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.

• UMAR DIN vs M. HUSSAIN AND Another1983 SCMR 1299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-02
  pre-emptionabatement of appeallegal representativesnecessary partyLaw Reforms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the order of the Lahore High Court consigning the appellant's Regular Second Appeal to the record as having abated due to the failure to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased vendor, Mst. Sharfan. The core legal question is whether the death of the vendor in a pre-emption appeal results in its abatement under the governing procedural law and whether the vendor is a necessary party to such proceedings. The Supreme Court held that in view of the amendment introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) prior to the expiry of the limitation period, the appeal could not abate, and further that a vendor is not a necessary party in a pre-emption suit or appeal. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the High Court for disposal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the death of a vendor in a pre-emption appeal results in its abatement?
  • Is a vendor a necessary party in a pre-emption suit or appeal whose absence proves fatal?
  • Does an amendment to the law of limitation and procedure operating before the expiry of the limitation period save an appeal from abatement?
  Read full judgment →
• UMAR DIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAN WALA AND Other1983 SCMR 473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-07
  evictionpersonal needmisreading of evidencerent controlgood faith requirementappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an appellate order reversing an eviction decree. The petitioner sought the eviction of respondents from disputed premises based on personal need. The Rent Controller initially ordered eviction, but the Additional District Judge reversed this, finding the petitioner had previously failed in an earlier eviction attempt for the same premises. The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that the lower courts misread the evidence and that this misreading was material to the outcome. The Supreme Court examined the record and the High Court's reasoning. It held that even if the alleged misreading of evidence by the Additional District Judge were disregarded, the remaining evidence on record sufficiently established that the petitioner did not require the premises in good faith. Consequently, the Court found the petition lacked substance and dismissed it, affirming that appellate findings on factual matters, when supported by independent evidence, do not warrant interference under the Court's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a misreading of evidence by an appellate court warrant interference if the remaining evidence supports the conclusion?
  • Can a landlord seek eviction based on personal need after failing in a previous eviction attempt for the same premises?
  • Is the requirement of good faith in personal need eviction cases a question of fact that precludes Supreme Court interference?
  Read full judgment →
• UBAIDULLAH vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 117 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• UBAIDULLAH KHAN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1296 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
• TUREJ AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 465 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-06Read full judgment →
• TUFAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN (REPRESENTED BY MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN) AND Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHER1983 SCMR 1031 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-11
  settlement propertytransfer of propertyactual possessionwrit petitionleave to appealLahore High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the orders of settlement authorities regarding the transfer of property No. S.86-R-74, Ferozepur Road, Lahore. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the petitioners to a larger share of the property, specifically including a lawn and open land exceeding the physical possession held by their predecessor-in-interest. The Supreme Court held that occupants are entitled to the specific independent portions proven to be in their actual possession and consented to during settlement proceedings, and cannot claim additional areas never possessed or claimed before the original forum. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot successfully claim property in writ or appellate proceedings that was neither in their possession nor claimed during the foundational settlement proceedings, especially when they consented to the transfer of their actual possession. The key principle laid down is that transfer of settlement properties is strictly tethered to actual physical possession and the specific boundaries accepted by the parties before the primary tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an occupant in settlement proceedings can claim additional land that was never in their actual possession?
  • Is a party bound by their lack of objection to the transfer of specific portions in their actual possession before the settlement authority?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a writ petition seeking property outside the actual possession of the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• TUFAIL AHMAD vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 206 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
• TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI vs ABDUL GHANI1983 SCMR 769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-25
  Karachi Port TrustIndustrial Relations Ordinancedismissal from servicemisconductspecial enactment versus general lawLabour Court jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind dismissing a constitutional petition. Leave was granted to examine whether the provisions of section 23 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, prevail over section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, thereby barring a Karachi Port Trust employee from invoking the general law for relief against dismissal. The respondent, a permanent employee of the Karachi Port Trust, was dismissed after an inquiry where he was found guilty of misconduct based on an uncharged incident. He challenged his dismissal before a Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which ruled in his favor and ordered reinstatement. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition filed by the employer. The Supreme Court observed that the specific legal questions regarding the interplay and bar between the special enactment and the general labour laws were either not properly raised or preserved in the lower forums, and noted subsequent developments including the respondent's reinstatement and fresh proceedings. Consequently, the appeal did not require a definitive ruling on the academic questions of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 23 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886 prevail over section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can an employee invoke section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for seeking relief against dismissal when a special enactment provides a remedy?
  • Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 from an employee governed by specific statutory service rules?
  • Whether a delinquent employee can be found guilty of a charge or incident not mentioned in the statement of allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• TRANSWORLD OIL LTD. vs PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD.1983 CLC 2182 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
• TOYO MENKA KAISHA LTD. vs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1983 CLC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
• TOWN COMMITTEE, JANDANWALA vs AHMAD1983 PLC 263 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
• TIRATHMAL vs Master WALIULLAH (REPRESENTED BY HIS HAIRS) AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1958 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
• THE TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI vs GHULAM ABBAS1983 CLC 2006 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Rana MUHAMMAD AKRAM.1983 P Cr. L J 188 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs QALANDAR BUX AND 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 372 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-14Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD JAMIL HALEPOTA1983 P Cr. L J 122 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs G. M. MUFTI AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 170 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs DR. M. MUNIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 2410 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ASHRAF AND OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J2566 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ANAYATULLAH AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 244 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ALLAH WARAYO AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. LJ 2050 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-03Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE GENERAL, N.W. F. P. vs AHAD SHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-16
  explosive substancesburden of proofconscious possessionunlawful purposecriminal appealacquittalproclaimed offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the State challenged the acquittal of the respondent, Ahad Sher, by the Peshawar High Court regarding a charge under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The respondent was found in possession of a hand-grenade while being a proclaimed offender. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of Section 5, specifically whether the prosecution must prove the absence of a lawful purpose or if the burden shifts to the accused once reasonable suspicion is established. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must establish two ingredients: conscious possession of the explosive substance and circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the possession was for an unlawful purpose. Once the prosecution establishes these facts, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to demonstrate a lawful purpose. The Court found that the respondent's status as a proclaimed offender and the nature of the weapon—a military-grade hand-grenade—sufficiently raised a reasonable suspicion of unlawful purpose, which the respondent failed to rebut. Consequently, the acquittal was set aside and the conviction restored.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to prove a lawful purpose under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 once the prosecution establishes reasonable suspicion?
  • What factors are relevant in determining whether the possession of an explosive substance gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of an unlawful purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• THE SEVEN-UP COMPANY vs ABDUL AZIZ AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 522 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
• THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs SAIF ALI1983 PLC 808 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Another vs NOOR1983 SCMR 1104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-14
  civil servantcompulsory retirementpublic interestqualifying servicepension rulesservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which set aside the retirement of the respondent from government service. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, specifically whether the requirement of completing 25 years of service for retirement in the public interest entails continuous service in one department or aggregate service under the government, and how periods of deputation and service counting towards pension are to be computed under the Pension Rules, 1963. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the findings of the Service Tribunal regarding the calculation of qualifying service and the interpretation of the statutory provision, while suspending the operation of the impugned order pending final disposal. The key principle noted is that statutory provisions regarding retirement after 25 years of service require close examination of qualifying service periods, including deputation and inter-departmental service under the relevant pension and civil service laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 require continuous service in one department for the completion of 25 years of service?
  • How is the period of service spent on deputation with the Central Government to be counted for retirement purposes under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Can a civil servant be retired in the public interest after completing 25 years of service when part of their tenure includes service under the Central Government?
  Read full judgment →
• THE PUNJAB VEGETABLE GHEE & GENERAL MILLS LTD. vs Ch. MUHAMMAD1983 PLC 546 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• THE PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOC IAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS vs S. MUHAMMAD1983 PLC 489 · West Pakistan · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
• THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER vs KAMALUDDIN AND 301983 PLD Supreme Court 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-08
  service tribunal jurisdictionpolicy decisionnew plea on appealpay scale anomalycivil servantterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had directed the upgrading of the pay scale of Readers to the Judges of the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the Government's decision regarding pay scales constituted a non-justiciable policy decision beyond the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and whether the appellant could raise this jurisdictional objection for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, having failed to raise the jurisdictional objection regarding the nature of the policy decision before the Service Tribunal despite having the opportunity to file written objections, could not agitate this point for the first time in appeal. Furthermore, the Court found the Tribunal's decision to be just and equitable, noting the anomaly of placing High Court Readers in a lower pay scale than their counterparts in the Board of Revenue. The principle laid down is that a party cannot raise a new legal plea before the Supreme Court that was not urged before the subordinate forum, particularly when that forum provided full opportunity to file written pleadings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a jurisdictional objection for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the authority to interfere with a government decision regarding pay scales?
