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.
- HABIB BANK LTD., HYDERABAD vs MUHAMMAD MUNEEB1983 PLC 1128 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD., FAISALABAD vs GHULAM MURTAZA1983 PLC. 1084 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs SYED ANWAR AND Other1983 SCMR 916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arose from an appeal by Habib Bank Ltd. challenging a High Court judgment that interpreted the term 'remuneration' under the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, and the Banks (Amalgamation) Scheme, 1974. The core legal question was whether 'remuneration' should be interpreted narrowly as 'basic salary' or broadly as 'total emoluments' for the purpose of protecting employees' rights during bank amalgamation. The Supreme Court held that 'remuneration' has a broad, extensive meaning, encompassing all payments and benefits received by an employee in consideration for their services. It ruled that the High Court’s restrictive interpretation, which confined the term to basic salary, was erroneous and defeated the statutory protection intended for employees. The Court established that the guarantee of 'same remuneration' in amalgamation schemes is intended to protect the employee's overall financial position rather than individual components of pay. Consequently, as long as the total emoluments are not reduced, the employer is not prohibited from restructuring basic salary components. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Does the term 'remuneration' under the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, refer exclusively to basic salary?
- Can a court restrict the definition of 'remuneration' to basic salary for the purpose of protecting pension and gratuity rights?
- Does a guarantee of 'same remuneration' upon bank amalgamation prevent an employer from reducing basic salary if total emoluments remain equal or higher?
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs SHAHID MASOOD MALIK1983 P LC 874 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1983 PLC 675 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD HADEES1983 PLC 293 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs KHUMAR GUL1983 P'L C 938 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs Kh. M (MAMMA D ISHAQUE1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 223 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-06-24Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs IQBAL I. CHUNDRIGAR AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1464 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a banking suit filed by a bank against the principal debtor and a guarantor for the recovery of an outstanding overdraft balance. The core legal questions revolved around whether a proprietary firm and its sole proprietor are distinct entities for incurring liabilities, whether a suit against a surety is barred by limitation when the guarantee requires a specific demand before payment, and whether the filing of the suit can cure a premature demand. The court held that a proprietary firm and its proprietor are one and the same in the eyes of the law, and that under the terms of the guarantee, the cause of action against the surety arises only after a demand is made and the stipulated period expires. However, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the service of summons in the suit was deemed sufficient notice of demand, thereby maturing the action and rendering the suit within time. The suit was accordingly decreed in favor of the plaintiff bank.
Questions settled- Whether a proprietary firm and its sole proprietor are separate legal entities for the purpose of incurring liability?
- Does the period of limitation for a guarantor commence from the date of the execution of the letter of guarantee or from the date of demand?
- Can the service of court summons be deemed a valid demand to mature a prematurely filed suit against a guarantor?
- Is a guarantor liable for transactions conducted under the name of the proprietor's business firm?
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs GREEN HOSIERY MILLS AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 1297 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs ALLIED TRADING CORPORATION LTD. AND 5 OTHERS1983 CLC 1317 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-02Read full judgment →
- HABIB AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2156 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- HABIB ABDUL QADIR vs Mst. HASEEBUNNISSA BEGUM1983 CLC 2123 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- HABIB & SONS LTD AND ANOTHER vs Chaudhry CHIRAGH DIN1983 CLC 797 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- H. RAZA KHAN AND ANOTHER vs AWAL KHAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2163 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- H. N. A. FURNISHERS vs AlHaj Hafiz MUHAMMAD ISHAQ (REPRESENTED BY HIS1983 CLC 1269 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
- H. M. FAZIL ZAHEER vs Kh, ABDUL HAMEED AND Other1983 SCMR 906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court concerning the transfer and auction of an evacuee property, House No. S-52-R-18, Nisbet Road, Lahore, under settlement laws. The appellant, who initially filed an L.H. Form for transfer which was rejected due to the property's high value, challenged the auction sale of the house and subsequent orders through various settlement authorities. The core legal questions addressed whether a suction sale made in the face of an alleged prohibitory order was void, and whether the appellant was a necessary party in the writ jurisdiction proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the auction was legal and proper, that mere pendency of an application does not operate as an automatic stay or restraint on statutory powers, and that a Settlement Commissioner cannot exercise suo motu revisional powers to upset final orders passed by officers of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether an auction sale of evacuee property is void when conducted while a representation or miscellaneous application is pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Does the mere filing of a revision petition or representation operate as an automatic stay or implied restraint on the statutory powers of settlement authorities?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner exercise suo motu revisional powers under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act to set aside or interfere with final orders passed by another Settlement Commissioner of co-ordinate jurisdiction?
- Whether an eliminated claimant whose rights have been finally adjudicated upon is a necessary party to a constitutional petition challenging a subsequent revisional order?
- H. M. AHMAD RIAZ vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 CLC 2396 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- GULZAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1864 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 775 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE1983 PLC (C. S.) 905 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD vs MRS. SHAH NOOR FAZAL1983 CLC 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
- GULLA JAN vs GHULAM HABIB ETC.1983 CLC 1149 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- GULISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs PAKISTAN1983 CLC 1474 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a customs assessment order classifying imported spindle holders (bolster units) and plastic rings under item 84.38(C) of the Pakistan Customs Tariff, attracting a higher duty rate. The core legal questions were whether the petition was maintainable despite the existence of alternate statutory remedies, and whether the imported items were correctly classified as parts of spindles. The court held that the petition was maintainable because the appellate authorities had already prejudged the issue, rendering the alternate remedy illusory. On merits, the court determined that spindle holders, which function as supports for spindles, do not constitute parts of spindles themselves. Consequently, the items did not fall under the specific heading 84.38(C) but rather under the residual heading 84.38(D), which carries a lower duty rate. The court declared the assessment order without lawful authority and directed the assessment under the correct tariff heading. The key principle established is that the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar a constitutional petition when such remedies are rendered illusory by the prior conduct of the appellate authorities.
Questions settled- Is the existence of an alternate remedy a bar to a constitutional petition when the appellate authorities have already prejudged the issue?
- Are spindle holders (bolster units) considered parts of spindles for the purpose of classification under the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
- Does the classification of a machine part under the heading of the machine apply to support devices like bolster units?
- GULISTAN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM1983 CLC 2808 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-27Read full judgment →
- GUL TAJ vs Mst. WAQARUNNISA1983 PLD Azad J & K 17 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-01-07Read full judgment →
- GUL SHER vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1531 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-15Read full judgment →
- GUL NAWAZ AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences of the appellants for the murder of Fazal Rahman and the attempted murder of Shirin Jan. The appellants contended that the prosecution relied on closely related and inimical witnesses, that medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the number of shots fired, and that common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not established. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of an injured witness is highly credible and consistent with the circumstances. It affirmed that the presence of multiple cardboard discs and distinct injury patterns confirmed multiple shots were fired, corroborating the ocular account. The Court upheld the conviction, reiterating that joint liability under Section 34 requires participation in a criminal act in furtherance of a common intention, regardless of the specific role played by each participant. However, considering that one appellant did not directly cause the death, the Court commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment while maintaining the conviction for the common criminal act.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of an injured witness carry greater weight in a criminal trial?
- Can joint liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be established even if individual participants played different roles in the crime?
- Is the conviction of an accused for murder sustainable under Section 34 if they did not directly fire the fatal shot but acted in furtherance of a common intention?
- Does the presence of multiple cardboard discs at a crime scene corroborate ocular testimony regarding the number of shots fired?
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2317 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-26Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BEGARI SIND FEDDER DIVISION, KASHMORE1983 PLC 959 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs YAR MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 21983 CLC 668 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-05-22Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 681 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-02Read full judgment →
- GUL HAIDER vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the sentence of death upheld by the High Court. The core legal question involved the re-appraisal of evidence concerning the credibility of ocular testimony from interested witnesses, the remoteness and plausibility of the alleged motive, the lack of independent corroboration from the locality for weapon recoveries, and the four-month abscondence of the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to thoroughly re-appraise the evidence to determine whether the petitioner was rightly convicted and if the capital punishment was warranted under the circumstances. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will grant leave to examine concurrent findings of lower courts where arguable points regarding the appreciation of evidence, motive, and lack of independent corroboration are raised.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal can be granted for re-appraisal of evidence in a capital punishment case when questions regarding the credibility of interested ocular witnesses are raised?
- Does a long remote motive combined with the accused being already a married man cast doubt on the prosecution case?
- Whether the absence of independent local witnesses to support weapon recoveries affects the reliability of the prosecution evidence?
- GUL BADSHAH vs SHERBAZ KHAN,1983 CLC 1227 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
- GUFRAN AHMED AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 620 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 156(89) of the Customs Act 1969, following their arrest for the alleged possession of smuggled foreign watches. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969, and whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt given the evidentiary contradictions. The Sindh High Court held that the failure to issue the mandatory notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 rendered the conviction legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions, particularly regarding the presence of the recovery witnesses (Mashirs) on a day they typically kept their shops closed, casting significant doubt on the recovery proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants on the basis of benefit of doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that strict compliance with statutory notice requirements is a prerequisite for a valid conviction under the Customs Act 1969.
Questions settled- Is the issuance of a notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 mandatory before a conviction can be sustained?
- Does the failure to provide a mandatory notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 vitiate a conviction?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's case relies on recovery witnesses whose presence at the scene is rendered doubtful by material contradictions?
- GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN(Now N.W. F. P.) AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. ASMATUN NISA AND 6 (nuns1983 PLD Supreme Court 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arise out of a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning land acquisition proceedings and compensation for land originally owned by Hindu evacuees over which the respondents had obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract of sale. The core legal questions involved the entitlement of the decree-holders to receive compensation for the acquired land, the jurisdiction of the referee court under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to determine questions of title or apportionment not specifically referred, the locus standi of the Government to agitate apportionment disputes, and the rate of interest payable on excess compensation. The Supreme Court held that the referee court cannot go behind the reference to decide unreferred questions of apportionment, that the Government lacks locus standi to contest compensation apportionment between competing claimants, and that amendments to the Land Acquisition Act govern the award of compound interest. The Court laid down that the scope of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is strictly confined to the matters specifically referred, and the acquiring government is not a person interested in disputes regarding the apportionment of compensation.
Questions settled- Whether a referee court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 has jurisdiction to decide questions of apportionment or title not specifically referred to it?
- Does the acquiring government have the locus standi to agitate disputes regarding the apportionment of compensation or entitlement to receive the same?
- Are acquisition proceedings a bar to a decree for specific performance, and does the vendee become entitled to the compensation amount upon acquisition?
- What is the applicable rate of interest on excess compensation following the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Act, 1969?
- GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN vs FAZLE HAQ1983 CLC 2669 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, IRRIGATION, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT vs Syed ZAINUL EBAD RIZVI1983 CLC 1763 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-04Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS ABDUL KARIM AND OTHEERS1983 CLC 828 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-08Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 others vs Sh. ALAUDDIN AND 2 others1983 CLC 176 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF SIND vs SIND FINE TEXTILE MILLS1983 PLD Karachi 134 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER vs AZEEM BUX AND 73 OTHERS1983 PLC 1007 · Labour Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs Maulvi AHMAD SAEED1983 CLC 414 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a Regular First Appeal filed against the judgment of the Administrative Civil Judge, Gujranwala, modifying a land acquisition award and enhancing compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of a Defence Clothing Factory. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and evidentiary value of mutation entries as proof of market value, the necessity of examining vendors or vendees to establish bona fides of sale transactions, and the determination of potential value under section 23 of the Act. The Lahore High Court held that certified copies of land mutations are admissible public documents under the Evidence Act, 1872, and that a sale mutation based on a registered deed can validly serve as the basis for determining market value without requiring mandatory examination of parties to the transaction unless suspicious circumstances are shown. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that potential value and future possibilities must be considered alongside present agricultural use. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Are certified copies of land revenue mutations admissible in evidence as public documents under the Evidence Act, 1872 without further formal proof?
- Whether the examination of vendors or vendees is an essential legal requirement to establish the bona fides of a sale mutation relied upon for determining land compensation?
- Must potential uses and future possibilities of land be taken into account when assessing market value under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Does the failure of a party to produce rebutting evidence amount to an acceptance of the opponent's prima facie evidence?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1983 SCMR 1193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Pakistan against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the termination of the respondent's service as an Intelligence Officer. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to address significant questions of law. The core legal issues involve determining whether the termination order, which appeared valid on its face, precluded further judicial inquiry into the jurisdictional requirements and the authority behind the action. Additionally, the Court sought to examine the validity of Rule 17(2) of the Defence Intelligence Service (Civilian Class 1) Rules, 1962, specifically questioning whether it was ultra vires Article 220 of the Interim Constitution and, consequently, whether it remained a valid legal basis for the termination under the Civil Servants Act. Pending the final adjudication of these issues, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the impugned order of the Service Tribunal and directed that the original record be produced for the hearing.
Questions settled- Does an order of termination that appears valid on its face preclude a court from inquiring into the jurisdictional requirements and the authority behind the action?
- Was Rule 17(2) of the Defence Intelligence Service (Civilian Class 1) Rules, 1962 ultra vires Article 220 of the Interim Constitution?
- Was Rule 17(2) of the Defence Intelligence Service (Civilian Class 1) Rules, 1962 saved or continued under Section 25 of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- GORIMAN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1983 PLC 1144 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- GOLDEN INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs ALIBHOY AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 1270 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-16Read full judgment →
- GOLDEN INDUSTRIES LTD. vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 76 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This batch of constitutional petitions challenged the validity of a new valuation list for property tax assessment on industrial properties in Karachi, compiled under the Sind Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958. The petitioners contended that the list was prepared without following statutory procedures, was arbitrary, and that the subsequent validating legislation, the Sind Finance Act, 1977, was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Court held that while the initial valuation list may have lacked strict statutory compliance, the Sind Finance Act, 1977, effectively validated the list. The Court affirmed that the Provincial Legislature possesses sovereign power to enact curative legislation, including with retrospective effect, provided it does not violate constitutional provisions. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it lacks the jurisdiction to judge the mala fides of the legislature. The classification of industrial properties in Karachi for tax purposes was found to be reasonable and not violative of the equality guarantee under Article 25 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, directing petitioners to pursue departmental remedies for specific assessment grievances.
Questions settled- Can a court declare a statute void on the ground that it was the result of mala fides on the part of the legislature?
- Does the legislature have the power to enact curative or validating legislation with retrospective effect?
- Is a classification of properties for taxation purposes discriminatory if it applies only to a specific category of property within a specific rating area?
- Can a valuation list prepared in violation of statutory procedures be validated by subsequent legislation?
- GOJRA FLOUR MILLS, GOJRA AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1983 SCMR 1023 · 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 constitutional petition concerning the revocation of a contract for the sale of State land. The core legal question involved whether the Board of Revenue lawfully revoked the contract without notice due to non-payment of the price, where the determination and payment mode were allegedly delayed by the respondents. The Supreme Court held that it would be futile to decide the case on merits while related proceedings, including a revision before the Board of Revenue challenging the Collector's order, remained pending or undecided. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, leaving the parties to pursue their remedies through the competent administrative authorities.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when related proceedings challenging the underlying order are still pending before the Board of Revenue?
- Can a contract for the sale of State land be revoked without notice on the ground of non-payment of price?
- GOHAR REHMAN ABBASI vs GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. AND 10 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 553 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM YASIN vs MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR1983 CLC 2498 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM YASIN vs E. A. C. O ETC.1983 CLC 2948 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ULLAH MEMON vs Mst. RASHID BEGUM1983 SCMR 793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This leave petition concerned the custody (hizanat) of three minor girls, disputed between their father (petitioner) and maternal-grandmother (respondent) under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The Guardian Judge initially awarded custody to the father, finding him to be the legal guardian and financially more affluent, and noting the termination of the grandmother's hizanat. However, the Lahore High Court reversed this decision, emphasizing the minors' welfare. The High Court considered factors such as the father's prior marital history, the mother's unhappy married life, lack of financial support from the father, the eldest minor's preference to stay with her grandmother, and the potential for an uncongenial environment with a step-mother. The Supreme Court dismissed the father's petition, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court held that while the father is the natural and legal guardian, the paramount consideration in custody matters is always the welfare of the minor, overriding general rules of Muslim Law.
Questions settled- What is the paramount consideration in determining the custody of minors under the Guardians and Wards Act?
- Can the welfare of a minor override the general rules of Muslim Law regarding a father's right to hizanat?
- Is a father's right as a natural and legal guardian absolute in matters of minor custody?
- Can a maternal grandmother be granted custody of minor girls over their father if it serves the minors' welfare?
- GHULAM SHABIR SHAH vs The STATE1983 SCMR 942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had dismissed his first appeal against conviction under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, while reducing his sentence. The petitioner had married his wife's sister during the subsistence of his earlier marriage, having pronounced a written divorce to the first wife shortly before, without the divorce becoming fully effective under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1960 due to lack of notice. The core legal questions involved whether a marriage contracted during the iddat period or during the subsistence of a prior marriage constitutes a void or irregular marriage under the Hudood Ordinance, and whether the courts properly evaluated the accused's statement and the requirements of divorce under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that an irregular marriage does not afford protection where the law explicitly requires a valid marriage, and that the divorce had not become effective without complying with the statutory notice period. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming the conviction.
Questions settled- Does an irregular marriage qualify as a valid marriage under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Whether a divorce pronounced by a husband becomes effective without notice to the Union Council under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1960?
- Can exculpatory parts of an accused's statement be separated from incriminating parts when evaluating the prosecution evidence as a whole?
- Whether marrying another sister during the iddat period or subsistence of the prior marriage attracts penal liability under section 10(2) of the Hudood Ordinance?
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 649 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs AMIR BEGUM AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3169 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs THIS STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1386 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs THE STATE1983 PLD Peshawar 152 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs MUHAMMAD MITHAL AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 480 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs ABDUL MAJID1983 CLC 1122 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR AND 8 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 741 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SAFDAR vs KHAN MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RAZAAQ SHAH vs The STATE1983 SCMR 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RAZA vs Mst. FATIMA BIBI1983 CLC 2352 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL vs Haji BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1683 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL AND OTHERS vs YASEEN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 441 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs WAKIL AHMAD AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2470 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs The STATE1983 SCMR 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for double murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was sentenced to death on two counts by the trial court, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal solely to consider the appropriateness of the death sentence. The core legal question was whether the appellant's claim of grave and sudden provocation, based on the deceased's alleged indecent behavior toward his wife, warranted a reduction in the sentence, or whether the circumstances constituted extenuating factors justifying a commutation of the death penalty. The Court held that the plea of grave and sudden provocation was unavailable because the acts did not constitute sufficient provocation to deprive an ordinary person of self-control. However, the Court accepted that the appellant was acting under a persistent sense of disgrace caused by the deceased's behavior, which served as an extenuating circumstance. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentences to imprisonment for life, while upholding the fines imposed.
Questions settled- Does the plea of grave and sudden provocation apply when the accused kills victims for teasing his wife over an extended period?
- Can a sentence of death be commuted to life imprisonment based on the existence of extenuating circumstances regarding the victim's behavior?
- Do indecent gestures or words alone constitute sufficient provocation to reduce homicide to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- GHULAM RASOOL vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1556 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT; P NKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI1983 PLC 272 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3162 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs ADDL. COMMR. (REVENUE) AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981, challenging the order of the Election Tribunal/Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, which declared the election for Seat No. 13 of Union Council No. 90 (presently No. 92) void as a whole. The respondent candidate had challenged the election on grounds of illegal practices and procedural irregularities, specifically that the ballot boxes were not placed in alphabetical order and were mixed up with those of the District Council elections, causing voter confusion and a high number of rejected votes. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the factual findings of the Tribunal were supported by evidence and could not be reappraised in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that placing the ballot box of a candidate whose name begins with 'Saddar Din' (starting with the Urdu letter 'Seen') at the very end violated Rule 31(d) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979, which requires placement in Urdu alphabetical order. This failure by the Presiding Officer was sufficient to declare the election void.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction reappraise the evidence or the weight attached to it by an Election Tribunal?
- Does the placement of ballot boxes out of Urdu alphabetical order constitute a violation of Rule 31(d) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979?
- Whether a failure by the Presiding Officer to comply with ballot box placement rules is sufficient on its own to declare an election void as a whole?
- GHULAM RASOOL vs ABDUL GHANI AND Other1983 SCMR 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents violated a final judgment of the Supreme Court by reagitating the same dispute in a civil court through a subsequent suit. During the proceedings, it emerged that the trial court had already dismissed the second suit based on the plea of res judicata, and an appeal was pending before the Additional District Judge. Furthermore, it was revealed that the petitioner had withheld material facts regarding the existence and history of parallel proceedings, including a pre-emption suit and issues concerning the execution of earlier decrees and possession. The Supreme Court evaluated these circumstances, noting that the plea of res judicata was already being addressed in the ordinary judicial hierarchy and that the petitioner had suppressed crucial facts in the contempt petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere through contempt proceedings, holding that matters involving the application of res judicata and pending appellate adjudication must be resolved through regular judicial channels.
Questions settled- Does filing a subsequent civil suit on a matter already decided by the Supreme Court automatically constitute contempt of court when the trial court has already dismissed the suit on the grounds of res judicata?
- Will a contempt petition be entertained where the petitioner has suppressed material facts regarding parallel proceedings and the history of the litigation?
- Can a party invoke contempt jurisdiction to resolve disputes concerning the application of res judicata while an appeal on that very issue is pending before an appellate court?
- GHULAM RASOOL BODLA vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 629 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1319 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL alias BABO vs THE STATE1983 PLD Shariat Court (A J & K) 19 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QAMAR AND OTHERS vs GHULAM RASOOL AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2961 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs The STATE1983 SCMR 523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two persons during a bus robbery, along with a conviction under section 392/34 for robbery. The core legal question was whether the appellant's conviction for murder could be safely sustained on a retracted, exculpatory judicial confession and insufficient eyewitness testimony where eyewitnesses did not state that the appellant fired the fatal shots. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the murder charge beyond reasonable doubt, as the retracted confession and eyewitness accounts did not implicate the appellant in the killings. Consequently, the Court set aside the murder conviction and death sentence while maintaining the conviction and sentence for robbery under section 392/34. The key principle laid down is that a retracted confession and eyewitness testimony failing to attribute the fatal act to the accused cannot sustain a capital conviction without reliable corroboration.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on a retracted confession that exculpates the accused from the fatal act?
- Whether uncorroborated eyewitness testimony failing to attribute the fatal shots to the accused is sufficient to maintain a death sentence?
- Is a conviction under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code sustainable when independent witnesses confirm the robbery despite the failure of the murder charge?
- GHULAM QADIR vs Mst. CHATTAL1983 CLC 2572 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs JEHANGIR AND 3 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 1372 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs J.AHANGIR AND Other1983 SCMR 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a criminal petition that was previously dismissed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan for non-prosecution. The petitioner's criminal petition had been dismissed because neither the petitioner nor their counsel appeared when the case was called for hearing. In the restoration application, the Advocate-on-Record contended that they were delayed due to being stuck at a railway crossing while traveling to Islamabad, preventing their timely arrival at the court. The Supreme Court examined the sufficiency of this explanation and noted that the Advocate-on-Record admitted they were not prepared to argue the case on the date of dismissal, nor were they prepared to argue it at the time of the restoration application. The Court held that the explanation provided for the absence was insufficient and that, regardless of the delay, the lack of preparedness to argue the case rendered the appearance inconsequential. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for restoration, affirming that non-prosecution due to lack of preparedness and insufficient cause for absence warrants the dismissal of the restoration request.
Questions settled- Is a delay caused by a railway crossing sufficient grounds to restore a petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does the lack of preparedness to argue a case on the date of hearing justify the refusal to restore a dismissed petition?
- Can a petition be restored if the counsel admits they were not prepared to argue the case on the date it was dismissed?
- GHULAM QADIR BHUTTO vs GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN1983 PLC (C. S.) 888 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2159 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR AND ANOTHER vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SARGODHA1983 PLC (C. S.) 913 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 753 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2382 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI AWAN AND ANOTHER vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 55 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI AND OTHERS vs Seth MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the suit under Order II Rule 2 and Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the applicability of res judicata regarding a previously withdrawn suit, and the limitation period for specific performance. The Supreme Court held that Order II Rule 2 does not bar a subsequent suit where the prior suit was incompetent, nor does Order XXIII Rule 1 bar a suit already pending at the time of the previous suit's withdrawal. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a mere withdrawal of a suit without adjudication on merits does not constitute res judicata. Regarding limitation, the Court affirmed that an extension of time for performance creates a fresh terminus a quo. The Court laid down the principle that a subsequent purchaser with notice of a prior contract cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser, and that specific performance is an appropriate remedy where the defendant's conduct does not justify abandonment or waiver.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of a previous suit without permission of the court bar a subsequent suit that was already pending at the time of withdrawal?
- Does Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit for specific performance if the previous suit for injunction was incompetent?
- Does an extension of time for the performance of a contract create a fresh terminus a quo for the purpose of limitation?
- Can a subsequent purchaser with notice of a prior contract claim protection as a bona fide purchaser for value?
- GHULAM NABI AND 7 OTHERS vs ABDUL KARIM1983 CLC 2714 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs TEXTILE WINDING MACHINERY COMPANY LTD.1983 PLC 953 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 757 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs Mst. REHMAT BIBI AND 7 OTHERS1983 CLC 356 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION1983 PLD Lahore 186 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM MURTAZA vs SIND SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC 1097 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Ties ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Ors1983 SCMR 1042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the division of urban evacuee property. The petitioner, a claimant, challenged the vertical division of the property ordered by the Additional Settlement Commissioner following a remand from the High Court. The core legal questions were whether the division of the property was arbitrary and whether the Settlement Commissioner possessed the legal authority to remand the matter to the Additional Settlement Commissioner rather than deciding the revision petition personally. The Supreme Court held that the division of the property was not arbitrary, as it was based on a factual inspection confirming the property could be conveniently divided. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Settlement Commissioner acted within their competence and discretion in remanding the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The key principle laid down is that the division of urban evacuee property, when based on factual findings of convenience, is not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction, and a Settlement Commissioner has the authority to remand matters to subordinate officers during revisional proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner remand a matter to an Additional Settlement Commissioner while exercising revisional jurisdiction?
- Is the vertical division of urban evacuee property subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction when based on factual findings of convenience?
- Does a Settlement Commissioner have the discretion to delegate the decision-making process to an Additional Settlement Commissioner upon remand from the High Court?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 888 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE--1983 P Cr. L J 1831 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Syed MUHAMMAD ISHAQ SHAH1983 CLC 2814 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs SULEMAN AND 3 Other1983 SCMR 735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the ownership of a property identified as Settlement Property No. 519, corresponding to Excise and Taxation Property No. 384. The petitioner, having purchased the property via public auction, obtained a Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) and Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). Subsequently, the first respondent claimed ownership, alleging the property was transferred to him. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner concurrently found that the first respondent’s documents contained fraudulent interpolations regarding the property number and that the petitioner’s auction purchase was valid. However, the Settlement Commissioner later set aside these findings, directing a re-examination of possession. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent writ petition, suggesting the petitioner approach civil courts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the Settlement Commissioner’s jurisdiction to cancel a P.T.D. and the failure to address the concurrent findings of fraud by lower authorities required judicial examination. The core legal question is whether the Settlement Commissioner acted within jurisdiction in cancelling a P.T.D. and disregarding concurrent findings of fraud.
Questions settled- Does the Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to cancel a Permanent Transfer Deed once it has been issued?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner disregard concurrent findings of fact regarding fraud made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner?
- Is a writ petition the appropriate forum to challenge the cancellation of a property transfer where allegations of fraud and forgery are central to the dispute?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2507 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Mst. RASHIDA BII31 AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition arises from a constitutional challenge to an appellate court judgment that decreed the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula in favour of respondent No. 1. The petitioner husband contended that previous dismissals of similar suits operated as res judicata. The core legal question was whether the principle of res judicata bars a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage on the plea of Khula when earlier suits were dismissed, and whether Khula constitutes a recurring cause of action. The Lahore High Court held that the plea of Khula is a recurring cause of action because a wife may develop hatred or dislike towards her husband under changing circumstances, and therefore such a plea is not barred by res judicata under section 17 of the Family Courts Act. The key principle laid down is that the principle of res judicata does not apply to the plea of Khula in matrimonial matters, enabling a wife to seek dissolution on this ground regardless of previous unsuccessful attempts, provided she satisfies the court's conscience.
Questions settled- Whether the plea of Khula in a suit for dissolution of marriage is barred by the principle of res judicata due to the dismissal of previous suits?
- Does the plea of Khula constitute a recurring cause of action under family law?
- Can a wife seek dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula in a subsequent suit despite earlier unsuccessful suits?