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.
- ABDUL HAYEE vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from contempt and show-cause notices issued to a petitioner, Abdul Hayee, and his counsel, Mr. Samad Mahmood, Advocate, for attempting to conceal a previous determinative judgment of the Supreme Court dated 21-2-1979 while seeking a stay order in a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner and his counsel were liable for contempt of court, prosecution, and professional misconduct for withholding vital judicial records from the Court. The Supreme Court held that while the concealment was a grave default and serious misdemeanour, both respondents having submitted written unqualified apologies, throwing themselves at the mercy of the Court, and expressing sincere remorse, the notices should be discharged and the suspension of the advocate withdrawn. The key principle laid down is that while deliberate concealment of material judicial proceedings from the court constitutes a grave contempt and professional default, an unqualified apology coupled with genuine remorse may be accepted by the court to take a lenient view and discharge contempt and professional misconduct proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether concealment of a previous determinative judgment of the court in a petition and stay application amounts to contempt of court?
- Can an unqualified apology and expression of remorse purge a charge of contempt and professional misconduct?
- Whether an advocate can be suspended from practice as a temporary measure pending contempt proceedings?
- ABDUL HASAN AZAD vs PROVINCIAL ELECTION AUTHORITY, KARACHI AND 21984 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQUE vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WAPDA, GUJRANWALA /Punjab1984 PLC 75 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQUE vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 1119 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQUE vs MASOOD JAN and another1984 SCMR 1391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Sind High Court and is barred by 8 days. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground of the counsel's illness. The core legal question is whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court held that the grounds urged for condonation were vague and insufficient, noting that the nature of the illness was not properly disclosed, no medical advice for complete rest was shown, and no explanation was provided as to why alternative counsel or the advocate-on-record could not prepare the petition. The ratio decidendi is that valuable rights accrue to a successful party upon the expiry of the period of limitation, and delay can only be condoned when each day's delay is satisfactorily explained with sufficient grounds.
Questions settled- Whether illness of counsel constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Is each day's delay required to be satisfactorily explained when seeking condonation of limitation?
- Does failure to disclose the specific nature of illness and medical advice preclude the condonation of delay?
- ABDUL HANNA N KHAN vs CHAIRMAN EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD,1984 MLD 607 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMMED AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 475 · Labour Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2774 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs D. I.-G. OF POLICE, SARGODHA RANGE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 48 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS RAHMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.1984 PLC 1450 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID AND ANOTHER vs AKBAR FLOOR MILLS1984 PLC 1122 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID AND 31 OTHERS vs CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COUNCIL, SIALKOT AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 132 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1984 PLC 160 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1984 CLC 1391 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED KHAN vs ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT HABIB BANK LTD., SAHIWAL1984 PLC 1523 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED BUTT vs PUNJAB ELECTION AUTHORITY AND 2 other1984 CLC 224 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED alias MAJAN vs Hakeem MUHAMMAD FAZAL HAQUE1984 MLD 788 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HALEEM vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 611 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and suo motu revision challenge the conviction of the appellant and co-accused under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder. The core legal questions involved the voluntariness and admissibility of a retracted judicial confession made by a minor accused, the sufficiency of time for reflection before recording such a confession, the compliance with mandatory statutory procedures, and the requirement of independent material corroboration. The Sindh High Court held that the confession was involuntary due to insufficient time for reflection, lack of proper warnings regarding police custody, and procedural lapses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court held that a retracted confession cannot form the basis of a conviction without reliable independent corroboration, and that unanalyzed recoveries of bloodstained items do not link the accused to the crime. The appeal was accepted, both accused were acquitted of the charge, and the suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence was discharged.
Questions settled- Whether a retracted judicial confession can be made the basis for a conviction without material corroboration?
- Whether the time given to an accused person for reflection prior to recording a confession is legally sufficient?
- Does failure to strictly comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the voluntary character of a confession?
- Can unverified recoveries of blood-stained articles not sent to a chemical examiner serve as legal corroboration of a confession?
- ABDUL HALEEM KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2470 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFEEZ KHAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 919 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HA MID vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONERAND1984 CLC 901 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a dispute over the transfer of a urban plot in Pakpattan Town originally transferred to the appellant as a building site under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and subsequently allotted to the respondents' predecessor as agricultural land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question concerned the validity of the subsequent allotment and whether a re-enquiry into the nature of the property was warranted when a permanent transfer deed subsisted in favour of the first transferee and the competent authority had already determined its character as a building site pursuant to delegated powers. The Supreme Court held that once the property was validly transferred as a building site and the permanent transfer deed remained uncancelled, and where the Additional Settlement Commissioner had properly exercised delegated powers to determine the character of the land, no further inquiry or remand by the High Court was justified. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether land transferred as a building site under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 can be re-allotted as agricultural land without cancellation of the subsisting permanent transfer deed?
- Whether an Additional Settlement Commissioner is competent to determine the character of a disputed plot as a building site under delegated powers?
- Is a remand by the High Court necessary when the competent settlement authorities have already lawfully determined the nature of the property and resolved conflicting allotments?
- Abdul Ghani vs Government Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And Two OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 223 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY1954 P Cr. L J 540 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs AURANGZEB AND OTHERS1984 CLC 424 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI CHANNA vs UNITED BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1397 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE QAMAR1984 PLC 357 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-08-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI AND 4 OTHERS vs Mst. SAIDA NAIM HUSSAIN1984 SCMR 597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court regarding an ejectment matter where the relationship of landlord and tenant was held not to be established. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the parties reached a formal compromise. The core legal question involved the resolution of the tenancy dispute between the appellants and the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the compromise entered into by the parties constitutes a just and fair disposal of the dispute. Consequently, the Court disposed of and allowed the appeal in terms of the agreed compromise, wherein a third party was accepted as the tenant on specified terms, and directed the execution of a regular lease-deed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal can be disposed of in terms of a compromise reached between the parties before the Supreme Court?
- Can parties mutually agree to substitute a new tenant and execute a regular lease-deed to resolve a pending tenancy dispute?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Abdul Ghafoor against the order of the High Court dismissing his application for suspension of sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner had been convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to suspend the petitioner's sentence pending his regular appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court provided cogent reasons for dismissing the bail application and appropriately granted liberty to the petitioner to renew his application after the summer vacation if his appeal remained pending. The petition was accordingly dismissed based on these observations, upholding the discretionary order of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's refusal to suspend a sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can a convicted person file a subsequent application for suspension of sentence after the expiration of a specified period if the appeal is not fixed for hearing?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs MURREE BREWERY COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1332 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs MUHAMMAD JUMMAN and another1984 P Cr. L J 2748 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 674 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 870 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs K. MARACAIR alias MALAKAR and another1984 MLD 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATETRIBUNAL AND 31984 PLC 138 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR GILL vs Mst. MUSSARAT KHAN1984 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 441 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentences of three appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of a co-worker. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of an approver and the recovery of the deceased's personal effects and weapons from the appellants. On appeal, the Lahore High Court scrutinized the reliability of the approver's testimony and the corroborative evidence. The Court observed that the approver's statements contained material contradictions, and the recoveries of the deceased's belongings lacked proper identification. Furthermore, the recoveries of the weapons occurred long before the approver's statement was recorded, rendering them ineffective as independent corroboration. The Court reiterated the rule of prudence requiring independent corroboration of an accomplice's testimony on material points linking the accused to the crime. Finding the prosecution's evidence tainted and uncorroborated, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.
Questions settled- Can the recovery of blood-stained weapons and personal effects serve as independent corroboration of an approver's testimony if those recoveries occurred prior to the recording of the approver's statement?
- Is a person who merely assists in disposing of a dead body under threat, without being privy to the conspiracy or commission of the murder, considered an accomplice?