  • Are the appellant and respondent placed on equal footing regarding the submission of pleas before the Punjab Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 Others vs Malik MUHAMMAD AFZAL1983 SCMR 564 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-18
  nationalization of schoolsmartial law regulation 118landlord and tenantejectment petitionpersonal useleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which upheld the eviction of the Provincial Government from a privately managed school building taken over under Martial Law Regulation No. 118. The core legal question examined was whether a building owned by a private party and rented for a nationalized school could be treated as property attached to the school vesting in the Provincial Government under Paragraph 5 of Martial Law Regulation 118, and whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction when the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, affirming the lower courts' concurrent findings. The Court emphasized that since the relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied and personal bona fide need was established, the ejectment order was lawfully passed, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a privately owned building rented for a nationalized school vests in the Provincial Government under Martial Law Regulation No. 118?
  • Can a tenant challenge ejectment proceedings on ownership grounds after admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant before the Rent Controller?
  • Does a leave granting order by the Supreme Court constitute a binding precedent or dicta?
  Read full judgment →
• THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AHD Others vs Mian NOOR UZ ZAMAN QURESHI1983 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-11
  service tribunalpremature retirementwithdrawal of retirementcivil serviceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which allowed the respondent's appeal and declared the notification regarding his premature retirement void ab initio. The respondent, a Jail Superintendent, had requested premature retirement with pension benefits, which was approved by the Governor by relaxing the rules. However, before the notification was published, the respondent attempted to retract his request for retirement, which the government refused to accept. The core legal question concerns the effect of a retraction of a retirement request after its acceptance by the competent authority but before its publication. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the point regarding whether a subsequent withdrawal of a retirement request is of consequence after its acceptance requires detailed consideration, and directed that the order of the Tribunal shall remain suspended.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant withdraw a request for premature retirement after it has been accepted by the competent authority?
  • Does the Governor have the jurisdiction to relax rules for premature retirement?
  • Whether the publication of a retirement notification is necessary for the finality of the acceptance of retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• THE POINEER STEEL MILLS vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ,1983 PLC 548 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
• THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND OTHFRS vs MUHAMMAD FARID1983 SCMR 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-21
  service tribunalquantum of punishmentpolice disciplinedismissal from serviceleave to appealcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, departmental superiors, sought leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which had substituted the respondent Head Constable's punishment of dismissal from service with censure and stoppage of three annual increments for misconduct involving insubordination and use of abusive language. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal has the authority to interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded to a civil servant in disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal possesses wide powers under section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act to confirm, set aside, vary, or modify the impugned departmental order. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal is legally competent to interfere with punishments imposed by departmental authorities in appropriate cases, and the exercise of such power does not raise a question of law of public importance warranting interference under Article 212 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the power to interfere with the punishment imposed by departmental authorities in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Does the exercise of power by the Service Tribunal to modify a departmental punishment raise a question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, LAW & PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 273 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
• THE EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD AND Another vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ1983 SCMR 1275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-23
  master and servantservice lawdeclaratory decreestatutory ruleswrongful dismissalEvacuee Trust Property Boarddisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding a decree that declared the respondent's removal from service as an Inspector with the Evacuee Trust Property Board illegal. The core legal question was whether the respondent, whose employment was terminated without a show-cause notice or adherence to disciplinary procedures, could seek a declaratory decree, or if the relationship was strictly governed by the 'master and servant' doctrine, limiting the remedy to damages. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was illegal because the Board had adopted statutory Efficiency and Discipline Rules, which regulated the service conditions of its employees. Consequently, the 'master and servant' doctrine was inapplicable to the extent that statutory rules governed the employment. The Court affirmed that where service conditions are controlled by statutory rules, the employer's pleasure is surrendered, and any dismissal in violation of such rules is actionable through a declaratory suit. The petition was dismissed as the lower courts correctly applied the law regarding the binding nature of statutory service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee of a statutory body seek a declaratory decree for wrongful dismissal if the service conditions are governed by statutory rules?
  • Does the 'master and servant' doctrine apply to employees whose service conditions are regulated by statutory rules?
  • Is a dismissal of an employee illegal if it violates the Efficiency and Discipline Rules adopted by the Evacuee Trust Property Board?
  Read full judgment →
• THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs SARDAR1983 PLD Lahore 291 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
• THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERL OF POLICE, PUNJAB LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD1983SCMR 665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-05
  service tribunalleave to appealefficiency and discipline rulesillegal gratificationdepartmental inquirycorruption charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the departmental dismissal of the respondent traffic constable for corruption. The core legal question was whether a regular inquiry through an Inquiry Officer under rule 6(4) of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules is mandatory in every case involving a charge of corruption, precluding the summary procedure under rule 6(3). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the Tribunal's decision raises a question of public importance as it would render rule 6(3) redundant in all corruption cases. Consequently, the Court suspended the impugned order of the Service Tribunal and directed an early hearing. The key principle laid down is that summary inquiry procedures under disciplinary rules should not be automatically barred in corruption cases solely on the nature of the charge without considering the scope of applicable statutory rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a regular inquiry is mandatory under rule 6(4) of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules whenever a charge of corruption is made?
  • Can the summary procedure prescribed in rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules be adopted in cases involving allegations of corruption?
  • Does an interpretation rendering a disciplinary rule redundant raise a question of law of public importance warranting leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE RANGE vs ANTS UR1983 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-31
  departmental proceedingscriminal acquittalservice lawmisconductdisciplinary actionPunjab Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lahore Range, challenging the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The respondents, an Inspector and an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, were dismissed from service for grave misconduct. The Tribunal accepted their appeals, reasoning that because the respondents had been acquitted of the same charges by a Criminal Court, the departmental authorities lacked a basis for dismissal and should have awaited the criminal verdict before initiating disciplinary action. The petitioner contends that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar departmental proceedings and that the Tribunal's view incorrectly restricts departmental action solely to cases where a government servant is convicted by a Criminal Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the case raises a substantial question of law of public importance regarding the relationship between criminal acquittal and departmental disciplinary proceedings. The Court ordered the appeals to be prepared for hearing, while maintaining the interim stay order previously in place.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal by a Criminal Court automatically bar departmental proceedings against a government servant on the same charges?
  • Are departmental authorities legally required to await the outcome of criminal proceedings before initiating disciplinary action for misconduct?
  • Is departmental action against a government servant restricted only to instances where the servant has been convicted by a Criminal Court?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, KARACHI (EAST), KARACHI vs MESSRS1983 PTD 271 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-18
  Sales Taxescaped assessmentnotice for returnmandatory periodCentral Board of Revenue instructionsForm S.S.T. 15assessment proceedingsvoid notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves direct references filed by the department under section 17(i) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, challenging the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal questions concern whether a notice issued under subsection (2) of section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, was void ab initio for failing to allow a mandatory 35-day period for filing returns, and whether Form S.S.T. 15 prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue allowing 35 days is binding on Sales Tax Officers. The Sindh High Court held that instructions and forms prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue are binding on departmental officers under section 5(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, and that curtailing the statutory/prescribed notice period of 35 days down to an unreasonably short period of 3 days severely prejudices the assessee and renders the notice and subsequent assessment invalid. The court established that in the absence of an explicit period in the Act or rules for filing returns under section 28, the prescribed form providing 35 days or a reasonable period akin to quarterly returns must be allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the notice issued under subsection (2) of section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, without allowing the prescribed time for filing returns was void ab initio?
  • Is there a minimum mandatory period for filing returns required under subsection (2) of section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, which the Sales Tax Officer must allow?
