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.
- STATE vs MAQBOOL AHMED Alias MAKOO AND 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 1140 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- STATE vs KHURSHID ALI AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 578 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ISMAIL AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 658 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- STATE vs HAMIDULLAH AND 4 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 1214 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
- STATE vs HABIBUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals by the State and the complainant challenged the acquittal of the respondents in a double murder case, which had been upheld by the High Court based on alleged contradictions between trial depositions and police statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the legality and procedural propriety of using conflicting, unauthenticated police statements, improper confrontations of witnesses, and material misreadings of the record during the trial and appellate stages. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that serious procedural irregularities, the use of disputed police statements without proper verification, and misreading of evidence resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice and prejudice to both parties. The Court laid down that under section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872, courts are not bound by 'evidence' alone but must consider all matters before them to determine high probabilities, that courts must supervise proceedings actively rather than act as mere spectators, and that statutory provisions regarding witness confrontations under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872 must be strictly followed. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the courts below and remanded the case for a fresh trial before a different judge.
Questions settled- Can a court rely on unauthenticated or disputed copies of police statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without holding an inquiry or determining their genuineness?
- Whether the definition of 'proved' under section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872 permits courts to look beyond strict narrow definitions of evidence to consider wider matters and high probabilities?
- What is the proper procedure for confronting witnesses with their previous statements under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Does a trial judge bear an active duty to supervise the correct reading and putting of record to witnesses during a criminal trial?
- STATE vs GHULAM NABI AND 4 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 1977 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
- STATE vs BASHIR AHMAD1983 P Cr. L J 639 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-22Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ASAD ALI SHAH1983 PLD Rev. 15 · Board of Revenue · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ABDUL MAJID1983 P Cr. L J 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ABDUL AHMAD1983 P Cr. L J 2452 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- STATE OF KARNATAKA vs B. RAGHURAMA SHETTY AND OTHERS1983 PTD 12 · Supreme Court of India · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION vs Mst. BEGUM JAN1983 PLD Supreme Court 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a civil appeal concerning the scope and effect of condition number 9 of an insurance policy, which allowed the insurer to treat the policy as void if the insured's age was misrepresented. The assured obtained an insurance policy through a sales officer of the appellant corporation, understating his true age to qualify for a more advantageous scheme. Following the assured's death, his nominee filed a claim, which the insurer rejected on the grounds of fraud and concealment. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court and the Lahore High Court concurrently held that the fraud was committed solely by the insurer's agent, rendering the policy enforceable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that an insurance contract is vitiated by the fraud of an agent acting against the principal, and that the knowledge of the agent cannot be imputed to the principal under such circumstances. The Court further held that the insurer validly invoked its right to dispute the policy within the statutory period of two years under section 45 of the Insurance Act. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the claim was modified to a mere refund of the premiums paid.
Questions settled- Whether the fraud of an insurance agent in filling out a proposal form vitiates the contract of insurance and prevents the agent's knowledge from being imputed to the principal?
- Can an insurance company treat a policy as void when the true age of the insured exceeds the maximum entry age permissible under the specific scheme?
- Whether the limitations contained in section 45 of the Insurance Act apply when the insurer disputes the veracity of the proposal form within two years of the policy's issuance?
- What is the extent of relief available to a nominee under an insurance contract that has been declared void due to fraudulent misrepresentation regarding age?
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN /DecreeHolder vs DR. A.1983 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs MESSRS PAKISTAN1983 PLD Supreme Court 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment directing the State Life Insurance Corporation to pay insurance claims for natural disabilities of employees of a private company. The core legal questions were whether the Corporation had a statutory duty under the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972, to provide insurance coverage for all contingencies specified in Standing Order 10-B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether the High Court could resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the existence and scope of an insurance contract through constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Corporation’s general duty to conduct business does not impose a specific, peremptory statutory obligation to provide insurance policies matching every requirement of the Standing Orders. Furthermore, the Court ruled that disputed questions of fact regarding the terms of an insurance contract are not amenable to adjudication under constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was set aside, and the petitions were dismissed, establishing that statutory duties must be express and unequivocal, and contractual disputes require plenary proceedings rather than writ petitions.
Questions settled- Does the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972, impose a specific statutory duty on the State Life Insurance Corporation to provide insurance coverage for all contingencies listed in Standing Order 10-B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Can disputed questions of fact regarding the terms and scope of an insurance contract be adjudicated within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Is a writ of mandamus appropriate to compel an insurance corporation to make payment of claims when the existence of the contractual obligation to cover specific risks is contested?
- STAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs SHIREEN KHAN1983 PLC 214 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
- STAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs SAEED KHAN AND OTHERS1983 PLC 1173 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- STAFF UNION vs MESSRS M. M. ISPAHANI LTD., HYDERABAD1983 PLC 532 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- SOOMRO vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 79 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SOOMAR vs JAMAL AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 314 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
- SOOFI IRSHAD AHMAD AND Anothers vs RAZA KAMAL MIR1983 CLC 755 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- SOHAIL IQBAL vs The STATE1983 SCMR 33 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
- SOBHO KHAN vs FAROOQ AHMED KHAN AND 8 OTHERS1983 CLC 1364 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- SNAMSHUDDIN vs SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 995 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- Smt. RAMALAXMI JIVRAJ vs COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX1983 PTD 444 · Gujarat High Court · 1981-04-10Read full judgment →
- Smt. MENGHI BAI AND 2 otherss vs Hail QAMARUDDIN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL1983 CLC 879 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-18Read full judgment →
- SMITH KLINE AND FRENCH OF PAKISTAN LIMITED vs IV, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 72 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
- SITAM KHAN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 896 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, arising from a judgment of the High Court of Peshawar, examines whether the conviction of the appellant Sitam Khan under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code was founded on a clear misreading of evidence. The prosecution case involved an altercation arising from a dispute over a gold ring, during which firearm injuries were allegedly sustained by eyewitnesses Aziz Khan and Ghazi Khan. While the trial court convicted multiple accused persons under Sections 382 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, the High Court acquitted some accused, converted the co-accused Mumtaz Khan's conviction to a lesser offense, and maintained the appellant's conviction under Section 307 on the assumption that the appellant had fired the effective shot hitting the injured witness. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a clear misreading of the ocular testimony, as the evidence established that the co-accused Mumtaz, and not the appellant, had fired the effective shot, while the appellant's alleged ineffective firing was not positively established by the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 307, and ordered the appellant's immediate release.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be sustained when the High Court's judgment is based on a clear misreading of ocular evidence regarding the identity of the assailant who fired the effective shot?
- Does the misattribution of an effective firearm shot from one co-accused to another vitiate the conviction for an attempt to commit murder?
- Can an appellant be held guilty of ineffective firing when neither the trial court nor the High Court recorded a positive finding proving such act?
- SIRAJUDDIN vs ABDUL HAMID1983 CLC 2096 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- SIRAJUDDIN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HIERS) vs FAKHRUZZAMAN AND ANOTHER)S1983 SCMR 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over agricultural land where the respondent-landlord sought the petitioner-tenant's eviction. The core legal question was whether the civil court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit, given the petitioner's claim of ownership and the contention that the matter fell exclusively within the revenue court's competence under the North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950. The Supreme Court held that the civil court correctly exercised jurisdiction. The ratio is that when a tenant sets up a title of ownership in themselves, thereby completely ousting the landlord's title, the dispute transcends the scope of a simple tenancy matter and becomes a title dispute, which is triable only by a civil court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a party is estopped by their own pleadings and conduct from denying the jurisdiction of a forum they previously challenged or from raising new factual pleas, such as claims for compensation for improvements or lack of notice, that were not properly pleaded or framed as issues during the trial.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's claim of ownership in a revenue court proceeding allow the landlord to initiate a title suit in a civil court?
- Can a party raise new factual pleas regarding improvements and notice of forfeiture for the first time at the final appellate stage?
- Does the principle of estoppel by conduct and pleading apply when a defendant denies the jurisdiction of a court based on their own self-serving averments?