- What are the legal requirements and guiding principles for a Sessions Judge when granting a pardon to an accomplice under the law?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND ANOTHER vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, CENTRAL REGION AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 804 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS UNITED SUGAR MILLS, SADIKABAD1984 PLC 716 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR and 6 others vs THE STATE1924 P Cr. L J 2119 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 1165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to a decision by the Member, Board of Revenue, which classified a respondent in unauthorized possession of land as a "tenant" by invoking paragraph 480 of the Colony Manual, thereby rendering him eligible for the 15-year Lease Scheme. The petitioner challenged this classification, arguing that the provisions of paragraph 480 of the Colony Manual were inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as they were intended to address an entirely different situation. Upon review, the Supreme Court found prima facie merit in the petitioner's contention that the legal provision was misapplied. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the unauthorized occupant could legally be treated as a tenant under the cited regulatory framework. The appeal was ordered to be prepared on the existing record, with liberty granted to the parties to submit further documentation.
Questions settled- Can a person in unauthorized possession of land be classified as a tenant under paragraph 480 of the Colony Manual?
- Does paragraph 480 of the Colony Manual apply to individuals in unauthorized possession of land for the purpose of eligibility under the 15-year Lease Scheme?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs Mirza MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1984 CLC 3023 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN vs Major Rtd. MAHMOOD KHAN TUKHI and others1984 SCMR 1252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his constitutional petition challenging the order of the Administrator Residual Property setting aside the transfer of a plot of land in his favour. The petitioner claimed the plot under Settlement Scheme No. VI, alleging continuous possession and a subsequent transfer order by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. However, respondents sought revision, asserting the plot was part of a big mansion previously transferred to them. The Administrator Residual Property found that the disputed land formed part of Khasra No. 1961, which had indeed been transferred to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest. The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, holding the factual finding to be supported by record. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's inquiry suffered from defects regarding property identification and lack of coordination with neighbouring properties, whereas the Administrator properly examined site plans and records. Finding no question of law arising, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a constitutional petition where concurrent findings of fact regarding the transfer of residual property were supported by departmental records?
- Can a transfer of residual property be set aside if the inquiry reveals that the disputed land was already transferred as part of another property?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR AND ANOTHER vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPTT., QUETTA AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 24 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of Baluchistan for the establishment of a cement factory by a private company. The petitioners, claiming to be allottees of plots within the acquired land, contested the validity of notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging procedural irregularities, lack of public purpose, and failure to serve notice. The Court held that the acquisition was valid, noting that "public purpose" is an elastic concept encompassing industrial projects that benefit the community. The Court ruled that technical omissions in notifications, such as the failure to explicitly name the company, do not invalidate proceedings absent prejudice. Furthermore, the Court determined that non-compliance with notice requirements under section 9 does not vitiate the acquisition itself but merely affects compensation, which is remediable through statutory reference. Finally, the Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce private contractual obligations between allottees and housing societies, and dismissed the petition on grounds of laches, as the proceedings had already been finalized and possession handed over.
Questions settled- Does the omission of a company's name in a land acquisition notification invalidate the entire acquisition proceeding?
- Is the establishment of a private cement factory considered a 'public purpose' under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Does non-compliance with notice requirements under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 vitiate the acquisition proceedings?
- Can a petitioner invoke writ jurisdiction to enforce private contractual obligations regarding land allotment against a housing society?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR alias BHARA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2044 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR ABDUR REHMAN vs ASGHAR ALI and 3 others1984 CLC 2863 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BASIT vs MUHAMMAD IDREES AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which had set aside an order of the Secretary, Co-operation Department, and restored an order of the Deputy Registrar remitting an arbitration award for fresh decision. The core legal dispute involved a plot in a co-operative housing society claimed by multiple parties, culminating in an arbitration award in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, the Deputy Registrar set aside the award under section 54-A of the Sind Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, based on newly discovered registers, which order was reversed by the Secretary on revision. The High Court upheld the Deputy Registrar's view, holding the arbitrators guilty of misconduct for failing to examine certain records. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrators had not committed any misconduct or refused to summon available records, as the registers in question were genuinely believed to be lost at the time. The Court laid down the principle that an arbitration award under the Act cannot be set aside or remitted for reconsideration on the sole ground of subsequent discovery of new evidence when no such ground is enumerated in section 54-A of the Act.
Questions settled- Can an arbitration award under the Sind Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 be set aside or remitted on the ground of the subsequent discovery of new evidence?
- Does the failure of arbitrators to examine records that were believed to be lost at the time constitute misconduct vitiating the award?
- Whether the Registrar has the power under section 54-A of the Sind Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 to order fresh arbitration merely because fresh evidence has come to light after the delivery of the award?
- ABDUL BASHIR KHAN vs Haji ALI RAZ A and 7 others1984 MLD 160 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BARI KHAN, ADVOCATE vs THE COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns procedural defaults in the preparation of the record for an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The appellant failed to supply necessary addresses for respondents despite multiple reminders and show-cause notices issued by the Registry. The core legal question addressed is the proper procedure to be followed by the Registry and the Court when an appellant fails to diligently prepare the record for appeal. The Court held that the Registry must strictly adhere to the procedure outlined in the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. Specifically, upon a default, the Registrar should notify the appellant to explain the default; if the explanation is unsatisfactory or absent, the Registrar must issue a summons requiring the appellant to show cause before the Court why the leave to appeal should not be rescinded. The Court emphasized that excessive, repetitive reminders are unnecessary and that the Registrar should promptly escalate defaults to the Court for final direction once the prescribed show-cause process is exhausted.
Questions settled- What is the correct procedure for the Registrar to follow when an appellant fails to prepare the record for an appeal?
- Under what circumstances may the Supreme Court rescind the grant of leave to appeal due to a default in record preparation?
- Is it necessary for the Registry to issue multiple reminders before issuing a formal show-cause notice for default in appeal preparation?
- ABDUL BAQI KHAN vs THE CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD and 21984 MLD 202 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1280 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from service by the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA). The petitioner, a former Traffic Assistant, was dismissed for unauthorized absence from duty. The core legal question was whether the dismissal was illegal due to the alleged absence of a charge sheet and the failure of the authorities to consider medical leave applications. The petitioner contended that the inquiry was conducted ex parte and that his leave applications were improperly rejected. The Supreme Court, upon review, found that the petitioner had deliberately absented himself from duty after his sanctioned leave expired on 26-4-1977. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to provide necessary medical certificates to support his requests for leave extension, despite the issuance of a charge sheet and the conduct of a due inquiry prior to his dismissal. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' findings, affirming the dismissal and dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether an employee can challenge a dismissal order under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 when the dismissal is based on unauthorized absence?
- Does the failure to provide medical certificates for leave extension justify an employer's decision to dismiss an employee for absence from duty?
- Is a dismissal order valid if it follows the issuance of a charge sheet and the conduct of a due inquiry?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs MAHMOODUL HASAN and others1984 SCMR 1349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court addresses whether the rejection of an initial L.S. Form for the transfer of a shop under Settlement Scheme No. VIII operates as a perpetual bar to a subsequent application filed after the property was resumed by the settlement authorities. The appellant had originally applied for the transfer of a shop, which was rejected as unavailable due to a prior auction. Upon the property's subsequent resumption for non-payment, the appellant applied anew, received a transfer order, and deposited the balance price and taxes, but settlement authorities and the High Court dismissed his claims treating the earlier rejection as an insurmountable hurdle. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of an earlier form does not bar the transfer of a property once it becomes available following resumption, and that valuable rights accrued to the appellant upon complying with transfer orders and making valid deposits. The Court accordingly accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned decisions, and remanded the matter to the Notified Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Does the rejection of an earlier form for the transfer of property operate as a bar to a subsequent application filed after the property is resumed?
- Whether an applicant acquires a valuable right upon depositing the price of a property and settlement fees pursuant to a transfer order issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner?
- Did the Settlement Commissioner err in treating the prior rejection of an L.S. Form as a hurdle against a second form when the property subsequently became available for transfer?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs MAH MOODULHASS AN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition regarding the transfer of a shop in Mandi Bahauddin. The petitioner initially filed a transfer form in 1966, which was rejected because the property had been auctioned in 1960. Following the resumption of the property in 1969 due to non-payment, the petitioner applied again and claimed a transfer order was issued in his favour. However, the property was subsequently auctioned to the respondent. The Settlement Commissioner held the second transfer order illegal, reasoning that the finality of the rejection of the first form precluded the second application. The High Court upheld this decision, doubting the existence of the second transfer order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying the core legal question as whether the finality of a rejected transfer form legally bars a subsequent application for the same property after it has been resumed by the authorities. The Court found that this issue requires deeper consideration, thereby granting leave to appeal to determine if the Settlement Commissioner erred in law.
Questions settled- Does the final rejection of an initial transfer form legally bar a subsequent application for the same property after it has been resumed by the authorities?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner declare a transfer order illegal solely on the basis that an earlier application for the same property was rejected?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF THEPUNJAB AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 109 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1984 SCMR 1562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against an order of the High Court dismissing a constitutional petition which was barred by 309 days. The petitioner sought condonation of delay on the ground of prosecuting a review petition in good faith in the High Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the time spent in pursuing the review petition could be condoned. The Court held that since the grounds urged in the review could not have been properly maintained in such proceedings, the pursuit of the review was not bona fide but a negligent act, and consequently the delay could not be condoned. The petition was dismissed in limine. The key principle laid down is that time spent in pursuing another remedy cannot be condoned unless the pursuit of that remedy is shown to have been bona fide.
Questions settled- Can delay in filing a petition be condoned on the ground of pursuing a review petition when the grounds urged in the review were not maintainable?
- Whether time spent in prosecuting a remedy that is not pursued in good faith can be excluded for the purpose of limitation?
- Does the dismissal of a main constitutional petition as time-barred preclude the granting of leave to appeal against the refusal of a review order?
- ABDUL AZIZ TAYEB vs TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI1984 CLC 2393 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ MEMON vs Syed TANZEEM AHMAD AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 67 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ KHAN LODHI vs THE PAKISTAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY1984 PLC 465 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ KHAN BABAR vs SALAHUDDIN KHAN ALIZAI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts returning the plaint in an administration suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner properly invoked the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Lahore by including a specific property located in Lahore within the estate of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner artificially and falsely included the property in question in the estate solely to manufacture territorial jurisdiction at Lahore, as evidenced by admissions in previous pleadings by the petitioner and his wife. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition with costs, reaffirming that litigants who knowingly adopt false stances to manipulate territorial jurisdiction will not be countenanced.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can include a property in an administration suit solely to create territorial jurisdiction in a particular court?
- Can the courts return a plaint if it is established that territorial jurisdiction was artificially invoked?
- ABDUL AZIZ JANJUA vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and 2 others1984 CLC 2681 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ CHOHAN vs THE EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD THROUGH ITS1984 CLC 2367 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS vs Sheikh ABDUR RAHIM AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellants' Regular Second Appeal as time-barred in a pre-emption suit. The appellants had initially filed a civil revision petition within ninety days of the first appellate decree. Later, realizing that a second appeal was legally competent due to the jurisdictional value exceeding Rs. 2,000, they applied to convert the revision into a second appeal. The High Court permitted the conversion but computed limitation from the date the conversion application was filed, thereby dismissing the second appeal as barred by time. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that where an incompetent revision is filed within the period prescribed for an appeal and there is no deficiency in court-fee or other unfulfilled statutory condition, the converted second appeal relates back to the date the revision petition was originally instituted. The Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should yield to substantial justice, remanding the matter to the High Court for adjudication on the merits.
Questions settled- From what date is a second appeal deemed to be instituted when an incompetent revision petition is converted into a second appeal without any deficiency in court-fee?
- Does an incompetent revision petition filed within the limitation period for an appeal protect against the bar of limitation upon conversion to a regular second appeal?
- Can the High Court treat a revision petition as a second appeal where there is no requirement to make up a deficiency in court-fee or seek condonation of delay?
- ABDUL AZIZ and others vs NAEEM-UR-REHMAN and others1984 MLD 505 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD EBRAHIM AND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ and others vs MUHAMMAD BAK HSH and another1984 P Cr. L J 2168 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS vs Malik NAZ1R AHMAD1984 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an application filed by the respondent, Nazir Ahmad, seeking the recall of a compromise order passed by the Supreme Court on 18-5-1983. The respondent alleged that the compromise deed, which led to the disposal of the petition, was obtained through fraud and that his signatures thereon were forged. The core legal question was whether the compromise order was vitiated by fraud and forgery as claimed by the respondent. Upon examining the respondent's specimen signatures against various documents filed throughout the litigation, the Court observed that the respondent had engaged in a pattern of inconsistent signing, intentionally using different signatures to create grounds for later denying the validity of his own compromises. The Court held that the compromise order was valid and effective, dismissing the application. The judgment establishes the principle that litigants cannot abuse the judicial process by creating fraudulent discrepancies in their signatures to facilitate subsequent claims of forgery, and that courts may direct the prosecution of parties found engaging in such deceptive practices to discourage the abuse of the legal system.
Questions settled- Can a court recall a compromise order based on allegations of forgery if the evidence suggests the party intentionally created inconsistent signatures?
- Does a litigant's history of denying previous compromises based on alleged fraud affect the court's assessment of a subsequent claim of forgery?
- Can the Supreme Court direct the prosecution of a litigant for abuse of process and forgery discovered during proceedings?
- ABDUL AZIZ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 530 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ AND ANOTHER vs HASSAN MUHAMMAD1984 PLD Karachi 168 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ AND 18 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 101 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ alias CHAN GUL vs Mst. ADIBA SHAH SARWAR AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 5 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AM vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH AND OTHERS1984 CLC 300 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- ABCO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI vs Mrs. SALIMA1984 CLC 2483 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs MAQBOOL AHMAD AND OTHERS /Pb.1984 PLC 88 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
- ABBAS RAZA vs Syed ARID ARABI1984 CLC 2390 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- ABBAS KHAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 312 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the court arises from the dismissal by the Lahore High Court of the appellants' appeal against their conviction and sentences under sections 302/149, 364/34, 148, and 373/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder, abduction, and rioting. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses solely by voice or stature, amidst allegations of muffled faces and concessions made in cross-examination, rendered their identification unsafe without an identification parade. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that where witnesses were already familiar with the accused, named them promptly in the First Information Report, and gave consistent testimony, the absence of an identification parade and minor contradictions or concessions did not create a reasonable doubt. The court reaffirmed that motive, often being a matter of speculation known best to the accused, is not strictly required to be proved if direct eye-witness testimony is otherwise reliable and trustworthy.
Questions settled- Whether an identification parade is necessary when accused persons are already known to the prosecution witnesses?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive adversely affect otherwise reliable eye-witness testimony?
- Can concessions made by witnesses during a lengthy cross-examination years after the occurrence invalidate their prior identification?
- A.J. SHAH vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and 2 others1984 CLC 2592 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
- A. S. TASNEEM AND ANOTHER vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES)1984 SCMR 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a Constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which challenged the resumption of land allotted under a Tube-well (Sinking) Scheme. The appellants, allottees since 1953, had their land resumed by the Collector in 1970 on the grounds that the original allottee was a minor son of a government servant, a disqualification introduced in the 1959 Scheme. The core legal question was whether the 1959 Scheme conditions, specifically the disqualification, applied to allotments made in 1952-53. The Supreme Court held that while the original 1952 conditions were silent on this disqualification, a 1960 directive explicitly required allottees seeking proprietary rights to satisfy the 1959 conditions. The Court reasoned that interpreting the directive to exclude these conditions would create an unworkable legal vacuum. Consequently, the Court upheld the Board of Revenue's decision that the allotment was void due to the disqualification. The principle established is that administrative directives conditioning the grant of proprietary rights upon compliance with subsequent regulatory schemes are enforceable, and must be interpreted to ensure a coherent, functional legal framework.
Questions settled- Does a 1960 directive requiring compliance with 1959 conditions for the grant of proprietary rights apply to land allotted under a 1952 scheme?
- Can an administrative directive be interpreted to incorporate conditions from a subsequent scheme to avoid a legal vacuum in the administration of land allotments?
- Is the allotment of land to a minor son of a government servant void under the conditions of the 1959 Tube-well Sinking Scheme?
- A. R. SALEEM vs CHIEF SECRETARY, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1984 PLC (C. S.) 115 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-08-17Read full judgment →
- A. Q. K. AFGHAN vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1984 SCMR 1159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a civil servant's appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding his removal from service. The appellant, a former government official, was removed under Section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal was legally obligated to summon the appellant's service record before dismissing the appeal in limine, and whether the removal order was valid under the cited statutory provision. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal is not required to summon service records in every case, particularly where no disputed questions of fact are raised or where the appellant fails to specify facts necessitating such review. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellant's contentions regarding the inapplicability of Section 12-A, noting the appellant's own admission of continuous service within the relevant statutory period. The Court affirmed that allegations of mala fides must be specifically pleaded and proved, and that new legal pleas not raised before the Tribunal cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal.
Questions settled- Is the Federal Service Tribunal required to summon a civil servant's service record in every appeal before dismissing it in limine?
- Can a party raise a new legal plea before the Supreme Court that was not raised before the Service Tribunal?
- Must allegations of mala fides be specifically pleaded and proved to warrant judicial intervention?
- Does the failure to explicitly state 'public interest' in a removal order under Section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, automatically invalidate the order?
- A. J. HARTSHORN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (WEST), KARACHI1984 PTD 53 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- A. ASLAM SHAIQ vs HASAN ASKARI AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-04Read full judgment →
- A RBAB ABDUL QADIR vs Mst. BIBI FATIMA AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 546 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Senior Civil Judge Quetta restraining the appellant from raising construction over a disputed plot during the pendency of a partition suit. During the suit, the parties referred the dispute to arbitration, and the trial court issued a temporary injunction under section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act. The core legal questions involved whether a civil court retains jurisdiction to issue injunctions after a reference to arbitration and whether an appeal is competent against such an order under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Balochistan High Court held that once a matter is referred to arbitration, the court becomes functus officio regarding the main suit under section 23(2) of the Arbitration Act, but retains limited power under section 41(b) and the Second Schedule to pass interim orders for the preservation or protection of the property. The Court further held that no appeal lies against such an interim order since it is not specified under section 39 of the Arbitration Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a civil court become functus officio upon the reference of a dispute to arbitration in a pending suit?
- Can a civil court issue a temporary injunction or interim order after a matter has been referred to arbitration?
- Is an appeal competent under section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an interim order passed under section 41 of the Arbitration Act?
- What orders are appealable under section 39 of the Arbitration Act?
- A MIR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1182 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
- A FZ AL MIR Z A vs AHMAD SAEED KHAN and others1984 SCMR 1383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question presented is whether the respondent, Ahmad Saeed Khan, is entitled to the benefit of ejectment orders previously passed against occupants of the disputed property, thereby enabling him to claim the transfer of said property. Specifically, the Court seeks to examine this issue in light of the extended definition of 'possession' as contemplated under the relevant Act and the various notifications issued thereunder. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve this controversy. Pending the final adjudication of the appeals, the Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo and directed that the appeals be prepared on the existing record, with liberty for the parties to file additional documents. A departmental representative was ordered to produce the relevant case records at the subsequent hearing.
Questions settled- Can a party claim the benefit of ejectment orders passed against occupants of a property to secure its transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- How does the extended definition of 'possession' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, affect the eligibility for property transfer?
- A BDULLAH vs GHULAM ABBAS1984 MLD 844 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- A BD UR R A SHID vs Mirza KAFAIT BAIG1984 SCMR 1461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits. The petitioner claimed ownership of a property based on a transfer order (P.T.O.) issued to his predecessor-in-interest, Khadim Hussain, and a subsequent sale deed. The respondent contested this claim, asserting ownership through a different transferee. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, found the petitioner's P.T.O. to be a forged document, citing unexplained discrepancies in the issuance dates, inconsistencies between the property records and the transfer documents, and the failure to produce the original transferee as a witness. The suit was dismissed, and subsequent appeals were rejected. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal in limine. The Court held that the dismissal was justified as no valid grounds under the relevant procedural law were established. Furthermore, the Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, emphasizing that the case's outcome rested on factual determinations regarding the authenticity of the transfer documents.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts?
- Is a High Court justified in dismissing a second appeal in limine if no valid grounds under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are established?
- Does the failure to produce a key witness to prove the genuineness of a disputed transfer document justify the dismissal of a suit for possession?
- ZULFIQUAR AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQUAR ALI vs THESTATE1983 P Cr. L J 422 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR HAIDER AND 127 Other vs RAILWAY BOARD THROUGH I 17S1983 PLC 887 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-23Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD MOAZAM1983 CLC 2285 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- ZOHRAN MAI vs Mst. SIFTAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2559 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a dispute over the inheritance of the estate of Said Ali, who died without issue. The core legal question was whether the deceased was a Shia or a Sunni, as this determination dictated the inheritance rights of his sister versus his collaterals. The trial court initially found the deceased to be a Shia, but the Additional District Judge reversed this finding. Upon review, the High Court upheld the appellate decision, holding that the deceased was a Sunni. The court affirmed the established legal principle that there is an initial presumption that a Muslim is a Sunni unless proven otherwise. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the deceased’s status as a 'Pir'—an institution generally recognized as foreign to the Shia sect—coupled with his long-term residence among a Sunni-majority population and his religious activities, provided sufficient evidence to support the presumption of his Sunni faith. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the evidence sufficiently established the deceased's Sunni identity for the purposes of succession.
Questions settled- Is there an initial legal presumption that a deceased Muslim belongs to the Sunni sect in inheritance disputes?
- Does the status of a deceased person as a 'Pir' serve as evidence to rebut the presumption of being a Shia?
- Can the religious sect of a deceased person be inferred from their social environment and religious practices?
- ZOHRA BIBI AND 6 OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 768 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- ZOAB AND 5 Others vs AKBAR ALI1983 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal arising from a dispute over the right of an evicted tenant to be reinstated in a reconstructed building under section 13(5-B) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether a tenant, upon reconstruction of the building after eviction for reconstruction, is entitled to be put in possession of the exact same spot where the old shop was situated. The Supreme Court held that while a landlord is generally free to determine the nature and type of reconstruction and is not bound to keep the tenant's exact needs in mind, the landlord must respect the rights conferred on the tenant under section 13(5-B) and cannot arbitrarily maneuver construction to deprive the tenant of a reasonable reinstatement on the original site without compelling circumstances. The appeal filed by the landlords was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment in favour of the tenant.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant evicted for reconstruction is entitled under section 13(5-B) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 to be put in possession on the exact same spot where the old shop was situated?
- Does the landlord have unrestricted discretion to offer any premises in the newly-constructed building to the evicted tenant regardless of the original location?
- Can a landlord change the nature and character of a building upon reconstruction under section 13(2)(vi) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- ZIAUL HAQ AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
- ZIA UL HASSAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 918 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
- ZEHRA BEGUM vs PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LTD.1983 CLC 1592 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arose from an order of the Rent Controller dismissing an application for ejectment filed under section 15(2)(vii) of the Ordinance. The landlady sought to evict the respondent-company from a leased open plot used as a petrol service station, claiming personal bona fide use for herself and her family. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application as premature due to the subsisting lease agreement and an arbitration clause. The High Court held that while the application was not premature merely due to the lease period as ground (vii) is an independent ground, the appellant failed to establish bona fide personal requirement, particularly as the landlady and her daughter were residing abroad indefinitely for medical treatment and the husband was accommodated at the Sind Club. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that proof of good faith is mandatory for eviction under personal requirement grounds.
Questions settled- Whether an ejectment application filed under section 15(2)(vii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is premature during the subsistence of a fixed-term registered lease deed?
- Does an arbitration clause in a lease agreement oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to adjudicate an ejectment dispute under the rent laws?
- Can an appellate court maintain an order of dismissal on a ground other than that which found favour with the Rent Controller?
- Whether the absence of the landlord and her daughter from the country for medical treatment impacts the establishment of bona fide personal requirement for eviction?
- ZEBUNNESSA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (NORTH ZONE), DACCA1983 PTD 201 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1982-07-08Read full judgment →