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.
- PAKISTAN OIL FIELD LTD. vs H. W. SIDDIQUI1983 PLC 716 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-19Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION vs PREMIER INSURANCE1983 PLD Karachi 550 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN FERTILIZERS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL JAVED1983 PLC 851 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD. vs EJAZ AHMAD1983 PLC 841 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-18Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN CYCLE INDUSTRIAL .CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. vs PUNJAB1983 PLC 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN CHROME MINES LTD. vs THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, WAR RISK INSURANCE1983 SCMR 1208 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment regarding the liability of manufacturing concerns to pay premia for war risk insurance under the War Risk Insurance Ordinance, 1971. The Enquiry Officer had issued show-cause notices for alleged deficiencies in premia payments, imposing surcharges and interest. The appellate authority dismissed the companies' appeals without granting personal hearings. The High Court remanded the cases to the Enquiry Officer, deciding some issues in favor of the companies while rejecting others. The core legal question was whether the appellate authority's failure to grant a personal hearing rendered its orders void and whether the remand should be directed to the Enquiry Officer or the appellate authority. The Supreme Court held that the appellate authority's orders were void for lack of personal hearing. Consequently, the Court directed that all matters be remanded to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that an appellate authority must afford a personal hearing to appellants before disposing of their appeals, and failure to do so renders the resulting order void and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Is an appellate authority required to afford a personal hearing to an appellant before disposing of an appeal?
- Does the failure of an appellate authority to grant a personal hearing render its order void and of no legal effect?
- Where an appellate order is found void for lack of hearing, is it appropriate to remand the case to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits?
- PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LTD. vs TAHIR ALI1983 CLC 2745 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Sections 31 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a declaration on the existence and scope of an arbitration agreement following a dispute over a dealership licence. The petitioner argued that the agreement was terminated by mutual consent, thereby extinguishing the arbitration clause, and that the specific disputes regarding the termination and possession were not covered by the clause. The Court held that the correspondence between the parties did not establish a mutual termination of the contract, as the parties were not ad idem. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the legal principle that an arbitration clause is a collateral, independent agreement that survives the termination or rescission of the substantive contract, particularly when the clause is broadly drafted to cover any disputes arising out of or connected with the subject matter. While the Court found the arbitration clause valid and applicable to the dispute regarding possession, it declared the respondent's unilateral appointment of a second arbitrator illegal for failing to comply with the 15-day notice period required by the agreement and Section 9(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Questions settled- Does an arbitration clause survive the termination or rescission of the substantive contract?
- Can a party unilaterally appoint an arbitrator without complying with the notice period stipulated in the arbitration agreement?
- Does a mere expression of a wish to surrender a dealership constitute a mutual termination of the contract?
- Is an arbitration clause an integral part of the substantive contract or a collateral, independent agreement?
- PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LTD. vs Mst. SHAHANA NASIM AKBAR FAROOQI1983 PLD Lahore 567 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs M. FAIZ AHMADPlaintiff1983 CLC 1369 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,94,465 filed by a contractor against Pakistan Railways for services rendered under a goods handling agreement. The core legal question was whether the contractor was entitled to payment under Schedule B(2)(d) of the agreement for handling CR/TR vans, or if the Railways correctly paid him under Schedules A and C, and whether the suit was barred by limitation, estoppel, or an arbitration clause. The Court held that the evidence established the contractor performed the specific services defined in Schedule B(2)(d), and the agreement did not restrict such payments to transit stations only. The Court affirmed the trial court's decree, ruling that the contractor was not estopped from claiming the correct payment despite certifying bills, as he had consistently raised objections. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellants waived their right to invoke the arbitration clause by failing to apply for a stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 before filing their written statement. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a party waive the right to invoke an arbitration clause if they fail to apply for a stay of proceedings before filing a written statement?
- Can a contractor claim payment under a specific schedule of an agreement if they previously certified bills under a different schedule?
- Does a civil court have territorial jurisdiction to hear a suit where the agreement was executed and payments were refused within its jurisdiction?
- Is a claim for payment under a contract barred if the contractor failed to prefer the claim within the time stipulated in the agreement, despite having raised the issue through correspondence?
- PAKISTAN (MINISTRY OF DEFENCE) vs DIN MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD CHHUTAL1983 CLC 1281 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an arbitration award determining compensation for lands requisitioned and subsequently acquired by the Ministry of Defence under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971. The core legal question concerned the adequacy of the compensation awarded for the acquired agricultural land, specifically whether the Arbitrator correctly assessed the market value and potentiality of the land. The Court held that the Arbitrator’s award was based on unrebutted evidence produced by the landowners, which demonstrated the land's proximity to commercial areas, highways, and essential infrastructure, thereby justifying the higher valuation. The Court affirmed the compensation rates for the acquired land, the 15% compulsory allowance, and the 6% interest rate, while setting aside the special damages awarded for unacquired portions of land, as the respondents conceded this point. The judgment reaffirms the principle that market value is a question of fact, and where a party fails to lead evidence in rebuttal, the evidence produced by the opposing party regarding the land's potentiality and market value may be accepted as the basis for determining fair compensation.
Questions settled- Is the market value of land for compensation purposes a question of fact?
- Can an arbitrator award compensation based on the potentiality of land for commercial use?
- What is the consequence of a party failing to lead evidence in rebuttal during compensation proceedings?
- Are special damages for unacquired land portions permissible in acquisition proceedings?
- PAK SAUDI FERTILIZERS LTD. vs MAULA BUX BHUTTO1983 PLC 680 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-06Read full judgment →
- PAK MUHAMMAD ETC.s vs THE STATEResponcc:1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 165 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-09-04Read full judgment →
- PAHARA AND OTHERS vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3119 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- PACKAGES LTD. vs GAMA MASIH1983 PLC 602 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-23Read full judgment →
- P. I. D. C. TEXTILE MILLS, SHAHDADKOT vs MUHAMMAD YOUNIS1983 P LC 705 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
- OSMAN HAJI WALI MUHAMMAD vs JAN MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 1241 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- OMEGA SPORTS AND RADIO WORKS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1983 PTD 148 · Allahabad High Court · 1981-11-17Read full judgment →
- N/A vs N/A1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · -Read full judgment →
- NUSRATULLAH RATHORO vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2673 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
- NUSRAT KABIR vs MESSRS HAMD.ARD DAWAKHANA (WAQF) PAKISTAN1983 PLC 355 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- NUR MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1983 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant murdered the deceased using a kassi, supported by eye-witness testimony. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained given the conduct of the eye-witnesses, who had initially implicated other individuals due to personal enmity and later retracted those allegations upon the complainant's lead. The Supreme Court held that the eye-witnesses were unreliable and pliable, acting at the behest of the complainant rather than providing independent, truthful accounts. The Court reasoned that the deliberate false implication of enemies in the initial report cast significant doubt on the entire prosecution case, suggesting the identity of the culprit was not known for certain. Consequently, the Court found the evidence insufficient and unimpeachable to support a capital conviction, as the witnesses lacked credibility and the prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside due to the unreliable nature of the evidence presented.
Questions settled- Does the false implication of innocent persons in a murder case render the testimony of eye-witnesses unreliable?
- Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained on the testimony of witnesses who demonstrate pliability and lack of independence?
- Does the resort to implicating enemies on suspicion in an FIR suggest that the identity of the actual culprit was not known for certain?
- NUR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE HAKIM AND Other1983 SCMR 1161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated petitions arise out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a brutal quadruple murder committed during the night. The trial court convicted thirteen accused persons under sections 302/34, 452, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing four to death and others to various terms of imprisonment. Upon appeal and reference, the High Court maintained the convictions of some petitioners while altering certain death sentences to life imprisonment, and acquitted several other co-accused. The convicted petitioners sought leave to appeal challenging their convictions based on ocular testimony, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries, while the complainant filed a separate petition challenging the acquittal of the other respondents. The Supreme Court examined the submissions regarding the safe administration of justice, the evidentiary value of joint extra-judicial confessions, and the reliance on police recoveries without independent corroboration. Finding that the contentions raised substantial questions requiring re-examination and re-appraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions.
Questions settled- Whether a joint extra-judicial confession has sufficient evidentiary value to furnish corroboration for a criminal conviction?
- Can recoveries supported solely by the testimony of police officers furnish a strong confirmatory circumstance against the accused without independent witness support?
- Whether the non-disclosure of certain accused names in the initial First Information Report can be justified by the positioning of the eyewitnesses at the scene?
- Whether the High Court's acquittal of co-accused warrants re-examination when ocular testimony is accepted as trustworthy against some but discarded against others?
- NUR ELLAHI vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 126 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
- NUR ALAM vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 425 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
- NOWSHERI KHAN vs SAID AHMAD SHAH1983 SCMR 1092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the dismissal of the appellant's civil revision petition. The appellant had appealed a decree for possession to the District Judge, but on subsequent dates the Presiding Officer was absent and the Moharrir (Reader) adjourned the case to 16-9-1976. On that date, neither party appeared, and the District Judge dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution under Order XLI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant's restoration application was rejected as time-barred. The Supreme Court considered whether an adjournment granted by a court reader in the Presiding Officer's absence constitutes a valid date of hearing for dismissal. The Court held that an adjournment by a reader only becomes a valid date of hearing if the mandatory requirements of Order XVII Rule 5 CPC—specifically handing over signed slips of paper specifying the next date to the parties—are satisfied. Since the appellant was absent when the reader adjourned the case, no slip was handed over, rendering the dismissal illegal and void. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution on a date to which it was adjourned by a court reader in the absence of the Presiding Officer?
- Is compliance with the condition under Order XVII Rule 5 CPC regarding handing over slips specifying the next date mandatory before dismissing a case for non-prosecution?
- Does Order XVII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to appellate court proceedings by virtue of Section 107(2) of the Code?
- NOT vs NOT1983 PTD (Trib.) 386 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-26Read full judgment →
- NORTH-WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE vs SHAD MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2576 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-11-14Read full judgment →
- NOORULLAH HASHIM vs ASSOCIATED PRESS OF PAKISTANKARACHI1983 PLC 1123 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- NOORUL ISLAM SIDDIQI vs Mst. HAIDRI BEGUM AND OTHER1983 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed his constitutional petition challenging an ejectment order. The landlady had sought eviction based on default in rent payment and personal need for the property. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority both found against the tenant regarding the rent default, rejecting his defense that rent was adjusted against purchases made by the landlady from his shop. The High Court upheld these findings, refusing to re-evaluate the evidence regarding the account books. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that his account books proved rent payment and that the landlady could not claim personal need based on her husband's requirements. The Supreme Court held that in constitutional jurisdiction, evidence deemed unreliable by lower authorities cannot be reappraised unless a legal error occurred in its admission or evaluation. It further ruled that entries in account books are not sacrosanct and do not automatically prevail. Finding the default in rent payment a sufficient ground for eviction, the Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can evidence regarding account books, once rejected by lower authorities, be reappraised in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Are entries in account books kept in the ordinary course of business sacrosanct in proving the discharge of rent liability?
- Is default in the payment of rent a sufficient ground for maintaining an eviction order?
- NOORUDDIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 889 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- NOORUDDIN vs ELECTION AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1748 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
- NOOR-UZ-ZAMAN KHAN vs SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION.1983 PLC 235 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- NOOR REHMAN vs MESSERS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1983 PLC 782 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-17Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs UNITED BANK LTD.1983 PLC 1108 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-18Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 312 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE- Respondent1983 P Cr. LJ 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1983 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding the transfer of a settlement property. The core legal question is whether a party who has previously surrendered their rights in a property through an agreement of association in favour of another transferee can subsequently seek transfer of a portion of the same property on the ground that it constitutes a separate unit. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having surrendered his rights, lacked the locus standi to challenge the transfer or claim the property, regardless of whether the property comprised separate units. The petition was accordingly dismissed as without merit.
Questions settled- Does a transferee who has surrendered their rights in a settlement property through an agreement of association retain the locus standi to subsequently claim a portion of that property?
- Can a party challenge the transfer of a property in favour of another after voluntarily relinquishing all rights in their favour?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of a residential portion of a composite property. The property was initially transferred to the respondents in 1960, but the transfer was subsequently cancelled by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The respondents challenged this cancellation in a writ petition, during which the petitioner was impleaded and allegedly filed a transfer form under Scheme No. VIII. The High Court remanded the matter with specific directions to re-examine the respondents' case. On remand, the Settlement Commissioner restored the allotment to the respondents and rejected the petitioner's claim. The petitioner's subsequent writ petition and Intra-Court Appeal were dismissed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that because the petitioner had never independently challenged the initial transfer order in favor of the respondents, nor contested the limited scope of the remand order which restricted the inquiry to the respondents' case, he lacked the locus standi to seek transfer. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a settlement authority go outside the specific terms of a remand order passed by the High Court?
- Does a third party acquire locus standi to seek transfer of a property if they failed to challenge the initial transfer order or the limited scope of a subsequent remand order?
- Is a property considered available for retransfer to a new applicant while the original transferee's challenge against cancellation is pending adjudication under a status quo order?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SARDARAN BIBI AND Another1983 SCMR 1237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that allowed a constitutional petition filed by a claimant displaced person, Mst. Sardaran Bibi, regarding the transfer of a 'Khokha' (a small shop) situated on the outer wall of a shop previously transferred to the petitioner, Noor Muhammad. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interfered with the settlement authorities' decision by determining the property's status as an independent business premise and directing its disposal under Settlement Scheme No. IX, despite arguments regarding limitation and the petitioner's prior claim. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The Court held that since the premises had historically been treated as a separate business unit and occupied by the respondent, the High Court's intervention was justified to prevent the deprivation of the respondent's interest. The key principle laid down is that in settlement matters involving displaced persons, the court may look beyond technicalities like limitation when a claimant has long occupied the premises as an independent business unit, ensuring the property is treated as 'available property' for proper settlement.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with settlement authorities' decisions regarding the classification of property as an independent business premise?
- Does the long-term occupation of a business premise by a claimant displaced person justify the court in disregarding technical limitations to ensure equitable settlement?
- Can two separate commercial units be transferred to a single petitioner if one unit has historically been treated as an independent business premise?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, BHAKKAR FOREST1983 PLC (C. S.) 739 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL. COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2531 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,1983 PLC (C. S.) 201983 · Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Azad J & K 34 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-10-14Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2378 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- NOOR M UHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1357 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-27Read full judgment →
- NOOR KHAN vs LAL KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Rev. 11 · Board of Revenue · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
- NOOR KHAN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT SHAH AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2520 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
- NOOR HUSSAIN vs NOOR ALI1983 PLD Karachi 448 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
- NOOR ELLAHI vs MUHAMMAD ELLAHI AND Another1983 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a civil suit filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that he was entitled to the transfer of a disputed shop and that the transfer in favour of respondent No. 1 was void, alongside injunctive relief. The shop had originally been transferred to the respondent during the initial settlement operations, and previous challenges by the petitioner's brothers, including an appeal to the Supreme Court, had failed. Subsequent applications by the petitioner under settlement schemes were also rejected. The trial court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent revision petition. The core legal question is whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge a property transfer made under settlement operations and seek its cancellation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner cannot seek the cancellation of a transfer through a civil action and that the litigation was frivolous and vexatious. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the bar on civil jurisdiction in such matters.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the transfer of property made under settlement operations through a civil suit?
- Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking the cancellation of a settlement transfer.
- Is a suit maintainable after previous challenges to the same property transfer by family members have failed up to the Supreme Court?
- NOOR ELAHI AND 4 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 2310 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- NOOR ELAHI AND 4 OTHERS vs EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, JHELUM1983 CLC 1153 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
- NOOR DAD AND 10 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 623 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment concerns an appeal filed by eleven appellants against their conviction under Section 156(1), clause 89 of the Customs Act, 1969, by the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, for smuggling foreign goods. The prosecution alleged that a Customs party intercepted a launch named 'Al-Tirmez' carrying smuggled goods and arrested its crew. The appellants, however, contended that their launch was intercepted by a Pakistan Navy ship, 'Babar', near the Iran coast, and the goods were loaded from that ship. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the convictions could be sustained given the admitted non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, which mandates the issuance of a notice. The High Court, in agreement with a cited precedent, held that the provisions of Section 171 were mandatory. Since no such notice was given, the seizure of goods and arrest of the appellants were deemed illegal and without lawful authority. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants on this legal ground.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under the Customs Act, 1969, be sustained if the mandatory notice requirement under Section 171 of the said Act is not complied with?
- Does the non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, render the seizure of goods and arrest of accused persons illegal?
- Are the provisions of Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, regarding notice for search and seizure, mandatory in nature?
- NOOR BIBI vs ALI MUHAMMD AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3135 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-09Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMED vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 807 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-02Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 164 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs KHURSHID JAHAN BEGUM AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2851 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
- NOOK MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
- NIZAMUDDIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, REVENUE1983 PLC (C. S.) 169 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-10-11Read full judgment →
- NIZAMUDDIN vs CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 924 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
- NIZAM DIN vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KABIRWALA, ETC. S1983SCMR739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the convening of a no-confidence motion meeting against the petitioner, the Chairman of a Town Committee. The core legal question was whether a no-confidence motion moved against a previous Chairman could be counted towards the six-month interval requirement stipulated in Section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, thereby barring a motion against the successor Chairman. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory interval requirement applies specifically to the individual Chairman against whom the motion is directed. The Court reasoned that the six-month period must be calculated from the date of assumption of office by the specific Chairman facing the motion, not from the date of a motion against a predecessor. The key principle laid down is that the statutory restriction on no-confidence motions is personal to the incumbent Chairman, ensuring that a successor is not subjected to a motion before completing six months in office.
Questions settled- Does the six-month interval requirement for a no-confidence motion under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 apply to the office of the Chairman generally or to the individual incumbent?
- Can a no-confidence motion moved against a predecessor Chairman be used to calculate the six-month interval for a motion against a successor Chairman?
- From what date is the six-month period for a no-confidence motion against a Chairman calculated under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
- NIZAM DIN vs GENERAL MANAGER, NAGINA CINEMA, LAHORE1983 PLC 590 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- NIZAM DIN AND others vs Mst. ZUBAIDA AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
- NISARALLY vs MESSRS NOOR SONS AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 3271 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMED KHAN AND ANOTHER vs CHIEF ENGINEER C & W DEPARTMENT, N.-W. F. P. AND1983 PLC (C. S.) 1123 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1982-06-21Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD AND Others vs Mian MUSHARAF SHAH (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL1983 SCMR 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves fifteen appeals arising from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against tenants for the reconstruction of commercial shops. The core legal question is whether a subsequent ejectment application on the ground of reconstruction is barred under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when a previous application on similar grounds was dismissed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals, holding that the subsequent ejectment application was maintainable because the landlord had remedied the earlier legal deficiency by obtaining proper sanction, approval, and an approved plan from the Municipal Corporation, and the previous order had expressly clarified that it did not preclude future reconstruction. The key principle laid down is that a subsequent eviction application for reconstruction is not barred where the previous application failed due to a lack of statutory prerequisites like an approved building plan and the prior order permitted future applications upon compliance.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent ejectment application for reconstruction is barred under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, if the previous application was dismissed due to lack of an approved building plan?
- Does the dismissal of a prior ejectment application preclude a landlord from seeking eviction for reconstruction after fulfilling the mandatory legal requirements?
- NIHALA vs The STATE1983 SCMR 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellant, Nihala, was originally sentenced to death for the murder of Nur Muhammad, following a dispute over tube-well water pricing. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the death penalty was appropriate given the circumstances of the incident, specifically the contention that the occurrence was a sudden fight rather than a premeditated attack, and that the prosecution had suppressed injuries sustained by the accused. Upon review, the Court found that the evidence supported the defense's position that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel where both parties sustained injuries. Consequently, the Court held that the extreme penalty of death was not warranted. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal to the extent of modifying the sentence, commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment, and imposing a fine. The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases of sudden fights where premeditation is absent, the imposition of the death penalty is not justified.
Questions settled- Does a sudden fight between parties negate the premeditation required for the imposition of the death penalty?
- Is the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused by the prosecution a relevant factor in determining the nature of the fight?
- Can the Supreme Court alter a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the finding that the occurrence was not a premeditated attack?
- NIAZ UD DIN vs CHAND MUHAMMAD AND Other1983 SCMR 537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a disputed house in Rawalpindi. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner's civil suit and writ petition challenging the transfer documents issued to the respondent were maintainable despite being heavily barred by time and affected by laches. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts and the High Court correctly dismissed the petitioner's suit and constitutional petition as hopelessly time-barred, noting that the petitioner had surrendered possession in 1963-1964 and failed to provide any explanation for remaining silent for over a decade. The key principle laid down is that unexplained, inordinate delay and limitation bars a party from seeking equitable or civil remedies regarding property transfer disputes.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit challenging property transfer documents is barred by time when filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of laches when the petitioner fails to explain a delay spanning over fourteen years?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts and the High Court regarding a suit being time-barred?
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD SHEIKH AND 2 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1983 PLC (C. S.) 713 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD alias JAJA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 211 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
- NIAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- NIAZ HUSSAIN AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- NIAZ ALI vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 661 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a security guard, was dismissed from service for sleeping on duty, an act characterized by the employer as habitual negligence. The Labour Court found that a solitary instance of sleeping on duty did not constitute misconduct warranting dismissal and ordered reinstatement with back benefits. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal maintained the reinstatement but denied back benefits, citing the petitioner's admitted negligence. The petitioner challenged this denial before the High Court. The core legal question was whether back benefits could be withheld from an employee whose dismissal was declared unlawful. The High Court held that once a dismissal is found unsustainable, withholding back benefits is unlawful. The Court reasoned that the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, provides specific penalties, such as fines, for acts of negligence. Since the employer had not imposed such a fine, the Tribunal could not arbitrarily withhold back benefits. Consequently, the Court declared the Tribunal's order regarding back benefits without lawful authority and ordered the payment of such benefits.
Questions settled- Can an employer withhold back benefits from an employee whose dismissal has been declared unlawful?
- Does a solitary instance of sleeping on duty constitute misconduct warranting dismissal under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Is an Appellate Tribunal authorized to deny back benefits to a reinstated employee based on negligence when the employer failed to impose a statutory fine?
- NIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE.1983 P Cr, L J 1999 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-22Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD vs Mst. NASIM AKHTAR AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 183 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD vs ASBESTOS CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD.1983 PLC 542 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-01Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS vs GHULAM ABBAS BHATTI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1641 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS vs ALLAH DIWAYA AND OTHERS1983 CLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-04Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2017 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD AKHTAR vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BURALA DIVISION, FAISALABAD1983 PLC (C. S.) 17 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-19Read full judgment →
- NEK MUHAMMAD vs PROJECT MANAGER, M. C. P. FIELD DIVISION AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC 1172 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- OBAIDULLAH KHAN vs V, KARACHI AND OTHERS1983 PLC 71 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
- NEK MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHAFT AND Other1983 SCMR 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order concurrently passed against the petitioner-tenant by the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the Lahore High Court regarding a commercial property in Faisalabad. The core legal questions involved whether a building leased as a shop ceases to be a non-residential building because a portion is used for residence, and whether an ejectment application for personal bona fide need can be maintained by multiple joint landlords for the requirement of only one of them. The Supreme Court held that leasing a property as a single unit shop establishes its character as a non-residential building, and subsequent residential use of a part (Chaubara) does not alter this status. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 13(3)(a) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance permits an ejectment application based on the bona fide personal need of any single landlord among a body of joint landlords. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a building leased as a shop lose its character as a non-residential building if a portion of it is subsequently used for residential purposes?
- Must all joint landlords establish a bona fide personal need to seek ejectment of a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can an application for ejectment be maintained by joint landlords for the personal need of only one of them?
- NEK MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 927 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
- NAZIR MUHAMMAD AND AOTHER vs MUHAMMAD YASIN And Another1983 SCMR 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a disputed room forming part of a composite property under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the room formed part of the residential house transferred to the petitioners or constituted an independent commercial unit, and whether the Settlement Commissioner had duly applied his mind and decided the matter under the relevant statutory provisions when reversing the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the Settlement Commissioner's due application of mind and exercise of powers under the statute required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed security to be furnished, and ordered the appeal to be made ready for an early hearing based on the existing record with liberty to add further documents.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement Commissioner's order can be referred to the provisions of subsection (12) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 without a conscious decision?
- Did the Settlement Commissioner apply his mind while choosing to uphold the decision of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a composite property?
- NAZIR HUSSAIN vs ZIAUL HAQ AND Other1983 SCMR 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to respondents charged with murder and attempted murder. The High Court had granted bail based on the ground that although the respondents had been in custody for 15 months, the trial was unlikely to commence for another two years, and on a re-evaluation of the injuries attributed to them, despite the Supreme Court having previously dismissed their bail petition on merits. The Supreme Court addressed whether lower courts can grant bail on merits after a Supreme Court refusal, and whether statutory bail under the 3rd Proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies before the full statutory period of detention expires. The Supreme Court held that lower courts lack jurisdiction to grant bail on merits once the Supreme Court has rejected bail on those grounds. It further held that the third proviso to Section 497(1) requires continuous detention exceeding two years for capital offences, making statutory bail mandatory only upon fulfilling these exact conditions, and that courts possess no residuary discretion to grant bail for lesser or anticipated delays.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail on merits after the Supreme Court has previously refused bail on the same merits?
- Does the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit the grant of bail on the ground of apprehended or expected delay before the completion of the prescribed period of continuous detention?
- Do courts retain residuary discretionary power to grant bail on general grounds of delay for periods shorter than those specified in the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- NAZIR HUSSAIN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition directed against orders of the Lahore High Court dismissing a criminal revision and a subsequent application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner was convicted under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonestly retaining stolen property and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. His appeal and subsequent revision were dismissed, though the petitioner alleged the judge had orally announced acceptance. A later application for correction or review before another judge was dismissed holding that a judgment cannot be reviewed under Section 561-A. The core legal questions concerned the reviewability of a reasoned criminal judgment under Section 561-A and the quantum of sentence where proceedings were prolonged. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly ruled it could not review the earlier signed judgment under Section 561-A, and upheld the conviction under Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, considering the prolonged delay and that the petitioner had already served a substantial portion of his sentence, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
Questions settled- Can a High Court review or alter its earlier signed criminal judgment through an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an oral pronouncement differing from a subsequently signed and reasoned written judgment carries legal weight in criminal proceedings?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone in view of prolonged delays in deciding post-conviction applications?
- NAZIR HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND OTHERS1983 PLC 118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
- NAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs ORIENT MATCH Co. LTD.1983 PLC 653 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-19Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AND Another vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Another1983 SCMR 1171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil petitions challenging a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the exercise of review powers under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959. The core legal question is whether the power of review conferred upon the Chief Land Commissioner, Land Commissioner, or Deputy Land Commissioner under Rule 11(1) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, is subject to a ten-day limitation period when exercised suo motu, or if that limitation applies exclusively to applications filed by interested parties. The petitioners argued that while prior jurisprudence suggested the ten-day limit applied only to party-initiated reviews, the significant delay in the present case—nearly six years—distinguished it from previous precedents. Furthermore, the petitioners highlighted that Rule 11(3) explicitly allows for the correction of clerical or arithmetical errors at any time, implying that the absence of such language in Rule 11(1) suggests a limitation period must exist. Finding merit in these contentions, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further examine the scope and temporal limitations of the suo motu review power.
Questions settled- Does the ten-day limitation period prescribed in Rule 11(1) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, apply to suo motu reviews initiated by Land Commissioners?
- Does the express provision for correcting clerical errors at any time in Rule 11(3) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, imply that other review powers under Rule 11(1) are subject to a limitation period?
- NAZIR AHMED AWAISI vs UNITED SUGAR MILLS1983 PLC 592 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-15Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1508 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1952 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-02Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs SALAHUDDIN AHMAD AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3093 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 76 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-11Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, MULTAN DIVISION1983 PLC (C. S.) 1185 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs ATTA MUHAMMAD AND Other1983 SCMR 1054 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the shifting of an irrigation outlet, which had been the subject of multiple rounds of litigation between the petitioner and the respondents. The Canal authorities had attempted to rectify an alleged error regarding the outlet's location, but these attempts were repeatedly struck down by civil courts due to procedural non-compliance with the Canal and Drainage Act. Following a final decree that restrained the authorities from re-opening the matter, the Canal authorities initiated fresh proceedings, prompting the respondents to seek enforcement under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Civil Court ordered the withdrawal of these proceedings, a decision upheld by the District Judge and subsequently the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the previous civil court decree, which had attained finality after being affirmed in second appeal, effectively barred the Canal authorities from re-opening the matter. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly interpreted the scope and finality of the earlier injunction decree.
Questions settled- Does a final decree of a civil court restraining canal authorities from re-opening a matter regarding an irrigation outlet preclude them from initiating fresh proceedings?
- Can canal authorities initiate new proceedings to shift an irrigation outlet after a previous court decree has declared their prior attempts null and void?
- Is a High Court's interpretation of a previous civil court decree subject to interference by the Supreme Court when the decree has attained finality?
- NAZIR AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YASIN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2268 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI vs MESSRS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD.1983 PLC 889 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-21Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2564 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2513 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-10Read full judgment →