- SIRAJUD DIN BANJMIN (THROUGH His LEGAL HEIRS) AND Another vs Haji1983 SCMR 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition after the appellants failed to comply with the terms of a court-sanctioned compromise. The appellants, who were in possession of disputed property, had entered into a compromise agreement with the respondents, agreeing to pay a specific sum and vacate part of the property by a set date, failing which their petition would stand dismissed. Upon failing to meet the deadline, the appellants sought an extension, which the High Court refused, leading to the dismissal of their petition. The Supreme Court examined whether the compromise was binding and whether the High Court erred in refusing the extension. The Court held that the appellants, having voluntarily invoked the High Court's jurisdiction to record the compromise, could not subsequently challenge its legality or validity. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that when time is fixed by mutual agreement between parties, it cannot be unilaterally altered by the Court without the consent of all parties. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the sanctity of the compromise and the finality of the settlement.
Questions settled- Can a party who invokes the court's jurisdiction to record a compromise subsequently challenge the legality of that compromise?
- When a time limit for performance is fixed by mutual agreement between parties in a court-sanctioned compromise, can the court unilaterally alter that time without the consent of all parties?
- Does the failure to incorporate a penalty clause into a formal court order preclude the enforcement of that penalty if it was part of the underlying compromise agreement recorded by the court?
- SIRAJ DIN vs Mst. REHMAT BIBI AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2090 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ DIN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3151 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ DIN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2459 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ AHMAD ZUBERI AND 6 OTHERS vs PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD1983 CLC 1577 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-06Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD vs ATTA MUHAMMAD1983 PLC 1029 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs RUSTAM ALI1983 PLC 376 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1983 PLC 661 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-11Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs LAL MUHAMMAD1983 PLC 941 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND Z Other vs SHAMSUDDIN QURESHI1983 PLC 898 · Labour Court · 1981-08-08Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT1983 PLC 401 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTE vs PREMIER TOBACCO1983 PLC 1222 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-02Read full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTE vs AMIN FABRICS LIMITED1983 PLC 182 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous appeal and accompanying cross-objections arise from disputes regarding the applicability of social security contributions on conveyance reimbursements and production bonuses under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, along with the legality of statutory increases levied on unpaid contributions. The core legal questions involve whether conveyance reimbursement and production bonus constitute 'wages' under section 2(30) of the 1965 Ordinance, whether an employer is liable for statutory 'increase' under section 23 where no prior default or failure occurred due to the institution's conduct, and whether a social security court has the power to reduce the statutory rate of increase. The Sindh High Court held that conveyance allowances and production bonuses form part of remuneration and thus constitute wages subject to social security contributions, excluding production bonuses from the traditional bonus exception. Furthermore, the court held that no statutory 'increase' can be levied for periods prior to the formal raising of a demand where no prior failure to pay existed, and that neither the institution nor the social security court has the jurisdiction to arbitrarily reduce the statutorily prescribed rate of increase. The key principles laid down relate to the strict interpretation of welfare legislation exceptions and the determination of 'failure' under penal recovery provisions.
Questions settled- Whether conveyance reimbursement paid to an employee constitutes wages under section 2(30) of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Does production bonus fall within the exception of 'bonus' under section 2(30)(d) of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Can an employer be held liable for statutory increase under section 23 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, for periods prior to the raising of a demand when no prior failure or default occurred?
- Whether the Social Security Court has the power or jurisdiction to reduce the prescribed rate of statutory increase under section 23 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTE vs AHMED KARACHI HALWA1983 PLC 516 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SIND ALKALIS LTD. vs PRESIDING OFFICER,1983 PLC 119 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-04Read full judgment →
- SIND ALKALIS LTD. vs FOURTH SIND LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS1983 PLC 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1827 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR vs SALEH MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 1590 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed under Section 12(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to review or set aside an ex parte judgment on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The office raised an objection regarding limitation. The respondent argued that Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applied, providing a three-year limitation period for applications based on fraud or misrepresentation. The High Court of Sindh rejected this argument, holding that Article 173 of the Limitation Act 1908 is the specific provision governing review applications, which prescribes a limitation period of ninety days from the date of the decree or order. The Court clarified that Article 181 is a residuary provision applicable only where no other period is prescribed. On the merits, the Court found that the applicant failed to provide particulars of fraud and that the allegations of misrepresentation or misreading of evidence were unsubstantiated by the record. Consequently, the review application was dismissed in limine as time-barred and lacking merit.
Questions settled- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs the limitation period for filing a review application?
- Can Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 be invoked for a review application when Article 173 specifically provides a limitation period?
- Does a dispute or lack of communication between a party and their own counsel constitute a valid ground of fraud against the opposing party under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- SIKANDAR KHAN vs ABDUL OADIRL1983 CLC 3009 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR HAYAT vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 393 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR HAYAT vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 233 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQ vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1195 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQ vs MEHDI HASSAN KHAN1983 CLC 1339 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQ AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2506 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQ AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2169 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- SIBGHATULLAH vs UTMA AND Other1983 SCMR 747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the election of the petitioner as Chairman of a Local Council due to the failure to hold elections for a minority seat. The core legal question was whether the election of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a Local Council is valid if the election for a minority seat in that council was not held, and whether the vacancy created by such failure allows the council to function under the power to act notwithstanding vacancies. The Supreme Court held that the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman was invalid because it violated the mandatory procedural requirements prescribed by statute. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the specific provisions governing the sequence of elections for Local Councils must be strictly followed. The key principle laid down is that the election of office-bearers in a Local Council is contingent upon the prior completion of elections for all reserved seats, including minority seats, and that general provisions regarding vacancies do not override these mandatory procedural prerequisites.
Questions settled- Can the election of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a Local Council be held before the election for a minority seat is completed?
- Does the power of a local council to act notwithstanding a vacancy in its membership override the mandatory requirements for holding elections for reserved seats?
- Is the election of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman void if the statutory sequence of elections for reserved seats is not followed?
- SHUJAAT ALI QARNI vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL/JOINT SECRETARY, PORTS AND1983 PLC (C. S.) 709 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
- SHUA-UD-DIN vs PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 571 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- SHIKHARCHAND LAIN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH-1983 PTD 369 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- SHER ZAMAN vs THE STATE1983 PCr.LJ 610 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- SHER ZAMAN AND Others vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. AND Other1983 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the Peshawar High Court judgment regarding notifications issued under the West Pakistan Shops & Establishments Ordinance, 1969, which directed that barbers' and hair-dressers' shops, hammams, and saqqawas remain closed on Mondays and not be exempt from certain provisions. The core legal question was whether the Ordinance applied to barbers' and hair-dressers' shops in the North-West Frontier Province and whether the government had the authority to issue notifications regulating their closure and withdrawing exemptions. The Supreme Court held that the Ordinance, validated by the Validation of Laws Act, 1975, applied to the municipal and cantonment limits of the province, and that the government possessed the statutory power under section 5 of the Ordinance to withdraw exemptions and mandate closed days for such establishments. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that the executive retains statutory authority to regulate operating hours and closed days for specific categories of establishments.
Questions settled- Whether the West Pakistan Shops & Establishments Ordinance, 1969, applies to barbers' and hair-dressers' shops in the North-West Frontier Province?
- Does the government have the power under the West Pakistan Shops & Establishments Ordinance, 1969, to withdraw exemptions previously granted to certain establishments?
- Can the government direct specific classes of shops to observe a closed day under the West Pakistan Shops & Establishments Ordinance, 1969?
- SHER ZAMAN Alias SHERO vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2519 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
- SHER WALI vs KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 1103 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
- SHER REHMAN vs MESSRS MALIK TEXTILE INDUSTRIES1983 PLC 701 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-14Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND Other1983 SCMR 1049 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that declined to interfere with the auction of an open plot. The petitioner, a transferee of the plot, failed to deposit the full price within the time period agreed upon with the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the authorities auctioned the plot. The petitioner argued that the auction was procedurally flawed due to the lack of mandatory notices required under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The High Court rejected this contention, primarily citing the petitioner's own conduct in failing to meet payment obligations, thereby disentitling him to discretionary writ jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the High Court failed to consider equitable factors, such as his status as a displaced person, his long-term physical possession, and the existence of a permanent structure on the plot. The Supreme Court, without deciding the merits, converted the petition into an appeal to further examine the legal implications of the auction process in light of the cited precedent regarding procedural requirements for such auctions.
Questions settled- Can a transferee of an open plot challenge an auction sale if they failed to deposit the price within the agreed timeframe?
- Does the failure to pay the price of a plot within the agreed period disentitle a petitioner from seeking discretionary writ jurisdiction?
- Is the issuance of specific notices under Settlement Scheme No. VIII a mandatory prerequisite before auctioning a plot?
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE AND SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,DADU1983 CLC 1609 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-08Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA AND 6 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 908 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND oTHERs1983 CLC 2502 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 253 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-03Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ALI JAN KHAN1983 CLC 2222 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-10Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN AND Others vs ILAM DIN AND Other1983 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a regular second appeal, concerning a dispute over land originally allotted under the Abadkari Scheme. The core legal question revolves around whether an agreement to sell land executed before the acquisition of proprietary rights is void under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The Supreme Court considered the arguments presented, particularly relying on precedent regarding the statutory bar on transfers, and granted leave to appeal to examine whether the agreement in question violated the relevant statutory provisions. The Court held that an arguable case was made out regarding the interpretation and application of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, laying down that transactions affecting government-allotted land prior to obtaining proprietary rights require detailed scrutiny against statutory restrictions.
Questions settled- Is an agreement to sell government-allotted land executed before obtaining proprietary rights void under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
- Whether a suit for specific performance is maintainable on the basis of an agreement executed contrary to the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
- SHER MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs ALI GOHAR AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2473 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD AND Another vs JAMADAR GHULAM GHAUS (REPRESENTED1983 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal addressed whether, in a first appeal against an order of remand made under Rule 23-A of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court could examine the merits of the case and finally decide it by restoring the trial court's findings. The plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction and possession of agricultural land, claiming the defendants were trespassers, which the defendants contested by asserting ownership through a partition and purchase. The trial court decreed the suit, but the District Judge remanded the matter for framing fresh issues. The High Court set aside the remand order and restored the trial court's decree, which was subsequently upheld in a Letters Patent Appeal. The Supreme Court held that when an appellate court hears an appeal against a remand order under Rule 23-A, it possesses the power under sections 107 and 103 and Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to finally determine the suit if the evidence on record is sufficient, untrammelled by the grounds of the remand order. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can go into the merits of the case and finally decide it when hearing an appeal against an order of remand under Rule 23-A of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- What are the powers of an appellate court when examining an appeal against an order of remand?
- Does the appellate court have the power to finally determine a suit under Rule 24 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure if the evidence on record is sufficient?
- SHER MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 PCr.LJ 2019 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-23Read full judgment →
- SHER DARAZ KHAN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased by gunshots. The trial court's death sentence was previously confirmed by the Peshawar High Court. Leave to appeal was granted to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence, alleged delay in lodging the report, unexplained long abscondence, and asserted discrepancies between the ocular testimony and medical evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the presence of related eye-witnesses in the village Chowk natural and trustworthy, while rejecting the appellant's implausible explanation for absconding for seven years. However, upon reviewing the evidence concerning motive, the Court observed that the occurrence appeared to have erupted on the spur of the moment rather than with premeditation. Consequently, the Supreme Court altered the sentence from death to life imprisonment with enhanced fine and compensation, while extending benefit under Section 382, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses sitting at a village common place (Chowk) during evening time can be relied upon to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether prolonged, unexplained abscondence of an accused corroborates ocular testimony in a murder trial?
- Can a sentence of death under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to life imprisonment where the crime appears to have occurred on the spur of the moment without established premeditated motive?
- SHER BAZ KHAN vs DARVESH AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondent by the Peshawar High Court in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent despite the testimony of the complainant, who was the father of the deceased. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's evidence, specifically the testimony of the complainant and two alleged eyewitnesses. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that the two eyewitnesses were 'chance witnesses' who had not actually seen the occurrence. Regarding the complainant, while acknowledging his presence at the scene, the Court held that due to the existing blood feud and enmity between the parties, his testimony required independent corroboration to establish the identity of the assailants. As no such corroboratory evidence was present on the record, the Court affirmed the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving deep-seated enmity, the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness is insufficient to sustain a conviction, necessitating independent evidence to confirm the identity of the accused.
Questions settled- Can the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness be sufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case involving blood feud?
- Are witnesses who are not naturally present at the scene of an occurrence considered 'chance witnesses' whose testimony requires scrutiny?
- Is the High Court justified in acquitting an accused when the prosecution evidence lacks independent corroboration regarding the identity of the assailants?
- SHER AZAM vs Mst. TAREENA1983 CLC 3157 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents on the ground of their superior right as tenants. The trial court and appellate court had decreed the suit in its entirety in favor of the respondents based on an admission by one of the petitioner-defendants that the respondents were cultivating the suit land as tenants. The petitioners challenged the decree, arguing that the respondents were not tenants of the entire suit land and that the valuation based on five years' average was incorrect. The High Court examined the revenue record (jamabandi) and found that the respondents were co-tenants of only a specific portion of the suit land, rather than the entire area. The Court held that under Paragraph 25(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, a tenant's right of pre-emption is strictly restricted to the land actually comprised in their tenancy. Consequently, the High Court partly accepted the revision, modifying the decree to cover only the specific area under the respondents' tenancy on a proportionate payment basis.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant's right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 extends to the entire suit land or is strictly restricted to the specific portion comprised in their tenancy?
- Can an erroneous admission by a defendant regarding tenancy override the entries in the revenue record (jamabandi)?
- Is a five-year average prepared by the Circle Patwari a proper basis for determining the market value of suit land in a pre-emption dispute?
- SHER AHMED AND 4 OTHERS vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND ANOTHER1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 78 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- SHER AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 379 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- Sheikh REHMAN vs The STATE1983 P Cr. L J 75 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-15Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MUSHTAQ ALI vs ASKAR HUMAYUN ANSARI1983 P Cr. L J 1979 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-11Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE1983 CLC 918 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed to challenge an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, directing the recovery of a substantial loan amount from the petitioner under Section 22-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The department had relied on an audit report which alleged that the petitioner was the real beneficiary of loans advanced to his relatives, subsequently initiating recovery proceedings under Martial Law Order No. 241. The petitioner contended that no inquiry was conducted to establish his liability for the loans of other borrowers. The High Court held that an audit report based solely on books of account cannot substitute for a proper inquiry to determine the real character of a loan and fix liability. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the determination of liability under Section 6 of the Co-operative Societies and Co-operative Bank (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 is a condition precedent for initiating coercive measures under Martial Law Order No. 241. Consequently, the impugned order and subsequent recovery proceedings were declared to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Can an audit report based solely on books of account serve as a substitute for a statutory inquiry required to fix financial liability on a member under Section 22-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925?
- Is the determination of liability under Section 6 of the Co-operative Societies and Co-operative Bank (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance 1966 a mandatory condition precedent for initiating recovery proceedings under Martial Law Order No. 241?
- Does the availability of an alternative appeal under Section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 bar a writ petition if the impugned order was passed in excess of jurisdiction?
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND ANOTHER vs Sheikh ATA MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2354 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-24Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MANSOOR AHMAD vs FAIZUL HASSAN AND 8 OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a rent dispute where the landlady sought the eviction of the tenant on multiple grounds, including personal need for her children's use and conversion of the premises. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on these two grounds, which was subsequently upheld by both the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court in a writ petition. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner-tenant raised a technical objection, arguing that the landlady's ejectment application used the word 'use' instead of 'occupation' when describing her children's need for the residential building, which allegedly conformed to the statutory language for non-residential rather than residential premises. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the technical distinction between 'use' and 'occupation' in the pleadings did not defeat the landlady's claim. The Court ruled that when the application and evidence are read as a whole, it is abundantly clear that the landlady intended to get the house vacated for her children's residence, and the choice of words made no substantial difference.
Questions settled- Does the use of the word 'use' instead of 'occupation' in an ejectment application for a residential building defeat a landlord's claim for personal need?
- Should technical errors in the wording of a landlord's pleadings under rent laws override the clear intent established by the evidence as a whole?
- Sheikh KHALID MAHMOOD vs Mallick MUHAMMAD IRFAN1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 204 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-07-22Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ILAHI BAKHSH AND 10 OTHERS vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 201983 CLC 934 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
- Sheikh GHULAM QADIR vs Malik ABID HUSSAIN AND Other1983 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a leave to appeal granted to examine whether the appellant's entitlement to the allotment of urban land, previously temporarily allotted to him as a rural claimant, should be governed by a ceiling of 30 kanals or 4 kanals fixed under paragraph 8 of Supplementary Settlement Scheme No. II. The core legal question concerns the correct interpretation and application of the circular letters and area rationing schemes issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner regarding the maximum scale of allotment permissible to rural claimants holding temporary urban land. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's entitlement was subject to the lesser ceiling fixed under the scheme and the subsequent area rationing system, as adopted by the Central Government's final decision, which intended to maintain parity rather than create an incongruous higher ceiling for rural claimants over urban claimants. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, affirming the lower court's decision.
Questions settled- Whether the entitlement of a rural claimant holding temporary urban land is governed by the 30-kanal ceiling or the reduced ceiling fixed under paragraph 8 of Supplementary Settlement Scheme No. II?
- Does the area rationing system and its reduced ceiling apply to old temporary allottees whose entitlements were later protected by the second proviso to paragraph 24 of Supplementary Settlement Scheme No. II?
- Can a rural claimant holding temporary urban land claim a higher ceiling of allotment than that applicable to urban claimants under the settlement scheme?
- Sheikh FAZLUR RAHMAN vs DIRECTORGENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, GOVERNMENT OF SIND1983 CLC 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- Sheikh FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 261 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge against the petitioner-tenant. The core legal questions were whether an eviction application filed before the expiry of a lease is inherently incompetent, and whether the landlord’s ownership of other business property precludes a claim of personal requirement. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that although the application was technically premature, the lease expired during the pendency of the proceedings, rendering the objection a mere technicality that did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. Regarding the personal requirement, the Court held that the landlord's existing brick-kiln did not disqualify him from seeking eviction for a rice-husking plant, as the existing property was not 'suitable' for the new purpose, and the law does not mandate closing an existing business to satisfy personal requirements. The key principle established is that courts should avoid technicalities that force redundant litigation when the underlying cause of action matures during proceedings, and 'suitability' of alternative property is a factual determination regarding the specific intended use.
Questions settled- Can an eviction application filed before the expiry of a lease be maintained if the lease expires during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Does the ownership of other business property by a landlord automatically disqualify a claim for personal requirement under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is a landlord required to close an existing business to satisfy the 'suitability' criteria for personal requirement under rent laws?
- Sheikh FAZAL DIN vs DAWOODUR REHMAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 470 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil second appeal arises from rent proceedings where the appellant-tenant's defence was struck off by the Rent Controller for failing to comply with a tentative rent order issued under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, an action affirmed by the first appellate authority. The core legal questions involve whether negligence or misconduct of a counsel can constitute sufficient cause to condone a tenant's default in depositing rent under Section 13(6), and whether a defect in the portion of a rent order regarding arrears invalidates the entire order so as to excuse non-compliance with the valid direction for future monthly rent. The court held that principles governing the restoration of suits for default in appearance under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be imported into rent matters, and that a tenant's default in complying with a valid direction for future monthly rent justifies striking off defence even if the arrears direction is defective. The key principle laid down is that the statutory requirement for depositing monthly rent under Section 13(6) is distinct and mandatory, and its non-compliance warrants striking off defence regardless of defects concerning arrears.
Questions settled- Can the principles governing the restoration of a suit under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be imported to condone a tenant's default in complying with a tentative rent order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does negligence or failure of a counsel to inform his client about a rent deposit order constitute sufficient cause to excuse a tenant's default under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does a defect in the direction relating to the deposit of arrears of rent render the entire tentative rent order void so as to excuse non-compliance with a valid direction for the payment of future monthly rent?
- Sheikh ATAULLAH vs MUHAMMAD NASEEM YAR KHAN1983 SCMR 1062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a landlord's petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed an order for the ejectment of a tenant from a shop in Sialkot. The Additional District Judge had initially accepted the landlord's plea of personal requirement for the shop. However, the High Court overturned this decision, reasoning that the landlord's admission of having conducted his business for several years prior to renting out the shop undermined his claim of personal need. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court's conclusion was based on a misreading of the evidence, as the record suggested the factual position was the reverse of what the High Court had assumed. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the case required further examination due to the apparent misreading of evidence. Leave to appeal was granted to determine the validity of the High Court's findings regarding the landlord's personal requirement.
Questions settled- Does a misreading of evidence by the High Court regarding a landlord's personal requirement constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal?
- Can a landlord's claim for personal requirement be defeated solely by the fact that he was already conducting business when the premises were rented out?
- SHEIKH AHMAD vs MESSRS UNILEVER LTD. AND ANOTHER1983 SCMR 1043 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's trade mark application by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioner and the respondent reached a settlement agreement to resolve their dispute. The core question before the Court was whether it could record and give effect to this compromise agreement regarding the registration of the trade mark. The Supreme Court accepted the settlement, which permitted the petitioner to register the trade mark subject to specific limitations on the goods for which it could be used—specifically restricting it to medicines used in Homoeopathy, excluding Allopathic pharmaceutical products and glycerine-based goods. Consequently, the Court set aside the previous orders of the Registrar of Trade Marks and the High Court, allowed the appeal, and directed the Registrar to register the trade mark in accordance with the agreed terms. The principle established is that the Court may dispose of a trade mark dispute by recording and enforcing a voluntary settlement reached between the parties.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court give effect to a settlement agreement reached between parties during the pendency of a trade mark dispute?
- Is a court empowered to set aside previous orders of a Registrar of Trade Marks and a High Court to implement a compromise reached between the parties?
- Sheikh ABDUL AZIZ vs THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND Another1983 SCMR 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- SHEHZAD AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT AND, 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 234 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises out of a judgment of the Additional District Judge upholding the rejection of the plaintiff-petitioner's plaint in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff, claiming independent possession of a disputed shop, filed the suit during the pendency of execution proceedings of an ejectment order passed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The trial court and appellate court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding the suit barred under Section 15(5) of the Ordinance and Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal questions involved whether a separate suit by a stranger to challenge an ejectment order or execution is barred by Section 15(5) of the Ordinance, and whether a person apprehensive of dispossession can approach the executing court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that Section 15(5) of the Ordinance bars any suit calling in question an ejectment order, whether by parties or by any person whose interests are adversely affected, and that aggrieved strangers must seek remedies through execution proceedings rather than a separate civil suit.
Questions settled- Whether Section 15(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance bars a separate civil suit challenging an ejectment order filed by a person who was not a party to the rent proceedings?
- Does the bar under Section 15(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance apply to all persons whose interests are adversely affected by an ejectment order or only to the actual parties to the proceedings?
- Can a person apprehensive of dispossession in execution of an ejectment order file an objection petition before being physically dispossessed?
- Whether a suit for declaration seeking to nullify an ejectment order obtained under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance is maintainable in view of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- SHAUKAT vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2370 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT RIAZ AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2398 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT HUSSAIN vs ZULFIQAR AHMED, S. H. O., P. S. MOZANG AND 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 676 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions challenging police raids and subsequent proceedings regarding the seizure of foreign cloth from the petitioners' shops. The core legal questions involve whether the searches and seizures complied with the mandatory provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, and what effect non-compliance has on departmental adjudication and criminal prosecution before the Special Judge Customs. The court held that the searches were conducted in clear violation of sections 162, 163, and 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, as mandatory pre-conditions—such as obtaining a search warrant or recording written grounds of belief and serving copies thereof—were ignored. Consequently, the court ruled that the illegal search and seizure vitiate the entire proceedings, striking at the constitutional protections guaranteed under Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The petitions were accepted, the search and seizure were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and the seized goods were ordered to be returned to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Does an entry into private shop premises by police to find and seize smuggled goods constitute a search under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Can a search under section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969 be legally carried out without recording the written grounds of belief and fulfilling procedural requirements?
- What is the effect of an illegal search and seizure on subsequent proceedings before the Customs Authorities and the Special Judge Customs?
- Whether the presence of a Magistrate acting merely as an attesting witness obviates the necessity of obtaining a formal search warrant under the Customs Act, 1969?
- SHAUKAT ALI vs SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION) GOVERNMENT OF THE1983 PLC (C. S.) 1111 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs Mst. SAEEDA KHATOON AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3136 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs COVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 774 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →