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.
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL1984 PLC 1093 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAY, MULTAN vs GHULAM ABBAS1984 PLC 1726 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-28Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P.W.R., MULTAN vs ABDUL KHALIQ1984 SCMR 1311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision and upholding the appellate court's decision in a wage dispute. The respondent, a former railway clerk whose termination was ultimately set aside after prolonged litigation leading to his reinstatement, filed an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, claiming delayed wages and compensation. The Authority dismissed the application as time-barred. The core legal questions involved the appealability under section 17 of orders dismissing or condoning delay on limitation grounds under section 15, and the interpretation of the term 'entertain' in subsection (3) of section 15. The Supreme Court held that an order dismissing a claim as time-barred or condoning delay is not a 'direction' under subsection (3) and is therefore not appealable under section 17 of the Act, as the right of appeal arises only when the authority adjudicates on the merits. Consequently, the appellate authority and the High Court erred in entertaining the appeal and condoning the delay. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Authority's order dismissing the application.
Questions settled- Whether an order dismissing a claim under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as time-barred is appealable under section 17 of the said Act?
- Whether an order condoning delay under the second proviso to section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, falls under subsection (3) of section 15 so as to render it appealable under section 17?
- What does the term 'entertain' connote in the opening sentence of subsection (3) of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Can the appellate authority or the High Court condone the delay in filing an application under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, when the application is hit by the bar of limitation?
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS); PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs KHAWAJ1984 PLC 537 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISION ALL ENGINEER No, 1 PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI vs KHAN1984 PLC 942 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DISTRICT POPULATION PLANNING OFFICER vs Syed AHMAD HUSSAIN ZAIDI1984 CLC 2016 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, P.U.T.C., GREEN TOWN, LAHORE vs ABID HUSSAIN SHAH /1984 PLC 1553 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-06Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIONAND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN1984 PLC 546 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT CONTROLLER OF STORES, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1984 PLC 1114 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and anothers vs Malik ABDUL MAJID1984 SCMR 1302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave was filed by the Disciplinary Committee of the University of the Punjab against a High Court judgment that set aside orders disqualifying the respondent student under University Regulations. The core question involved whether principles of natural justice required summoning supervisory staff for cross-examination during disciplinary proceedings. However, during the pendency of the matter, the respondent was allowed to appear in a subsequent examination, successfully passed, and was issued a degree. The Supreme Court held that since the respondent had already cleared a subsequent examination and the issue was no longer a live controversy, the appeal had become wholly infructuous. Reaffirming the principle that the Court does not undertake purely academic exercises based on hypothetical cases, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous without deciding the merits, while clarifying that the dismissal did not amount to endorsing the High Court's view.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal becomes infructuous when the student has successfully passed a subsequent examination and been awarded a degree during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Does the Supreme Court decide purely academic questions when no live issue remains between the parties?
- Whether the failure to summon supervisory staff for cross-examination violates principles of natural justice in university disciplinary proceedings?
- DINAL AND 7 OTHERS vs Mian NAJAMUDDIN AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 193 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application sought the quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before a Magistrate. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to intervene after a revision petition had already been dismissed by the Sessions Court, and whether proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were maintainable given the lack of urgency and the existence of parallel civil litigation. The Court held that while second revision applications are barred, the High Court retains inherent power under Section 561-A to redress patent injustice. Furthermore, the Court quashed the proceedings, finding that the significant delay in initiating action negated the essential requirement of an emergency or apprehension of a breach of peace. It was established that proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are stopgap arrangements that must yield to civil court adjudication regarding title or possession, and that such proceedings require immediate action to address genuine emergencies, which was absent in this case.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to correct patent injustice after a revision petition has been dismissed by the Sessions Court?
- Does a significant delay in initiating proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 negate the Magistrate's jurisdiction based on the requirement of an emergency?
- Must proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 yield to pending civil litigation regarding the same property?
- Is a prior notice to the opposite party a legal requirement for a Magistrate to pass an initial order under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs Pirji NISAR AHMED1984 CLC 962 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD QURESH1 vs THE STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1984 MLD 1209 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and sentences of the appellants for the murder of Inayat and causing grievous injuries to two others. The appellants pleaded self-defence, alleging the complainant party attacked them at night with firearms. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the victims suffered severe incised wounds while the appellants sustained only simple blunt-weapon injuries. Furthermore, the recovery of blood-stained earth from a public street, rather than inside the appellants' house, contradicted the defence version. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt. Regarding the sentencing, the Court observed that the prosecution’s alleged motive was unconvincing and likely concealed the immediate cause of the incident, which could constitute a mitigating circumstance. Consequently, while upholding the convictions, the Court commuted the death sentence of the appellant Bashir to life imprisonment, while increasing the fine. The principle established is that where the prosecution fails to explain the immediate cause of an incident, such suppression may serve as a mitigating factor in sentencing, even if the conviction is maintained.
Questions settled- Does the presence of simple injuries on the accused, compared to severe injuries on the victims, negate a plea of self-defence?
- Can the suppression of the immediate cause of an incident by the prosecution serve as a mitigating factor for sentencing?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive for the crime?
- DILDAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1970 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- DIDAR GUL vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the Peshawar High Court's judgment setting aside the trial court's acquittal of the appellant for murder and convicting him under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, having intervened in a dispute between the deceased and a boy, shot the deceased after being pushed into a muddy nullah. The trial court had initially applied Exception 4 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, viewing the incident as a sudden fight without premeditation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal, holding that the appellant, who was armed with a gun, took undue advantage and acted in a cruel and unusual manner by firing at an unarmed deceased. The Court emphasized that the appellant's intervention was voluntary and not without fault, and the subsequent push did not justify the use of lethal force. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the requirements for Exception 4 were not met, as the appellant's actions demonstrated a disproportionate use of force, confirming the conviction for murder.
Questions settled- Does the use of a firearm against an unarmed person during a sudden altercation constitute taking 'undue advantage' under Exception 4 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused who voluntarily intervenes in a dispute and is pushed by the deceased claim the benefit of a 'sudden fight' to reduce a murder charge?
- Is the presence of struggle marks at a crime scene sufficient to establish a 'sudden fight' under Exception 4 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- DHANO alias DHANI BUKHSH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 16 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
- DHANI BUX and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2753 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
- DHANI BUX and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2533 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-26Read full judgment →
- DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HOUSING & PHYSICAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD FAZAL1984 PLC 845 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAWABSHAH and another vs Haji ALI SHER1984 MLD 193 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-25Read full judgment →
- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER vs htiADIM ALI and others1984 MLD 854 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & D. M., KARACHI AND ANOTHER vs Mst.1984 SCMR 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a consolidated order of the Sind High Court which dismissed the petitioners' applications under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for setting aside an ex parte judgment passed in constitutional petitions. The core legal question addressed by the High Court and reviewed by this Court was whether sufficient cause was established by the petitioners to explain the absence of their counsel on the date of hearing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order declining to set aside the ex parte judgment was passed in the proper exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction and was in full accord with well-settled principles of law. The key principle laid down is that appellate interference with the discretionary refusal of a court to set aside an ex parte order is unwarranted where no sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown and no violation of law has occurred.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to set aside the ex parte judgment under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the absence of counsel without sufficient cause constitute a ground for setting aside an ex parte order?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court regarding ex parte proceedings?
- DEEN. MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND S. D. M., SHAHDADPUR AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the imposition of costs by the High Court upon the dismissal of the petitioners' criminal miscellaneous applications. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the authority to award costs in criminal proceedings, specifically when an application is based on the misrepresentation of facts. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's order. The Court held that the High Court is justified in imposing costs when petitioners are found guilty of abusing the process of the court by suppressing true facts to obtain favorable orders. The Court established that the award of costs is not alien to criminal jurisprudence. Furthermore, under the inherent powers granted by Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court is empowered to make necessary orders to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, which includes the authority to impose costs in appropriate circumstances.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to award costs in criminal proceedings?
- Can the High Court impose costs on a party found guilty of abusing the process of the court?
- Does Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower a court to award costs to prevent the abuse of its process?
- DEEN MUHAMMAD AND 6 OTHERS vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & S. D. M.1984 P Cr. L J 302 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD YAMAHA LTD. AND 2 OTHERS vs NAWAZISH ALI1984 PLC 1317 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD HERCULES CHEMICALS LTD. vs WORKERS' UNION1984 PLC 1495 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD HERCULES CHEMICALS LTD. vs UMAR HAYAT AND OTHERS.1984 PLC 1427 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD HERCULES CHEMICALS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD ARIF1984 PLC 610 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD ADAM KABARI/Tenant vs Mst. KHATIJA BAI/Landlord1984 CLC 1713 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
- DAULATPUR JUTE MILLS Ltd. vs Messrs MUGHAL AND SONS and 4 others1984 MLD 351 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-04Read full judgment →
- DAULAT YAR KHAN vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.1984 PLC 993 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-19Read full judgment →
- DAUD CHAUDHRY vs ADMISSION BOARD OF ADMISSIONS TO MEDICAL1984 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
- DAUD AHMAD MAL1K AND 4 OTHERS vs GOVERNOR OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OP PUNJAB, LABOUR DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 50 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →
- DARYA KHAN vs SHAM MAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1301 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
- Darsons Rubber Works Industries Ltd., Wazirabad and Montgomery FlourPTCL 1984 (CL) 285 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- DARSON RUBBER WORKS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 4 others1984 MLD 475 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
- DARHOON AND 4 THERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3218 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- DARA vs THE STATE AND OTHERSPLD 1984 Rev. 29 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- DALEEL and 5 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2783 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- DADU vs THE MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER, SIND AND BALUCHISTAN1984 MLD 265 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-03Read full judgment →
- DADAN KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA1984 SCMR 1012 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of the Central Service Tribunal to interfere with the retirement of the petitioner under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act of 1958. The core legal questions involve whether the retirement without assigning reasons based on cumulative usefulness requires communication of Annual Confidential Reports or an inquiry under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, and whether the empowering statutory provision is ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 17(1-A) permit retirement without assigning a reason and without stigma based on cumulative assessment of usefulness, making formal inquiries or communication of ACRs unnecessary. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the competent authority possesses the absolute power under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 to retire an employee without assigning reasons after due notice or pay in lieu thereof, provided no punitive stigma of misconduct is attached.
Questions settled- Can an employee be retired under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 without assigning any reason?
- Whether uncommunicated ACRs reflecting cumulative usefulness can be the basis for retirement without an inquiry?
- Are the provisions of section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 ultra vires?
- Dada Steel Mills vs Collector Of Customs And OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 184 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
- DADA STEEL MILLS vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Karachi 94 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
- DADA SOAP FACTORY LTD. vs MESSRS STOLT NIELSEN INC. AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1130 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- DAD RAHIM vs SIND GOVERNMENT1984 MLD 1445 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-02Read full judgment →
- Da. ABDULLAH GHANGRO vs Mst. TAHIRA BEGUM1984 CLC 3102 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These statutory appeals under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 were filed against orders striking off the tenants' defence and directing their ejectment. The Rent Controller had ordered the tenant-appellants to deposit monthly rent by a specified date in the ejectment proceedings. Upon non-compliance, the landlord applied under Section 16 of the Ordinance to strike off their defence. The tenants claimed they had routinely deposited rent in a separate miscellaneous rent deposit proceeding between the same parties, relying on photostat receipts, but failed to produce original receipts or evidence from the Nazir confirming such deposits. The High Court affirmed the Rent Controller's orders, holding that unproved claims of depositing rent in miscellaneous proceedings do not amount to compliance with a specific deposit order issued in an ejectment case. The Court established that a tenant must strictly comply with a Rent Controller's deposit direction in the account of the active ejectment proceeding, and failure to prove proper deposit or provide a valid explanation justifies striking off the defence under Section 16(2) of the Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does depositing rent in a separate miscellaneous proceeding satisfy a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent in a specific ejectment case?
- Whether photostat copies of rent receipts without Nazir verification are sufficient proof of compliance with a rent deposit order?
- Is a tenant's defence liable to be struck off under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 upon unexcused failure to deposit rent in the designated case account?
- DA D U vs Mst . MATLOOBA1984 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose out of a suit for partition of land instituted by Mst. Matlooba against Dadu and another, which was decreed by the trial court, upheld in appeal, and maintained by the Lahore High Court in civil revision. The petitioner challenged the decree on grounds questioning the respondent's title and ownership, as well as the validity of the mode of partition recommended by the Local Commissioner without formal demarcation by a Patwari. The Supreme Court observed that the question of ownership and title stood conclusively resolved by the preliminary decree, which had not been challenged and had attained finality, precluding it from being reopened at subsequent stages. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Local Commissioner had demarcated, measured, and prepared a site plan in the presence of both parties, and the petitioner had expressly admitted having no objection to the vacant land being allotted to the respondent. Finding no merit in the contentions raised, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can the question of ownership and title in a partition suit be reopened after the preliminary decree has attained finality?
- Whether the absence of a Patwari invalidates partition proceedings where the Local Commissioner demarcates the land in the presence and with the consent of the parties?
- Can a party challenge the allotment of vacant land in partition proceedings after having expressly consented to such allotment before the Local Commissioner?
- D A NI A L vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction was sustainable given the petitioner's plea of Ghairat (grave and sudden provocation) arising from alleged illicit relations of the deceased. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conviction was well-founded based on consistent ocular evidence from three witnesses and the recovery of the blood-stained murder weapon from the petitioner at the crime scene. The Court observed that the petitioner had admitted to the commission of the crime. Regarding the plea of Ghairat, the Court affirmed that the trial court had appropriately considered this mitigating factor by awarding a sentence of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. The judgment establishes that where ocular evidence is credible and the accused is apprehended with the weapon, the conviction is sound, and a plea of provocation is a matter for sentencing discretion rather than grounds for acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon from an accused at the crime scene, coupled with consistent ocular evidence, support a conviction for murder?
- Is a plea of 'Ghairat' (grave and sudden provocation) sufficient to warrant acquittal in a murder case where the accused admits to the act?
- Can a trial court consider the plea of 'Ghairat' as a mitigating factor to reduce a sentence from death to life imprisonment?
- Custodian Evacuee Property, PunjabALLAH YAR AND OTHERS vs OTEM1984 CLC 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- CUL MEHAR vs Syed IKRAM ALI1984 MLD 163 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LYALLPUR vs Mst. SAKINA BIBI AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 373 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-22Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT FACTORIES VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ1984 PLC 606 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
- COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs THE SIND LABOUR1984 PLC 712 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- CONTROLLER OF ESTA'T'E DUTY, KARACHI vs Mst. HALIMABAI1984 PTD 112 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- COMMITTEE OF ADMINISTRATION, FAUJI FOUNDATION vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others1984 MLD 356 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- COMMITTEE OF ADMINISTRATION FOUJIFOUNDATION vs ASSISTANT1984 CLC 1617 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF. SALES TAX, KARACHI (CENTRAL), KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PT D 410 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Wealth Versus S. H. Muhammad Ahmad. Tax (East)PTCL 1984 (CL)300 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX/INCOME TAX, KARACHI vs ABU TALIB DADA1984 PTD 208 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-23Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax (East) Karachi., K.R. Byraji vs S.H. MuhammadPTCL 1984 CL. 300 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, CHIT ZONE vs MESSRS M. ISMAIL AND SONS1984 PTD 267 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1982-07-26Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Rawalpindi. vs Aminullah Khan Etc.PTCL 1984 (CL) 281 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-07-26Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI vs MESSRS AMINULLAH-1984 PTD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-07-27Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax (East) Karachi. vs Messrs Choudhry Farzand Ali.PTCL 1984 (CL) 20 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax (Central Zones) Karachi vs M/S. A & B FoodPTCL 1984 (CL) 402 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI vs MESSRS1984 PLD Peshawar 214 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-22Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARAT (EAST), KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PTD 61 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-07Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (WEST). KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PTD 201 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (EAST), KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PTD 4 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs SITALAKSHMI MILLS LTD.1984 PTD 18 · Madras High Court · 1984-12-05Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs SITA RAM SRI KISHAN DAS1984 PTD 15 · Allahabad High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs SEKSARIA SONS (PRIVATE) LTD.1984 PTD 35 · Bombay High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs R. C. CHAPMAN1984 PTD 235 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-31Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs MESSRS N. FATEH ALI & Co.1984 PTD 341 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-01Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs M. A. TOOR1984 PTD 368 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (WEST), KARACHI vs MESSRS ADAMJEE1984 PTD 390 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Zone A, Lahore. vs Hajvery Agencies, LahorePTCL 1984 (CL.) 314 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-20Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI vs NOON SUGAR MILLS LTD.1984 PTD 87 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-21Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karachi. vs M_S Hussain Corporation, KarachiPTCL 1984 (CL) 156 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (West), Karachi. vs M_S. Madina Cap House, HyderabadPTCL 1984 (CL.) 305 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (West) Karachi. vs Manzoor Hussain AbdulPTCL 1984 (CL) 47 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (West) Karachi. vs Habib Vali MuhammadPTCL 1984 (CL) 277 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (West) Karachi. vs Adamjee Sons, KarachiPTCL 1984 (CL) 392 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Karachi vs Abdul Karim HajiPTCL 1984 (CL) 179 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- DAILY HILAL-E-PAKISTAN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1984 PLC 395 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Zone) Karachi. vs M/S. GramophonePTCL 1984 (CL) 303 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOM&TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI vs HABIB VALI1984 PTD 131 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs ABDUL GHANI1984 PLC 48 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION, NOWSHERA vs FAZAL RAHIM AND 31984 SCMR 1043 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a land acquisition dispute where the respondents' lands were acquired for the construction of a drain. The Collector, Nowshera, delivered an award on May 15, 1969, granting simple interest at six percent per annum. However, prior to the award, the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan) Amendment Act 1969 had already come into force on March 15, 1969, which mandated compound interest at eight percent per annum. The Collector initially corrected the award to grant compound interest but subsequently recalled that order. The respondents successfully challenged the recall order in the High Court via a writ petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the High Court erred by ignoring the remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Supreme Court held that while the legal question regarding the statutory remedy remained open, substantial justice had been done by requiring the appellant to comply with the law in force at the time of the award. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a land-owner is entitled to compound interest at the amended rate if the amending law came into force before the announcement of the acquisition award?
- Can a writ petition be maintained to enforce statutory interest rates even if the remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was not availed?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that achieves substantial justice, even if there are technical procedural omissions?
- Civil Petition No, 11082 Mst. RANI SULTANA and others vs ADMINISTRATOR1984 SCMR 1279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two civil petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court concerning a composite double storey building in Lahore. The core legal question involves determining the extent of property lawfully purchased and transferred to the petitioners' predecessor, Mst. Ashraf Sultana, through public auction versus the portions lawfully occupied and transferable to other respondents under settlement operations. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment—finding that Mst. Ashraf Sultana was only entitled to the top-floor actually in her possession and that the ground-floor shops were properly transferred to their respective lawful occupants—was fair, just, and correct. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, affirming that undisposed portions not included in the auction were subject to proper separate transfer schemes.
Questions settled- Whether an auction purchaser of a building is entitled to portions of the property not included in the auction and lawfully occupied by other claimants under settlement schemes?
- Whether the High Court's determination regarding the extent of property transferred through settlement operations warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- CIBA LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LTD vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EAST KARACHI1984 PTD 99 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
- CHUTTOO BHAI PANWALA vs Mst. SARA BIBI1984 CLC 1769 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- CHUHAR vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Lahore 234 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- Choudhry FAQIR HUSSAIN vs Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM1984 MLD 412 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER; PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND ANOTHER vs HASSAN1984 PLC 1253 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- CHIEF OFFICER, ADMINISTRATION & BUDGET, PAKISTANRAILWAYS, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 2, LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS1984 PLC 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
- CHIEF ENGINEER, HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT vs MUHAMMAD HASIL1984 PLC 441 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE vs S. M.1984 PLC 621 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →