vs JARO AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-08-26Read full judgment →
• GUL MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 PLD Supreme Court 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-15
  criminal appealmurdercommon intentionacquittalreversal of acquittalbenefit of doubteyewitness testimonyphysical disability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which reversed the acquittal of the appellant by the trial court and convicted him under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the eyewitness testimony attributing the role of holding the deceased to the appellant, particularly in light of his alleged physical disability and the inherent improbability of exposing oneself to gunfire while holding a victim. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's assessment regarding the false implication and the physical incapacity of the appellant to hold the deceased was well-founded and that the case was not free from reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the conviction by the High Court and restored the acquittal, laying down the principle that appellate interference in acquittal judgments requires strong and compelling grounds, and where reasonable doubt exists regarding the overt acts attributed to an accused, the benefit must be extended to him.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant for murder?
  • Can a physically disabled accused be reasonably attributed the role of holding a victim during a firearm attack?
  • Does an implausible role assigned to an accused by eyewitnesses create a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• GUL MUHAMMAD vs SHANZAK AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 790 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
• GUL MUHAMMAD vs OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION1984 PLC 530 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• GUL MUHAMMAD vs D. I.-G. OF POLICE, MULTAN RANGE, MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 778 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
• GUL HASSAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 632 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• GUL HASSAN and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2476 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
• GUL HAQ AND 7 OTHERS vs CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY AND OTHERS1984 PLD Peshwar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
• GUL HABIB vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another1984 MLD 418 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• GUL FARAZ KHAN vs Mst. FATIMA AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-24
  auction-purchaserproclaimed offenderattachment of propertynecessary partyobjection petitionCode of Criminal Procedureremand proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of a petition seeking to implead the appellant, an auction-purchaser of property belonging to a proclaimed offender, in proceedings regarding objections to the attachment of said property. The core legal question was whether an auction-purchaser possesses the right to be impleaded as a necessary party in objection proceedings initiated by third parties challenging the attachment and subsequent sale of the property. The Supreme Court held that the auction-purchaser has a vital interest in the outcome of such proceedings, as their rights as a purchaser are directly affected by any potential reversal of the attachment or sale. Consequently, the Court ruled that the auction-purchaser is a necessary party who must be afforded an opportunity to be heard. The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed that the appellant be impleaded in the proceedings before the Magistrate, mandating that the inquiry into the objections be conducted de novo to ensure the appellant's right to defend their interest is protected.

  Questions settled

  • Is an auction-purchaser of attached property a necessary party to objection proceedings filed against that attachment?
  • Does an auction-purchaser have a right to be heard in proceedings challenging the attachment and sale of the property they purchased?
  • Must proceedings be conducted de novo if a necessary party was excluded from the initial remand proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• GUL ANAR and others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
• GUJJAN MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-27Read full judgment →
• GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS ALLIANCE COMMERCIAL1984 CLC 2336 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT WEAVING & FINISHING CENTRE, SHAHDARA vs Haji MUKHTAR1984 PLC 450 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SIALKOT vs EJAZ AHMAD1984 PLC 1212 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SARGODHA vs MUHAMMAD SABIR1984 PLC 974 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, MULTAN vs BASHIR AHMAD1984 PLC 1419 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, GUJRAT vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1984 PLC 454 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-12Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE THROUGH CHAIRMAN,GOVERNMENT1984 PLC 101 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN through Secretary Home Department vs NARAINDAS and another1984 CLC 2876 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD USMAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 3406 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25
  land acquisitionmarket value determinationlimitation periodreference to civil courtrevenue mutationspower of attorneyremand for evidenceenhancement of compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the Government of Sindh challenging the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Khairpur, which enhanced compensation awarded for acquired land from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 15,000 per acre under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The appellants raised objections concerning limitation under Section 18, the validity of representation via power of attorney on behalf of minors, and the legal sufficiency of the evidence relied upon to enhance compensation. The High Court rejected the limitation objection, ruling that limitation cannot run where acquisition proceedings and the award took place entirely without notice or knowledge of the landowners. The Court also upheld the attorney's authority to act on behalf of the minors. However, regarding compensation, the High Court held that the burden of proving market value under Section 23 rests on the landowners, and merely producing certified copies of revenue mutations without examining parties to the transactions is insufficient. Consequently, the High Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after giving parties an opportunity to adduce proper evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 apply to bar a reference application if the acquisition proceedings and award were conducted entirely without notice to the landowners?
  • Can a father residing abroad lawfully execute a power of attorney appointing an agent to represent his minor children in land acquisition proceedings while the mother is alive?
  • Is the mere production of certified copies of revenue mutations sufficient to discharge the burden of proving higher market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 without examining parties to those transactions?
  • Can a reference court determine and enhance land acquisition compensation based solely on unsupported oral estimations of surrounding land values?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, BOARD OF REVENUE vs MANSOOR AHMAD MALIK1984 SCMR 757 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-14
  service tribunalad hoc appointmentlimitationregularisationleave to appealreversion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which accepted the respondent's time-barred appeal against his reversion from the ad hoc post of Deputy Settlement Commissioner to Assistant Accounts Officer. The core legal questions involve whether the Service Tribunal erred in deciding a heavily time-barred appeal on merits without addressing limitation, and whether the respondent qualified for regularisation under the Punjab Government's notification dated 7-8-1973 concerning ad hoc appointees serving since or before 1-10-1969, given that his department was provincialized on a later date. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised substantial questions requiring detailed consideration. Regarding interim relief, the Court noted that since the respondent had already superannuated, re-posting did not arise, but directed that he be paid eligible dues without prejudice to his claim for benefits at the higher grade.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal can legally decide an appeal on merits without adverting to the question of limitation when an objection regarding a time-barred appeal is duly raised?
  • Does an ad hoc appointee qualify for regularisation under the Punjab Government notification dated 7-8-1973 if their department was provincialized after 1-10-1969?
  • What constitutes continuous service 'since' a specific cutoff date under service regularisation notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD NISAR AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2310 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs TARIQ HUSSAIN FAROOQUI AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 47 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-09Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. THROUGH CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH vs AZIZ KHAN, CONTRACTOR, BABU HAIDER ROAD, PESHAWAR1984 SCMR 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-14
  arbitration agreementarbitrator appointmentcontractual disputemisreading of evidenceremand of casestatutory rank requirementwaiver of objection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a contractual dispute between a government department and a contractor regarding a water supply scheme. The core legal question was whether an arbitration award was valid when the arbitrator appointed by the trial court did not meet the rank requirement stipulated in the arbitration clause of the contract. The appellant contended that the contract mandated the arbitrator be an officer not below the rank of Superintending Engineer, yet the court appointed an S.D.O. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erroneously concluded that the appellant failed to object to the appointment of the S.D.O. as arbitrator. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court determined that the appellant had, in fact, repeatedly raised objections regarding the arbitrator's lack of requisite rank. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was based on a misapprehension of facts and a non-reading of the record. The case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision, establishing the principle that courts must accurately verify the record regarding procedural objections before dismissing them as waived.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court appoint an arbitrator who does not meet the rank requirements specified in the arbitration clause of a contract?
  • Does a failure to object to an arbitrator's appointment constitute a waiver if the record shows objections were in fact raised?
  • Is a judgment based on a misreading of the record liable to be set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN vs MOIZUDDIN AHMED1984 SCMR 1299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-26
  civil servicepay scale entitlementleave to appealservice rulesstatutory interpretationNPS 20
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Baluchistan against a decision of a Service Tribunal regarding a civil servant's entitlement to pay in National Pay Scale (NPS) 20. The respondent, a former Secretary to the Government of Baluchistan, claimed entitlement to NPS 20 pay for the period between 1972 and 1977. While the Government granted this pay only from July 1977, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, holding him entitled to NPS 20 pay from February 1974, citing a Federal Government letter and Section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, regardless of whether he met the 15-year service eligibility criterion. The core legal question is whether a civil servant can claim pay for a higher grade without meeting the mandatory minimum length of service prescribed by the relevant government notification, and whether Section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, grants an unconditional right to such pay. Finding that the point raised regarding the interpretation of service rules and statutory provisions requires deeper consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the entitlement to pay sanctioned for a post under Section 17 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 unconditional or subject to the rules?
  • Can a civil servant claim pay in a higher grade if they have not completed the minimum length of service required by the governing notification?
  Read full judgment →
• GOUS BUX vs THE STATE1984 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• GOHRAM ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1980 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SARWAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2040 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SARWAR vs Mst. MUNIRAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1688 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SARWAR vs MANAGER, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., ABBOTTABAD, DISTRICT HAZARA1984 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SARWAR KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WATER AND POWER AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 482 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• GHULAM SARWAR KHAN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1984 CLC 909 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SARWAR AND OTHERS vs Haji MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 172 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-22Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SARWAR and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2588 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-21
  bailfurther inquirymurdergrave and sudden provocationpolice remandjudicial remandchallanadjournment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from a bail application filed by two co-accused in a double-murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners abducted and murdered the male deceased and the wife of petitioner Ghulam Sarwar over an alleged illicit relationship. The petitioners argued grave and sudden provocation, unexplained delay in the FIR, and illegal detention due to mechanical remands. The High Court held that evaluating grave and sudden provocation was premature at the bail stage. On the merits, medical evidence established that fatal injuries were inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon attributed to Ghulam Sarwar, who was witnessed holding a blood-stained knife, thereby disallowing his bail. Conversely, co-accused Allah Bakhsh, armed only with a lathi causing non-fatal minor injuries and not seen striking the deceased, was admitted to bail as his case called for further inquiry. Additionally, the Court issued comprehensive mandatory guidelines governing the lawful grant of remands and adjournments by Magistrates under Sections 167 and 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of grave and sudden provocation can be determined and appreciated at the pre-trial bail stage?
  • Whether an accused armed with a blunt weapon is entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry when fatal injuries are solely attributable to a co-accused wielding a sharp-edged weapon?
  • What statutory procedures and guidelines must a Magistrate strictly follow when granting police or judicial remand under Section 167 and Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What course of action must a Magistrate adopt if the police fail to submit a complete or incomplete challan after the expiry of the initial 15 days of remand?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SARWAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 PLD Supreme Court 181 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SAMAN MAS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SAKHI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SADIQ and another vs MUKHTIAR AHMAD and others1984 SCMR 1446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-23
  inherent jurisdictionquashment of proceedingsinterim custody of propertyrevisional jurisdictionabuse of processcivil remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge. The dispute arose from an interim order by a Magistrate regarding the custody of a factory premises, which was subsequently set aside by the Sessions Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the High Court, despite the bar on second revisions, could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to interfere with an order passed by a Sessions Court in its revisional capacity. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court possesses inherent powers to secure the ends of justice, such jurisdiction is not appropriately invoked to revive interim custody orders when the underlying dispute involves substantive property rights. The Court affirmed that inherent powers should not be used as a substitute for appropriate civil remedies, and dismissed the petition, directing the parties to seek adjudication in a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to interfere with an order passed by a Sessions Court in its revisional capacity?
  • Is the exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 appropriate for reviving interim custody orders when substantive civil remedies are available?
  • Does the existence of a pending civil dispute regarding property rights preclude the use of inherent powers to determine interim possession in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SABIR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 680 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASUL vs NASEERUDDIN, AND 6 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 2041 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASUL and others vs THE ST ATE1984 MLD 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-31Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL vs THE STATE and 2 others1984 P Cr. L J 2454 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL vs MUHAMMAD SALIM AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-28
  criminal acquittalpetition for leave to appealeye-witness credibilitybenefit of doubtsupreme court review of acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the acquittal of the respondent by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns the justification of the acquittal based on doubts regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case, specifically the presence and reliability of eye-witnesses and the surrounding circumstances of the incident. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition after the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the acquittal was justified due to serious doubts surrounding the eye-witnesses' presence. The key principle laid down is that where serious doubts exist regarding the presence of eye-witnesses and the prosecution's narrative, an acquittal by the High Court will not be interfered with.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal by the High Court can be maintained when there are serious doubts regarding the presence of eye-witnesses?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal order when the petitioner's counsel concedes that the acquittal was justified?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL vs MUHAMMAD NAB1 KHAN1984 CLC 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT1984 SCMR 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-29
  election disqualificationZila Councilgovernment controlstatutory bodyspecial leave to appeallocal government electionsservice of the state
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the disqualification of a Zila Council member. The respondent, an employee of Pakistan Oil Fields Limited, was elected to the Zila Council. The petitioner challenged this election, arguing that the respondent was disqualified under Article 10(2) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, because his employer was a company controlled by the Federal Government. The High Court had previously dismissed the petition, ruling that mere regulatory compliance or government-imposed conditions did not equate to government control over the company. The Supreme Court, however, found that the petitioner's arguments regarding the company's Articles of Association, the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and the Pakistan Petroleum (Production) Rules, 1949, raised substantial questions requiring further judicial consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the respondent's employment with the company constituted a disqualification under the relevant election laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement for a company to comply with government regulations and statutory rules constitute 'control' by the Government for the purpose of election disqualification?
  • Is an employee of a company subject to the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, considered to be in the service of a body controlled by the Government?
  • What constitutes 'control' by the Government under Article 10(2) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL vs Haji BARKAT ALI and 2 others1984 MLD 28 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL vs HA SNAT AHMAD1984 CLC 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL BODLA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 723 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL BALOCH vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1441 · Labour Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL and 3 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2702 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL alias RANGEELA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2528 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• GHULAM QASIM vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, BAHAWALPUR1984 PLC 211 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-12Read full judgment →