  • Are forms and instructions prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue binding on Sales Tax Officers under section 5(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
  • Does curtailing the 35-day notice period prescribed in Form S.S.T. 15 down to 3 days render the assessment proceedings invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI vs MESSRS HUSSAIN1983 PTD 289 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EAST), KARACHI vs MESSRS YOUNUS1983 PTD 389 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
• The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL) vs Messrs BEACH LUXURY1983 PTD 178 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
• The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI vs Messrs1983 PTD 226 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-02Read full judgment →
• THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND 2 Others vs Mst.1983 SCMR 1158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-07
  evacuee propertysurrendered landoption to repurchaseinstallment paymentsMartial Law Regulationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two civil appeals arising from a common question of law regarding the recovery of purchase price for excess land surrendered by evacuee displaced persons under Martial Law Regulation 89 and Martial Law Regulation 91. The respondents, who had secured land allotments in District Tharparkar, were required to surrender excess portions but were given the option to repurchase them under various successive administrative schemes and amendments concerning installment payments. The core legal question was whether a purchaser, in seeking exemption from a subsequent restrictive amendment (correction slip of 1965), could selectively claim the benefit of an intervening beneficial concession (memorandum of 1963) promulgated after they had already exercised their option to repurchase. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by claiming the benefit of a subsequent beneficial amendment while rejecting its associated obligations or later modifications; they must be governed by the Scheme as it stood when they exercised their option. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the High Court judgments set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a purchaser of surrendered evacuee land can claim the benefit of an intervening concession introduced after the exercise of the option to repurchase while rejecting subsequent restrictive amendments?
  • Are purchasers of excess land governed by the scheme as it stood at the time of exercising their option to repurchase?
  Read full judgment →
• THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD. vs MESSRS H. S. MAHMOOD HASSAN AKBAR AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 431 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-13
  banker-customer relationshippartnership dissolutionbankers books evidencepreliminary decree for accountslimitation periodpromissory noteburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for the recovery of money filed by a bank against a firm and its partners, based on cash credit facilities and promissory notes. The core legal questions were whether the suit was time-barred, whether the partnership was dissolved, whether the defendants were liable despite the alleged dissolution, and whether the bank's statement of account was accurate. The court held that the suit was not time-barred, as the promissory notes were validly executed. While the partnership had been dissolved, the partners remained liable for the debt incurred during the partnership, as the bank had received actual notice of dissolution, and the debt was a pre-existing obligation. Crucially, the court found the bank's statement of account unreliable due to unexplained discrepancies and irregularities in entries. The key principle laid down is that while a certified copy of a bank's statement of account serves as prima facie evidence under the Bankers Books Evidence Act, it is not conclusive; once challenged with specific instances of error, the bank bears the burden of proving the accuracy of its accounts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a certified copy of a bank's statement of account serve as conclusive proof of debt, or is it merely prima facie evidence rebuttable by the customer?
  • Is a suit against a firm bad for non-joinder if all individual partners are not impleaded as defendants?
  • Does the execution of a promissory note by a partner after the dissolution of a firm bind the other partners for a pre-existing debt?
  • Can a court compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures under the Evidence Act to determine authenticity?
  Read full judgment →
• THE ACCOUNTANTGENERAL, PUNJAB AND ANOTHERs vs Ch. QADIR BAKHSH1983 PLD Lahore 246 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18
  limitationcondonation of delaypensionwrit petitionjurisdiction of service tribunalterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses an intra-court appeal filed by the Accountant-General, Punjab and the Provincial Government against a single judge's decision in a writ petition, which directed the implementation of a government memo regarding pension benefits for a pensioner. The core legal questions involved whether the intra-court appeal was barred by time due to delays in filing and refiling without sufficient explanation, whether a constitutional writ petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution read with the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and whether an executive memo's clear terms could be altered by departmental interpretation. The court held that the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation as government departments cannot claim special indulgence for inefficiency, that the writ petition was fully competent because the dispute was between a pensioner and the Accountant-General rather than a civil servant and his departmental employer regarding service terms, and that government decisions cannot be varied by departmental interpretation. The court dismissed the appeal both on the ground of limitation and on merits, affirming the pensioner's right to the revised benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an intra-court appeal filed beyond the period of limitation without a prompt application for condonation of delay and with unexplained further delays is liable to be dismissed?
  • Does a constitutional petition by a pensioner against the Accountant-General for non-payment of pension fall within the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Can an explicit decision or memo issued by the Provincial Government be varied or modified by the subsequent interpretation of an officer in the Finance Department?
  Read full judgment →
• THANGAI Alias RIFLE Alias ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1227 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-15Read full judgment →
• THACKERS H. P. & COMPANY vs COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX1983 PTD 58 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1981-07-27Read full judgment →
• TEXTILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTQ. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1983 PLC 324 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
• TEXTILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1983 PLC 721 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-05
  domestic enquirywrongful dismissalback benefitsLabour Court jurisdictionIndustrial Relations Ordinancereinstatementnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which set aside a Labour Court decision and ordered the reinstatement of a worker with back benefits. The core legal questions were whether a Labour Court possesses the jurisdiction to review the findings of a domestic enquiry and whether a worker is entitled to back benefits for wrongful dismissal following the repeal of certain statutory provisions. The Court held that under Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, a Labour Court is empowered to examine all facts of a case to determine if a dismissal is justified, effectively acting as a judicial check on domestic enquiries. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the repeal of specific provisions regarding junior Labour Courts does not deprive a wrongfully dismissed worker of the right to claim wages for the period they were kept out of employment. The principle established is that Labour Courts have full authority to adjudicate the merits of a dismissal, ensuring that domestic enquiries are not arbitrary, capricious, or biased.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Labour Court have the jurisdiction to go behind the findings of a domestic enquiry to determine the merits of a dismissal?
  • Does the repeal of Section 36-B(iv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 deprive a wrongfully dismissed worker of the right to claim back benefits?
  • Is an employee entitled to full wages for the period they were kept out of work due to a wrongful dismissal order?
  Read full judgment →
• TEHSIN KHAN AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 570 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
• TAUSIF AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD AZEEM BEG CHUGHTAI AND Another1983 P Cr. L J 1462 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• TASNEEM SANA vs AND TAXATION OFFICER, RAWALPINDI AND 3 2 others1983 PLD Lahore 339 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-01Read full judgment →
• TASADDAQ HUSSAIN vs HAMIDUDDIN HAIDER AND 2 others1983 CLC 197 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MASIH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 325 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MAJEED vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JACOBABAD AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Karachi 202 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
• TARIQ HUSSAIN FAROOQUI AND 2 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1983 PLD Azad I & K 38 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-06-22Read full judgment →
• TARIQ Alias TAHIRA vs Haji ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1088 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
• TANVEER ZAMAN vs UNITED BANK LTD. -1983 PLC 1164 · Labour Court · 1983-08-22Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN vs PEHLWAN KHAN AND Other1983 SCMR 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-05
  criminal revisionwithdrawal of complaintacquittaljurisdictionframing of chargelocus standirevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by an eyewitness against an order of acquittal. The core legal questions concerned the jurisdiction of a Sessions Court to allow the withdrawal of a criminal complaint after cognizance had been taken, and whether an eyewitness, not being the original complainant, was barred from filing a revision petition under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner argued that the trial court acted without jurisdiction by acquitting the accused without framing charges as required by law, and that the High Court failed to exercise its revisional powers to correct this illegality. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the procedural irregularities regarding the withdrawal of the complaint and the failure to frame charges, declined to interfere. The Court held that ordering the proceedings to start afresh would be futile because the available evidence was insufficient to substantiate any charge against the respondents. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction to revive proceedings where the underlying evidence is lacking.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Court of Session have the jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of a criminal complaint after cognizance has been taken?
  • Is an eyewitness who is not the original complainant barred from filing a revision petition under Section 439(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court exercise its revisional jurisdiction to recall an illegal order passed by a subordinate court?
  Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1156 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• TALEH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 910 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
• TALAMAND SAYEED vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 2302 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-28
  ejectmentminor landlordpersonal usereconstructionrent restrictionlandlord and tenantmutually destructive pleas
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three writ petitions challenging an ejectment order passed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioners, tenants of shops owned by a minor, contested the ejectment on the grounds that a minor cannot require premises for personal use and that the dual pleas of personal use and reconstruction are mutually destructive. The core legal questions were whether a minor landlord can seek eviction for personal use when the business is to be run by their father, and whether the grounds of personal use and reconstruction are legally incompatible. The Court held that the landlord's minority does not preclude an ejectment application for personal use, as the business conducted by the father serves the minor's benefit. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the pleas of personal use and reconstruction are not mutually destructive. The key principle laid down is that the term 'own use' in rent legislation encompasses the beneficial enjoyment of the property for the landlord's family, and such pleas may be pleaded concurrently without being self-destructive.

  Questions settled

  • Can a minor landlord seek the eviction of a tenant for personal use of a non-residential building?
  • Does the requirement of 'own use' by a landlord under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 include business conducted by the landlord's father for the minor's benefit?
  • Are the grounds of personal use and reconstruction mutually destructive in an application for ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD vs KARACHI PIPE MILLS LTD.1983 PLC 977 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN vs QAIMA AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 1876 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MESSRS KHOKHAR ENGINEERING Co.1983 PLC 223 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1794 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-16Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD AND 8 OTHERS vs COLLECTOR No, V, LAND ACQUISITION AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1723 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
• TAJ DIN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1983 SCMR 1051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
• TAJ DIN vs BASHIR AHMAD AND Other1983 SCMR 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-08
  transfer of propertysettlement authoritiesindivisible unitconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionsenior allotteefindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a dispute over the transfer of a composite property comprising a ground-floor shop and a first-floor residential accommodation in Lahore under settlement laws. The petitioner and respondent, both non-claimant allottees, sought transfer of the property. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire property as a single indivisible unit to the respondent as the senior allottee, which decision underwent various rounds of appeals, remands, and constitutional petitions before the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the settlement authorities correctly treated the property as an indivisible unit and whether findings of fact regarding divisibility and seniority of allottees could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the finding of the settlement authorities regarding the indivisibility of the property was a finding of fact reached upon a conscious application of mind, and was thus not amenable to reversal or review by superior courts under writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, concurrent findings regarding the respondent's seniority as an allottee were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the finding of settlement authorities regarding the divisibility of a property is open to review in writ jurisdiction?
  • Can superior courts interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by settlement authorities upon a conscious application of mind?
  • Whether a residential accommodation on top of a shop in a commercial locality must necessarily be disposed of separately under settlement laws?
  Read full judgment →
• TAJ COMPANY LTD. vs TAJ COMPANY WORKERS UNION1983 PLC 352 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-01Read full judgment →
• TAJ ALI KHAN vs k. D. A. AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2654 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
• TAIMUR AHMAD KHAN vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1983 PLC 366 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
• TAHIR MAHMOOD MOHSIN vs ABDUL JABBAR MIR AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 197 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• TAHIR ALI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AND 7 OTHERS1983 CLC 2998 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed ZIAUL HASAN TIRMIZI vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.I.A. CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 308 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
• Syed ZIA UL HASSAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 424 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAKIR HUSSAIN vs SWISSAIR TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD.1983 PLC 62 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAHEERUL HASNAIN ZAIDI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,1983 PLC (C. S.) 203 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAFAR ALI SHAH vs FAZAL SHAH AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1816 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
• Syed YOUSAF MAHMUD AND OTHERS vs ABDUL HADI KHAN THROUGH DR. M. A.1983 CLC 3319 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-11Read full judgment →
• Syed WAZIR ALI SHAH vs GHULAM RABBANI AND Other1983 SCMR 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-12
  ejectmentrent restrictiondefault in rent paymentstriking off defenceimplied condonationabatement of proceedingslegal representatives
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld an order of ejectment against a tenant for failure to comply with a rent deposit order. The core legal questions were whether the landlord had impliedly condoned the tenant's default by delaying the ejectment application for over two years, and whether the proceedings had abated due to the failure to bring legal representatives of deceased co-landlords on record. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the tenant failed to prove compliance with the rent deposit order despite being granted an opportunity to produce receipts. The Court found no merit in the argument of implied condonation, as the tenant had falsely claimed compliance before the Rent Controller. Furthermore, the Court rejected the abatement plea, noting it was not raised in lower forums and that the existing applicants were already legal representatives of the deceased. The judgment affirms that a tenant's failure to deposit rent as directed under the relevant rent restriction law justifies striking off the defence and ordering ejectment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay by a landlord in filing an ejectment application after a tenant's default constitute implied condonation of that default?
  • Can a plea of abatement due to the death of a party be raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Is a tenant's defence liable to be struck off for failure to comply with a court order to deposit rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed WAHAJUL HASNAIN RIZVI vs DR. ZAHID HUSSAIN1983SCMR774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-13
  tenancy agreementefflux of timesecurity depositrent defaultevictionconflicting precedentslandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a landlord's petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had allowed a tenant's appeal against an eviction order. The central dispute involved whether the non-payment of rent for three months could be adjusted against a security deposit held by the landlord under a tenancy agreement that had expired by efflux of time in 1972. The High Court, identifying conflicting precedents from the Supreme Court regarding whether the terms of an expired tenancy agreement continue to govern the relationship or whether the statutory provisions of the Rent Ordinance prevail, chose to follow the later decision, thereby allowing the adjustment and dismissing the eviction petition. However, the Supreme Court noted that this conflict in its own prior decisions had been previously identified in another case, which had directed that such matters be referred to a larger bench for authoritative settlement. Consequently, the Supreme Court recognized the necessity of resolving this recurring legal conflict regarding the applicability of expired tenancy terms versus statutory rent laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement of tenancy that has expired by efflux of time continue to govern the relationship between landlord and tenant?
  • Can rent arrears be adjusted against a security deposit held under an expired tenancy agreement?
  • Are the terms of an expired tenancy agreement superseded by the statutory provisions of the Rent Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed TARIQ HUSSAIN RIZVI vs PAKISTAN1983 CLC 752 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Syed SIBTE ZAHID vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EAST KARACHI AND 71983 CLC 3124 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• Syed SHARIF HUSSAIN BUKHARI vs THE AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Azad J & K 10 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Syed SHAHID HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 633 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-26Read full judgment →
• Syed SHABIR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 11 OTHERS vs GHULAM AKRAM AND 6 OTHER1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 174 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
• Syed SARFRAZ HUSSAIN BOKHARI vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KASUR AND OTEIERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-09
  religious processionlicensing powerPolice Actbreach of peaceconstitutional petitionregulatory conditionsfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional appeal concerns the refusal by the District Magistrate to grant a license for a religious procession, citing potential breach of peace due to local opposition. The core legal question was whether the District Magistrate, under Section 30 of the Police Act, is empowered to permanently refuse a license for a religious procession. The Supreme Court held that the refusal was without lawful authority and set aside the order. The Court determined that the right to conduct religious processions on public streets is an inherent legal right, subject only to reasonable regulation. The licensing power conferred by the Police Act is intended for the regulation of such processions—specifically regarding routes, timings, and conduct—to prevent public disorder, rather than for their total prohibition. The likelihood of a breach of peace justifies the imposition of regulatory conditions, not the outright denial of the right to assemble. Consequently, the licensing mechanism cannot be utilized to impose a perpetual ban on religious observances.

  Questions settled

  • Can the licensing authority under the Police Act permanently refuse a license for a religious procession?
  • Is the right to conduct a religious procession on public streets an inherent legal right?
  • Does the likelihood of a breach of peace justify the total prohibition of a religious procession?
  • What is the scope of the power to regulate religious processions under the Police Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SARDAR ALI vs AZMATULLAH1983 CLC 1127 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
• Syed SALAMAT ALI SHAH vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 CLC 193 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
• Syed SAFDAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES1983 CLC 653 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
• Syed SAEED AKBAR ZAIDI vs MESSRS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD.1983 PLC 956 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
• Syed RIAZUL HASSAN SHAH vs ZAMIRUL HAQ1983 CLC 2274 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-17Read full judgment →
• Syed RASHEED ALI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1776 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-29Read full judgment →
• Syed QAMRUL HAI vs HAZUR BAKHSH AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Karachi 337 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
• SYED OMER vs ASHRAF ALI FAZAL AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1533 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
• Syed OBAID ABID vs Messes GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD1983 PLC 37 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-22Read full judgment →
• Syed NIYAZ AHMAD vs THE JOINT CIVIL JUDGE AND FAMILY JUDGE, NAWAB1983 CLC 3107 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed NIAMAT ALI SHAH vs WAPDA1983 PLC 569 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →