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.
- QAYYUM IQBAL vs NISAR ALI SHAH (A.S.I.) AND OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 2273 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-25Read full judgment →
- QASWAR ABBAS vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 26 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
- QASIMI JEWELLERS vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 CLC 2433 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
- QASIM ALI DOGAR vs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1983 SCMR 891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition in limine, which had challenged the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside his reinstatement. The appellant, a peon and later Head Security Guard in the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, had his services terminated following a police report regarding a criminal case from his youth, in which he was honourably acquitted. The core legal question concerned the validity of his termination and the setting aside of his reinstatement by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal based on a settlement reached between the parties. The Court held that the appellant would be treated as in service throughout, granted seniority and notional promotions, and allowed increments, though foregoing back benefits for a specific period, thereby resolving the dispute amicably.
Questions settled- Whether the services of a confirmed employee of a bank can be terminated simply by giving one month's notice?
- Can a termination order based on a past criminal challan resulting in honourable acquittal be sustained?
- Whether an appeal before the Supreme Court can be disposed of on the basis of a settlement regarding continuity of service and back benefits?
- QAMBAR ALI vs Mst. KHIRAJ BEGUM1983 PLD Quetta 17 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against a tenant occupying a khokha. The appellant challenged the eviction, contending that the property was evacuee property, thereby questioning the Rent Controller's jurisdiction and the landlady's title. The core legal question was whether a tenant, having attorned to the landlord and paid rent, is estopped from challenging the landlord's title or the property's status. The Court held that the appeal lacked merit. Applying the doctrine of estoppel as codified in Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the Court ruled that a tenant who has accepted the landlord and paid rent cannot subsequently deny the landlord's title or challenge the property's status during the continuance of the tenancy. Additionally, the Court upheld the finding that the landlady’s requirement for the premises for bona fide reconstruction was established and remained uncontroverted by the appellant. Consequently, the eviction order was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs, granting the appellant a two-month period to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the title of their landlord during the continuance of the tenancy?
- Does the doctrine of estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872 prevent a tenant from questioning the status of the property as evacuee property?
- Is a tenant estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller after having accepted the landlord and paid rent?
- What constitutes sufficient proof for a landlord's claim of bona fide reconstruction in eviction proceedings?
- QAMARUDDIN vs HAKIM MAHMOOD1983 PLD Karachi 570 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a rent ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant seeking possession of a shop for personal bona fide use. The Rent Controller initially granted the application, but the First Appellate Authority reversed this decision, holding that the landlord, a retired government servant, failed to prove the necessity of the shop, specifically lacking evidence of business experience and capital. The High Court rejected the Appellate Authority's view that a landlord must prove prior business experience or specific capital to establish bona fide need, noting that the law imposes no such requirement. However, the Court ultimately dismissed the appeal because the landlord failed to disclose the ownership of other properties in the urban area, including a shop already in his possession. The Court held that while non-disclosure of other properties is not fatal per se, the combination of failing to disclose multiple properties and failing to prove why the shop currently in the landlord's possession was insufficient rendered the claim for personal use not bona fide.
Questions settled- Is a landlord required to prove prior business experience or availability of capital to establish the bona fide nature of a personal use claim for a shop?
- Does the failure of a landlord to specify the exact nature of the business intended for the premises in the initial rent application render the application mala fide?
- Does the non-disclosure of other properties owned by a landlord in the same urban area automatically invalidate a claim for personal bona fide use?
- When a landlord owns multiple properties, is it necessary for the landlord to prove that the property currently in their possession is insufficient for their requirements?
- QAMARUDDIN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND Another1983 SCMR 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer and division of a house under settlement laws. The core legal question examined was whether the second respondent had established entitlement to the transfer of a portion of the house and whether the division of the house into two units by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was legally warranted. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order dividing the house was arbitrary, based on a spurious document regarding possession, and failed to consider whether the divided portions constituted independent, self-contained structural units. The ratio decidendi is that possession simpliciter does not dictate the division of a building into units under the relevant settlement statute; rather, the division must be co-related to the structural characteristics of the building to form an integrated, self-contained portion. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Letters Patent Bench judgment and restoring the Single Judge's order.
Questions settled- Whether possession simpliciter determines the division of a building into separate units under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner order the division of a house into units without examining the structural feasibility and independent character of each unit?
- Does an indirect claimant out of possession have equal entitlement to a claimant in possession for the transfer of an indivisible property?
- QALANDAR KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 411 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- QAISER ADEEB vs MESSRS DAILY MASHRIQ LTD.1983 PLC 748 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-22Read full judgment →
- Qadir, MemberIFTIKHAR HUSSAIN ABBAS-I vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR1983 PLC (C. S.) 586 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-02-02Read full judgment →
- QADIR KHAN vs Mst. KISHWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS1983 CLC 613 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Mst. Kishwar Begum instituted an ejectment application against the appellants alleging ownership via a civil court decree, default in rent, damage to the property, and personal need. The appellants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, claiming they were tenants under Mst. Mihraj Begum, the respondent's mother. The Rent Controller struck off the appellants' defence for failure to deposit arrears, and the District Judge dismissed their appeal. On second appeal, the High Court held that while ownership was proved, the lower courts failed to properly determine the crucial question of the relationship of landlord and tenant, particularly considering that the mother had previously rented out the property as attorney. Furthermore, the court held that the appellants acted in good faith by remitting the rent by money order within the stipulated period, negating any wilful default. Consequently, the orders of the lower courts were set aside and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision after framing all relevant issues.
Questions settled- Does the definition of landlord under section 2(c) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 include a person entitled to receive rent on behalf of another?
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-deposit of rent when the tenant remitted the amount by money order under a bona fide misapprehension?
- Is a determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant mandatory in rent ejectment proceedings?
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD AMIN And 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 617 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
- QADEER KHAN vs MESSRS BENGAL FIBER INDUSTRIES1983 PLC 341 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs IMDAD ALI1983 PLC 295 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs UMAR BAKHSH1983 PLC 262 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1983 PLC 261 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1983 PLC 583 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs AHMAD HASSAN1983 PLC 303 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT COPORAT10N vs ABDUL GHAFFAR1983 PLC 304 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION vs GENERAL SECRETARY, MAZDOOR1983 PLC 390 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROADTRANSPORT BOARD AND ANOTHER vs GUL BAHAR KHAN1983 PLC 614 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs TANVIR AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 1160 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs SUBA KHAN1983 PLC 589 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1983 PLC 1114 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-07Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs NEMAT ALI1983 PLC 712 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-06-18Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs NAJAMUL HASSAN1983 PLC 364 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHHMMAD HUMAYUN1983 PLC 876 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-25Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF1983 PLC 880 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD YOUNIS.1983 PLC 878 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-25Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 531 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from the termination of the respondent's services as an Overseer on an ad hoc basis during his probationary period by the Punjab Road Transport Board. The respondent challenged his termination under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Punjab Labour Court, which allowed the petition on the ground that the termination order failed to state explicit reasons as required by paragraph 12(3) of the Schedule to the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Board's appeal in limine. The Lahore High Court accepted the writ petition, holding that when an employer terminates a probationer's services explicitly during the probation period, that reference itself constitutes sufficient reason satisfying paragraph 12(3), as a probationer's employment is tentative and at the pleasure of the employer pending confirmation. The Court concluded that the tribunals below misread the termination order, rendering their decisions subject to judicial review.
Questions settled- Whether the termination of a probationer's services during the probation period requires explicit specification of reasons other than the fact of probation under paragraph 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance?
- Does a termination order stating that a probationer's services are terminated within probation carry the necessary incident of employer dissatisfaction to satisfy statutory requirements?
- Can a probationer approach the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance when his services are terminated during probation without stigma?
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1983 PLC 270 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD ALI1983 PLC 1016 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MOHSIN ALI1983 PLC 1970 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs HABIB ULLAH AND Another1983 SCMR 997 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs EHSAN-UL-HAQ1983 PLC 879 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-01Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs DAVID AKHTAR1983 PLC 522 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL SATTAR1983 PLC 278 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL REHMAN1983 PLC 859 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-25Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL HAMID1983 PLC 265 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL GHAFFAR NIAZI1983 PLC 275 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB PROVINCE vs ZAFAR IQBAL CHEEMA1983 CLC 513 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB PROVINCE AND ANOTHER vs Mian FAQIR SAIN1983 CLC 264 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB PROVINCE AND ANOTHER vs GULZAR MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 2350 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB NATIONAL SILK MILLS LTD. vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 CLC 600 · Lahore High Court · 1968-05-07Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB NATIONAL SILK MILLS LTD. vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND Another1983 SCMR 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the Punjab National Silk Mills Ltd. against Lahore High Court orders allowing winding-up petitions brought by creditor-banks. The core legal questions involve whether a fully secured creditor should be permitted to seek company winding-up when debts can be recovered by selling pledged goods, whether denying the company the right to summon witnesses and an inordinate delay of two years in delivering judgment vitiate the proceedings, and whether an intra-court appeal lies against a single judge's winding-up order in light of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine the principles governing company winding-up by secured creditors and related procedural questions, while preserving the objection regarding the maintainability of a direct appeal before the Supreme Court when an intra-court remedy might exist. The Court directed that the provisional liquidator continue functioning subject to restrictions on selling fixed assets during the pendency of the appeals.
Questions settled- Whether a fully secured creditor should be allowed to apply for the winding up of a company when its debts can be recovered by the sale of pledged goods?
- Does the closure of evidence despite the filing of a witness list and process fee constitute a denial of a valuable right warranting interference?
- Whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court from a judgment and order of a Single Judge sitting on the Original Side in winding-up matters under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
- PUNJAB COOPERATIVE UNION vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMEN I AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 522 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB CIVIL ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION vs FINANCE MINISTER, GOVERNMENT1983 PLC (C. S.) 76 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-30Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION. vs FARHAT ALI KHAN1983 PLC 637 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN vs Raja BASHIR MUHAMMAD KHAN1983 PLD Lahore 53 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB vs Ch. FAZAL KARIM, DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD1983 CLC 325 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge regarding an ejectment order against the Province of the Punjab. The petitioner, having taken over the management of a private school under Martial Law Regulation No. 118, argued that it became the owner of the premises by operation of law, thereby rendering the eviction proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, without jurisdiction. The Court rejected this argument, holding that Martial Law Regulation No. 118 only vested the management of educational institutions in the Government, not the ownership of the underlying property. The Court affirmed that the original owners retained their proprietary rights and that nationalized institutions remain subject to the Rent Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding default and bona fide personal need, noting that such findings are not subject to review in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed in limine, emphasizing that the Rent Ordinance applies to nationalized institutions and that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence.
Questions settled- Does the takeover of a private school under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 vest ownership of the school's premises in the Government?
- Are nationalized educational institutions exempt from the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding default and personal need in the exercise of writ jurisdiction?
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND Others vs Mufti ABDUL GHANI1983 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, District Judge, and the Lahore High Court, which ordered the eviction of the Province of the Punjab and the Director of Education from a property housing a school due to a delay in depositing rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller is obligated to determine the preliminary objection regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and the locus standi of the applicant before passing an order for the deposit of rent under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the petitioners had raised significant objections regarding the respondent's ownership and standing, which were not addressed by the lower forums. The Court held that these objections went to the root of the Rent Controller's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court directed that the party currently in possession of the property shall maintain the status quo pending the final decision of the appeal.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller required to decide the objection regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant before ordering the deposit of rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does an objection regarding the locus standi of an applicant in an ejectment petition go to the root of the Rent Controller's jurisdiction?
- PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, EDUCATION SIND SECRETARIAT, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS vs NISAR AHMED1983 CLC 1905 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged orders of a Rent Controller, including an ejectment order, concerning premises occupied by a nationalized school. The core legal questions revolved around the Rent Controller's jurisdiction following a notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which exempted "premises of the Schools and colleges" from the Ordinance's application. The appellants contended that this notification removed the Rent Controller's jurisdiction, and also challenged findings on default and personal requirement. The court held that an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, in rent proceedings was an interim order and not appealable as a decree, but the plea could be raised in appeal against the final order. Interpreting the notification, the court determined that "premises of the Schools and colleges" included premises occupied on a rental basis, not solely those owned by them. Consequently, the Rent Controller ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter. While concurring with the Rent Controller on the default finding (holding that the tenant's internal procedures did not excuse non-payment), the court reversed the finding on personal requirement due to suppression of material facts. The appeal was allowed, and the ejectment order was set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a notification exempting "premises of the Schools and colleges" from the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, apply to premises occupied on a rental basis or only to those owned by schools and colleges?
- Can an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in rent proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, be treated as a decree for the purpose of appeal?
- Does a tenant's internal practice of requiring advance receipts excuse non-payment of rent, thereby preventing a finding of default?
- Does a change of forum due to a statutory exemption notification affect existing rights if the new governing law places the respondent on a better footing?
- Can a Rent Controller retain jurisdiction over a matter after the issuance of a notification exempting the subject premises from the application of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER vs HAJI KHAN1983 PLD Karachi 621 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Dadu, dismissing objections to an arbitration award and making it a rule of the court. The appellants raised three primary grounds: the invalidity of the sole arbitrator's appointment, the award being rendered beyond time, and the failure of the award to state reasons for a large monetary award. The Sindh High Court held that the appellants were estopped by their conduct and active participation from challenging the appointment of the sole arbitrator, and that the trial court had validly exercised its discretion to extend time under the Arbitration Act. However, regarding the lack of reasons, the Court held that pursuant to section 26-A of the Arbitration Act introduced by Ordinance XV of 1981, an arbitrator is mandatorily required to state reasons in sufficient detail, and for pending proceedings where no reasons are given, the court must remit the award to the arbitrator. The Court accordingly remitted the award to the arbitrator to provide detailed reasons within a specified timeframe.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the appointment of an arbitrator after having actively participated in the arbitration proceedings without protest?
- Whether an arbitration award rendered beyond the originally stipulated time is invalid when the court has impliedly extended the time under section 28 of the Arbitration Act?
- Is it mandatory for an arbitrator to state reasons in sufficient detail for an award under section 26-A of the Arbitration Act?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a court when an award in a pending proceeding fails to state reasons as required by section 26-A of the Arbitration Act?
- PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS vs GHAZI KHAN1983 CLC 1318 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Ch. WALI MUHAMMAD1983 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a service dispute between the Province of Punjab and Ch. Wali Muhammad. The core legal questions for consideration involve whether the Local Audit Departmental Rules, 1958 govern the determination of the competent authority, and whether a civil suit remained competent following the enactment of new service laws in 1973 and 1974 along with the legal effect of provisions relating to abatement and established case law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, directing that the appeal be prepared on the existing record with liberty for parties to file additional documents if necessary. The holding establishes that leave is granted to deliberate upon the applicability of the departmental rules and the jurisdictional competence of civil courts in light of subsequent service legislation and abatement rules.
Questions settled- Whether the Local Audit Departmental Rules, 1958 should have governed the question as to who was the competent authority?
- Whether the civil suit remained at all competent after the enactment of new service laws in 1973/1974?
- What is the effect of provisions relating to abatement of similar matters together with the rule laid down in Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Siddiq?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH PROJECT DIRECTOR, HOUSING & PHYSICAL1983 PLD Lahore 578 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal was filed by the Government of the Punjab against the decision of the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, which enhanced compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and rejected the Government's plea of limitation. The Land Acquisition Collector had filed an award in 1963 without issuing notice under Section 12(2). Respondents applied for a reference in 1964 (rejected as time-barred) and again in 1976 after the High Court directed issuance of notices. The Collector made the reference while requesting its dismissal for being barred by limitation. The High Court considered whether the reference was time-barred and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to determine limitation, as well as the adequacy of the compensation assessed on potential building value. The Court held that the civil court possesses jurisdiction to examine whether a reference under Section 18 is barred by limitation and that making a reference does not constitute a waiver by the Collector. Under Section 18(2)(b), the maximum limitation period is six months from the date of the award, and service of notice years later cannot revive limitation. The Court further held that the burden lies on the claimant to prove an award is inadequate, and potential value cannot be determined speculatively. The appeal was accepted, the lower court's judgment was set aside, and the Collector's award was restored.
Questions settled- Does the civil court have jurisdiction to examine the question of limitation in a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Does the Collector's act of forwarding an application for reference under Section 18 to the civil court constitute a waiver of the plea of limitation?
- Does the issuance or service of a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 several years after the award furnish a fresh period of limitation under Section 18(2)(b)?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie in a reference before the court to establish that the compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate or illegal?
- Can the potential building value of agricultural land be assumed for determining market value without evidence of prior transactions for building use before the acquisition notification?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, LYALLPUS (FAISALABAD) vs Malik GHULAM HAIDER1983 SC MR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a judgment of the High Court dated 14-3-1981. The core legal question examined by the Court is whether, following the establishment of the Service Tribunal, the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to pass a judgment restoring a trial court decree that declared the correct date of birth of a civil servant, ordered its substitution in his service record, and continued him in service on that basis. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the operation of the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court shall be suspended meanwhile. The principle laid down relates to the jurisdictional limits of the High Court in service matters concerning civil servants after the constitutional and statutory establishment of Service Tribunals.
Questions settled- Whether after the establishment of Service Tribunal, the High Court could restore a decree of the trial Court declaring the correct date of birth of a civil servant?
- Does the High Court retain jurisdiction in service matters of civil servants after the establishment of the Service Tribunal?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND Another vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA AND Other1983 SCMR 1301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which quashed an appellate order granting a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The underlying dispute arose from a suit filed by the Province of Punjab challenging an order of the Superintending Canal Officer that permitted the respondents' predecessor-in-interest to consolidate water drawal from a single outlet. While the trial court initially rejected the application for a temporary injunction, the Additional District Judge allowed it on appeal. Subsequently, the High Court set aside this appellate order, reasoning that the administrative order in question had already been implemented, rendering the injunction application infructuous. Upon review, the Supreme Court summoned departmental officers to verify the status of the implementation. Based on the officers' confirmation that the consolidation of the water outlet had indeed been executed, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The Court affirmed that where an administrative order has already been implemented, an application for a temporary injunction against that order becomes infructuous.
Questions settled- Does the implementation of an administrative order render an application for a temporary injunction against that order infructuous?
- Can an appellate court's order granting an injunction be quashed if the underlying subject matter has already been executed?
- PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN vs ISMAIL AND OTHERS1983 PLD Quetta 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
- PROJECT MANAGER, MILCO PROJECT PACKAGES LTD. vs SARFRAZ KHAN1983PLC 806 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- PROF. BASHIR NASIR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER1983 SCMR 1258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the allotment of urban land in Nawan Kot, Lahore. The petitioner challenged an allotment made to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, arguing that the land contained constructed school buildings and residential quarters. While a Single Judge initially set aside the allotment, a Division Bench reversed this, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi as a trespasser and that the land's status was determined by its use on 15th August 1947. However, the Division Bench, based on a concession by the allottee, directed that the area covered by the schools be excluded from the allotment for transfer to the institution. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, finding no legal basis for the petitioner to claim further land. Nevertheless, the Court observed that a school requires a playground and directed the Notified Officer to consider allocating additional space for this purpose when finalizing the transfer, expressing confidence that the allottee's heirs would honor the spirit of the original concession.
Questions settled- Does a trespasser on land have the locus standi to challenge an allotment of that land?
- Is the status of land for allotment purposes under the Rehabilitation Scheme determined by its use on 15th August 1947 or its current use?
- Can a court direct the allocation of additional land for school playgrounds based on equitable considerations when the allottee has conceded to the transfer of the school building area?
- PRINTING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN1983 PLC 652 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD MEDICAL COLLEGE, LAHORE vs GHULAM MUSTAFA1983 SCMR 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside disciplinary action taken by the King Edward Medical College against a student. The student had secured admission after concealing a prior attempt at the F.Sc. examination and submitting a false affidavit. The core legal question was whether such misrepresentation constitutes a valid ground for disciplinary action despite the absence of immediate wrongful loss or gain. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the student’s act of concealing facts and filing a false affidavit constituted fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on criminal law precedents requiring actual wrongful loss to establish fraud. The Court affirmed the principle that the High Court's writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised in favour of a petitioner with "unclean hands" who employs fraudulent means to obtain educational admission. Consequently, the disciplinary action taken by the college authorities was upheld as justified.
Questions settled- Does a student's misrepresentation in an admission form constitute fraud even if the intended wrongful gain has not yet materialized?
- Should the High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in favor of a petitioner who has secured admission through false representations and affidavits?
- Is the definition of 'false representation' in disciplinary proceedings limited by the requirement of actual wrongful loss or gain as defined in criminal law?
- Present : Aftab Hussain, C YASEEN vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 53 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- POSTMASTER GENERAL AND Another vs M. RAFIQUE SHAD1983 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal which allowed the respondent's appeal against his removal from service as a Delivery Clerk on the technical ground that the Postmaster (Delivery) G.P.O. Lahore was not competent to pass the removal order under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules during the period from 18-8-1973 to 24-7-1975 due to an alleged absence of delegation from the President. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner was competent to act under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules and whether the Service Tribunal erred in its findings regarding limitation and jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the notification classifying services and posts empowered the designated Gazetted Officer Incharge of Division to exercise powers under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, and found no inconsistency between the applicable laws and rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Service Tribunal and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the remaining points involved.
Questions settled- Whether the Postmaster or Gazetted Officer Incharge of Division was competent to pass an order of removal under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules during the relevant period?
- Does the Service Tribunals Act 1973 create a distinction between void orders and other orders regarding the application of limitation?
- Whether existing rules and notifications continue to remain operative under statutory provisions until the framing of new rules?
- PORT MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI AND 13 OTHERS1983 CLC 3126 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of a learned Single Judge who decreed a suit for compensation filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, against the appellant and respondents following a fatal motor vehicle accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the appellant's employee. The core legal questions involve whether the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act and the extent of the insurance company's liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court held that the suit was within time because the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act since the limitation period expired during the court's summer vacation, and that the insurance company's liability was statutorily capped at twenty thousand rupees. The key legal principles established are that court vacation notifications cannot override the statutory benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act, and an insurer's liability for third-party risks in fatal accidents is strictly limited to the amount prescribed under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Questions settled- Does the closure of a court for summer vacations prevent a litigant from taking the benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act for filing a suit?
- What is the extent of an insurer's liability under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in respect of third-party risks in fatal accidents?
- Can a notification permitting litigants to file plaints during court vacations deprive them of the statutory benefit of excluding the vacation period in computing limitation?
- PIYARO vs DIN MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 958 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected second appeals arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against tenants on grounds of default, property damage, and personal requirement. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment based on default and personal requirement, while the First Appellate Court maintained the default finding but rejected the personal requirement claim. The core legal questions were whether a tenant’s failure to pay rent constitutes "wilful default" when the landlord refuses rent to coerce an illegal enhancement, and whether a landlord can introduce new grounds for personal requirement not pleaded in the original application. The High Court held that where a landlord refuses rent for months to force an illegal enhancement, the tenant's failure to pay is merely a technical default, not a wilful one. Furthermore, the Court held that a landlord cannot lead evidence for grounds of personal requirement, such as the needs of married children, if those grounds were not explicitly pleaded in the initial rent application. Consequently, the Court set aside the ejectment orders and dismissed the rent applications, establishing that default must be wilful to warrant ejectment.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's failure to pay rent constitute wilful default when the landlord refuses to accept rent to coerce an illegal enhancement?
- Can a landlord lead evidence regarding personal requirement for married children if such grounds were not pleaded in the original rent application?
- Is a tenant liable for ejectment due to default when the landlord has continuously refused to accept rent for several months?
- PITRASS MASIH vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HEALTH1983 PLC (C. S.) 902 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-20Read full judgment →
- PIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND 5 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 363 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
- PIR MUHAMMAD vs EDUCATION TOWN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.1983 CLC 3041 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-09Read full judgment →
- Pir MUHAMMAD KHAN MASOOD AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 954 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- PIR MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Others vs Mst. FARHAT AND Other1983 SCMR 1014 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal in limine of a second appeal concerning the ejectment of the petitioners from an urban property. The core legal questions involved whether the ejectment proceedings were misconceived due to pending settlement proceedings, whether the petitioner was entitled to a notice under section 30 of the repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of hearing by the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment proceedings were validly launched on the basis of a P.T.O. following demarcation, that the question of notice under section 30 was merely of academic value since such notice is no longer necessary, and that the petitioner was himself at fault for failing to produce evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether ejectment proceedings can be launched on the basis of a P.T.O. while settlement proceedings are pending?
- Does the failure to issue a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 vitiate ejectment proceedings when such notice is no longer necessary?
- Can a party complain of a lack of fair opportunity of hearing when their case was closed due to their own failure to produce evidence?
- Pir MANZOOR AHMED vs ABID TABIZAIZ AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 309 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
- PIR BUX AND 3 OTHERS vs ISMAILIA PLATINUM COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY1983 CLC 2754 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PINDU AND 6 Others. vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 343 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- PIARA KHAN vs BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2522 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
- PHOTO Alias KADO vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 2459 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- PERVEZ IQBAL KHAN AND 7 Other vs MESSRS M. MUSHTAQ & .SONS1983 PLC 1032 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ AKHTAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 184 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-05Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ AKHTAR vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF PRISONS, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 31 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION1983 PLC (C. S.) 802 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- PEHLWAN AND Others vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other1983 SCMR 1044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition where the petitioners' claim to land allotment was negatived by the revenue authorities and the High Court on the ground that no order of allotment existed in their favour in the relevant register of allotments. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the absence of an entry in the allotment register alone was conclusive to prove that no allotment was made, particularly when the register pertained only to certain years and subsequent allottees also lacked entries. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court was not justified in non-suiting the petitioners solely on the absence of the entry under the circumstances, and ordered that the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed meanwhile.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of an entry in the register of allotments is conclusive proof that no land allotment was made?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed solely on the ground of an unverified entry or absence of entry in a revenue register?
- Whether interim protection against dispossession can be granted pending the hearing of an appeal regarding land allotment?
- PEERAN DITTA vs THE STATE-1983 P Cr. L J 195 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- PARVEEZ HAMEED vs Syed LIAQUAT HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Karachi 455 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
- PANNA N vs THE STATE1983 PCrLJ 2374 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN WOOL SCOURING & PRESSING Co. LTD. vs BARKHURDAR AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 175 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-10Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN vs PAK CHROME LEATHER COMPANY LTD.1983 PLD Lahore 326 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Pak Chrome Leather Company Limited filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of money against Pakistan through the Ministry of Defence after successfully fulfilling a contract for the supply of boots. The defendant admitted the performance of the contract but withheld payment, claiming that another firm, Messrs Sind Tanneries Limited, allegedly a sister concern, owed money to the Directorate. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. In appeal, the Lahore High Court addressed core questions regarding territorial jurisdiction, the proper institution of the suit, the distinct legal entity of incorporated companies, and the burden of proof. The High Court held that objections to territorial jurisdiction cannot succeed where the case was tried on merits without any consequent failure of justice, that separate incorporated companies cannot be treated as a single entity to satisfy liabilities of sister concerns without discharging the heavy onus of proof, and that procedural technicalities raised by the appellant lacked substance. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an objection to territorial jurisdiction can be entertained by an appellate court where the trial court has decided the case on merits and no failure of justice is shown?
- Can a government department lawfully withhold undisputed payments due to a company under a fulfilled contract on the ground that a separate sister concern owes money to the government?
- Does the separate legal entity of an incorporated company get dissolved to merge liabilities with another company merely because both share common directors?
- On whom lies the burden of proof when a defendant asserts that a plaintiff company and another indebted entity are sister concerns liable for each other's debts?
- PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, POPULATION DIVISION, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, ISLAMABAD vs MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN1983 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Pakistan against a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had declared the termination of the respondent's service as mala fide and ordered his reinstatement with consequential benefits. The respondent, a Store Supervisor, had been suspended, censured, and subsequently terminated after filing a civil suit challenging his suspension. The Service Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the government due to its failure to file objections despite notice. The Supreme Court examined the government's contentions that the respondent was not a civil servant and that the termination was a valid exercise of departmental authority, not mala fide. The Court held that the government failed to raise these issues before the Service Tribunal, thereby precluding a review of the factual findings. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petition failed to raise a question of law of public importance, a prerequisite for granting leave to appeal under the Constitution. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the finality of the Tribunal's findings on the facts presented.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a finding of fact in the Supreme Court if the issue was not raised before the Service Tribunal?
- What is the threshold for granting leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the failure of a government department to file objections before a Service Tribunal preclude it from challenging the Tribunal's findings on appeal?
- PAKISTAN THROUGH DIRECTORATE GENERAL, TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONES, ISLAMABAD vs Mst. FAIZAN1983 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Telegraph Department of the Government of Pakistan against a Letters Patent Bench judgment of the High Court of Sindh. The respondent, owner of agricultural land in Karachi, was deprived of its use and enjoyment due to the petitioner erecting wireless station installations and fencing on it. The respondent sought compensation under the Telegraph Act 1885. The High Court on its original side accepted the petition, which was subsequently modified on appeal by the Letters Patent Bench to enhance the annual compensation based on a revised land valuation. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised technical objections regarding the High Court's original jurisdiction, the competency of the Letters Patent Appeal, and limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner could not re-open technical jurisdictional and limitation questions that were either abandoned or not raised before the lower appellate court. The Court emphasized that its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal will not be exercised to jeopardize a just decision on the merits based on purely technical and legalistic pleas.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal solely on technical and legalistic pleas when a just decision on the merits has been reached?
- Can a party re-open a technical objection regarding the territorial or forum jurisdiction of a High Court Judge at the Supreme Court stage if they failed to challenge the interlocutory order repelling that objection and proceeded on the merits?
- Can a plea of limitation or ownership be raised before the Supreme Court if it was expressly abandoned or not urged before the Division Bench of the High Court?
- PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD. vs MUHAMMAD NADEEM SIDDIQUI1983 PLC 972 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN STEEL FABRICATING Co. LTD. vs STAFF AND WORKERS' UNION1983 PLC 228 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN SERVICES LTD., HOTEL INTERCONTINENTAL. KARACHI vs AFZAL1983 CLC 2083 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-06Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE1983 PLC 1237 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-26Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs MUHAMMAD HAMID1983 PLC 405 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs GHULAM MUSTAFA1983 PLC 979 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS THOURGH DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, KARACHI vs 'AZIZUL HAQ1983 PLC 399 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-20Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1983 PLC 566 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RADIO HOUSE LTD. AND 12 OTHERSs vs CASSIM SULEMAN AND 71983 CLC 1656 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-16Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD. vs NATIONAL TRADING COMPANY (N. T.1983 CLC 1695 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two cross civil revision petitions arising out of an order passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, on an application for temporary injunction filed under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act 1940 and Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The core legal questions pertained to whether an injunction maintaining the supply of goods under a distributorship agreement constitutes an impermissible mandatory injunction, and whether a prima facie case existed for grant of interim relief. The High Court affirmed the lower court's order, dismissing both revision petitions. The Court held that directing a party to continue supplying goods per regular past practice under an un-terminated contract maintains status quo rather than issuing a mandatory injunction. Furthermore, courts may grant mandatory injunctions in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to prevent injustice, and serious arguable questions of law and fact establish a prima facie case.
Questions settled- Does an order directing a manufacturer not to stop supplies to a distributor during pending arbitration proceedings amount to a mandatory injunction or maintenance of status quo?
- Can a court issue an interim mandatory injunction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 do not apply?
- Does the existence of a serious arguable question of law and fact satisfy the requirement of a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- PAKISTAN OILFIELD LTD. vs H. U. SIDDIQUI1983 PLC 1239 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →