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.
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Mst. KHUDIJATUL KUBRA1983 SCMR 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning a dispute over agricultural land gifted by the petitioner to his wife, the respondent, via a registered deed in 1950, which the petitioner later attempted to revoke. The respondent successfully filed a suit for declaration and possession, which was decreed in her favor and upheld by both the District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could raise new mixed questions of law and fact regarding the marriage and dower for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that mixed questions of law and fact involving factual determinations, such as marriage consummation and dower fixation, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time at the leave to appeal stage if doing so would seriously prejudice the opposing party. The key principle laid down is that while pure questions of law may sometimes be allowed to be raised at a belated stage, questions requiring the determination of fresh factual controversies will not be entertained before the apex court.
Questions settled- Can a party raise mixed questions of law and fact for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Whether an appellate court should permit new factual controversies to be agitated when they were never raised in any of the courts below?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Messrs HOTEL JABEES, KARACHI1983 PLC 1158 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Kh. NAZAMUDDIN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 117 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs IJAZ AHMAD1983 CLC 103 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEEE PROPERTY AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1181 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs AUDITOR-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN AND MILITARY1983 PLC (C. S.) 1092 · Federal Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3037 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD CHAHAL vs Rao MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN AND OHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 643 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Others vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1983 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court was justified in interfering with findings of fact recorded by settlement authorities regarding the transfer of composite property. The core legal question involved the competing entitlement of a claimant versus a non-claimant displaced person over property units, including a chowbara and shops, based on possession and statutory forms. The Supreme Court upheld the view that admissions of parties regarding independent possession and the initial treatment of the property by the Rehabilitation Department must govern the allotment, noting that the claimant held priority and the lower authorities had ignored material admissions and records. The Court concluded that the High Court's intervention was justified given the patent illegalities and misreading of evidence by the settlement authorities.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by settlement authorities when such findings are contrary to the record and admissions of the parties?
- Does a claimant displaced person enjoy priority over a non-claimant displaced person in the transfer of evacuee property?
- What is the effect of an admission made in a memo of appeal regarding the independent possession of a disputed property unit?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N. W. F. P.1983 SCMR 562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the order of the Peshawar High Court declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities regarding their ejectment and recovery of arrears of lease money. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could be treated as defaulters despite having paid a security deposit of Rs. 3,000 under the lease agreement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the lease agreement contained no provision for the adjustment of the advance security towards lease arrears, the concurrent factual findings of the revenue authorities and the High Court were unexceptionable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that findings of fact by revenue tribunals undisturbed by the High Court will not be interfered with in the absence of legal error or misreading.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities regarding default in lease payments?
- Can an advance security deposit be adjusted towards lease arrears in the absence of an express stipulation in the lease agreement?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MEHTAB BEG AND Other1983 SCMR 849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over occupancy tenancy rights in agricultural land. The respondents, claiming to be collaterals of the deceased tenant, filed a suit for declaration of their tenancy rights by inheritance. The appellant-landlords resisted, arguing the tenancy became extinct upon the death of the tenant's widow. The trial and first appellate courts dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed the decision, decreeing the suit to the extent of 5/6th share. The High Court relied on a family settlement compromise deed (Exh. P-1) from 1845 to invoke a presumption of law that the common ancestor had held the land. The Supreme Court examined whether the presumption of law was correctly applied and whether the copy of the compromise deed was admissible. The Court held that since the appellants failed to object to the admissibility and mode of proof of the document at the trial stage, they were precluded from raising such objections in appeal. The Court affirmed the High Court's findings and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party object to the mode of proof or admissibility of a document for the first time in an appellate court if no objection was raised during the trial?
- Does the presumption of genuineness under Section 90 of the Evidence Act apply to a certified copy of an ancient document when the original is not produced?
- Whether the failure to implead the legal representatives of a co-owner with a defined share in an appeal renders the entire appeal incompetent for non-joinder of necessary parties?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs KARAM DAD AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 231 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD FEROZE AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 164 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit dismissed by the trial court on the grounds that an application to appoint a guardian for minor defendants was filed after the limitation period had expired. The core legal question was whether a suit against a minor defendant is barred by limitation if the application for the appointment of a guardian ad litem is made after the expiry of the limitation period. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit. The Court clarified that the institution of a suit is complete upon the filing of the plaint, which saves limitation regardless of whether a guardian application is simultaneously filed. Under Order XXXII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the duty to appoint a guardian for a minor defendant rests with the court, which may direct the plaintiff to provide a list of suitable persons. The court held that the suit remains valid, and the proceedings should be stayed until a guardian is appointed, rather than dismissing the suit.
Questions settled- Does the failure to appoint a guardian for a minor defendant at the time of filing the plaint render the suit barred by limitation?
- Is the court obligated to appoint a guardian for a minor defendant even if the plaintiff fails to identify the defendant as a minor in the plaint?
- Can a trial court dismiss a suit solely because an application for the appointment of a guardian for a minor defendant was filed after the limitation period expired?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER1983 CLC 2986 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1282 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHYUDDIN vs Mst. NAZIR BIBI1983 SCMR 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged concurrent eviction orders passed against the petitioner by the Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the High Court. The primary legal question was whether the landlady’s requirement of the shop for her husband’s personal business use was bona fide, given that the husband was already operating a business in a rented premises. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the bona fide nature of the requirement were supported by evidence. The Court reasoned that the husband’s existing business experience and his desire to move from a rented shop to his own property to avoid the risk of eviction established a genuine and bona fide need. Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the factual findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition, while granting the petitioner four months to vacate the premises subject to the regular payment of rent.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's requirement for a shop for her husband's personal business use constitute a bona fide need for eviction purposes?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding the bona fide requirement of a landlord?
- Does a tenant's desire to avoid the risk of eviction from a rented shop support a claim of bona fide requirement for personal use of their own property?
- GHULAM KADIR AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1291 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HYDER SHAH AND 9 OTHERS vs THE CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, SIND1983 CLC 1585 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenge orders of the Land Commissioner, Sind, which reviewed and recalled earlier orders confirming land gifts made to non-heirs under the Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115). The core legal question was whether the amendments to the Regulation, introduced by the Land Reforms Regulation (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, operated retrospectively to invalidate transactions that were already finalized and closed under the previous law. The Court held that the amendments were not intended to reopen past and closed transactions. Although the Ordinance was deemed effective from March 11, 1972, the Court ruled that this did not authorize the reopening of cases already concluded under the unamended law. The key principle laid down is that a statute should not be construed to have a greater retrospective operation than its language necessitates. In the absence of clear legislative intent to interfere with vested rights, retrospective laws cannot be used to impair transactions that were validly concluded under the prior legal regime, as courts must lean against constructions that impair vested rights.
Questions settled- Does the Land Reforms Regulation (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, have retrospective effect on transactions already finalized under the previous law?
- Can the Land Commissioner exercise suo motu review powers to reopen transactions that were validly concluded under the unamended Land Reforms Regulation?
- Is a statute presumed to have retrospective operation if it impairs vested rights and affects past and closed transactions?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2382 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1983 P Cr. L J 2181 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2972 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SALEH AND Another1983 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal filed by the complainant, Ghulam Hussain, challenging orders of the Lahore High Court regarding the grant and refusal to cancel bail for respondents accused of murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its discretion by refusing to cancel the bail of certain respondents and by granting bail to another, given the existence of a cross-case and conflicting investigative reports. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s exercise of discretion was sound, noting that the existence of a prior cross-case involving injuries to the accused and the investigative officer's initial opinion in favour of one respondent were valid factors for consideration. The Court affirmed that bail decisions involve the exercise of judicial discretion based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, and absent any violation of express law or established legal principles, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's discretionary orders regarding bail.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary order regarding bail if no express provision of law or legal principle has been violated?
- Is the existence of a prior cross-case involving injuries to the accused a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding on a bail application?
- Does the initial opinion of an investigating officer in a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a valid factor for the court to consider in bail proceedings?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs M. RIAZUDDIN1983 CLC 1111 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs HASSAN B1BI1983 CLC 2420 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2160 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN MALIK vs GHULAM DASTGIR KHAN1983 CLC 1520 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES)1983 CLC 3121 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE STATE THE STATE1983 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs The STATE1983 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction under Section 18 read with Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for attempting to commit rape. The prosecution alleged the petitioner entered the victim's house at night, attempted to force himself upon her, and was interrupted by the victim's sister. The petitioner argued that the victim consented, that he was falsely implicated due to a property dispute, and that the non-production of certain eye-witnesses should create an adverse presumption. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding no evidence of a property dispute or consent. The Court held that the physical evidence—specifically the state of undress of both parties—clearly indicated an intent to commit sexual intercourse, thereby constituting an attempt to commit Zina rather than a lesser offence under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court affirmed that the non-production of witnesses who were not present at the immediate scene does not create an adverse inference when natural witnesses have provided consistent testimony. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does the non-production of eye-witnesses who were not present at the immediate scene of the crime create an adverse presumption against the prosecution?
- Does the removal of clothing and physical contact in a sexual context constitute an attempt to commit Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can a conviction for an attempt to commit Zina be sustained when the accused claims the victim was a consenting party?
- GHULAM HAIDER vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAWALPINDIAND1983 PLC (C. S.) 804 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs D. C.DERA GHAZI KHAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2439 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER SHAH AND Another vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 41983 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their writ petition regarding a disputed piece of land within the municipal limits of Faisalabad Town, which they occupied on a Tehbazari basis and sought to purchase. The Board of Revenue had previously refused the sale, noting the land was part of a public park under a sanctioned scheme and directed its public auction, while the High Court additionally ordered the Municipal Committee to dispossess the petitioners and restore the site. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had acquired a right to the sale of the land and whether the High Court acted beyond its competence in issuing further directions regarding the public park. The Supreme Court held that intra-departmental correspondence does not confer any legal right or entitlement to the petitioners, and declined to interfere with the High Court's directions since they accorded with public policy and the law relating to public amenities. The key principle laid down is that internal administrative correspondence does not constitute an adjudication or create enforceable rights for private parties over state land reserved for public amenities.
Questions settled- Whether intra-departmental correspondence can constitute an adjudication creating a legal right to the sale of state land?
- Can a municipal committee lawfully issue licences of encroachment on land reserved for a public park in a sanctioned scheme?
- Whether the High Court can direct the dispossession of encroachers and the restoration of a public park when dismissing a writ petition filed by such encroachers?
- GHULAM HAIDER AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 274 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER AND others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERE1983 PLD Supreme Court 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by respondents in a pending land acquisition appeal, seeking three reliefs: rescission of the leave-granting order due to alleged time-barring of the initial petition; dismissal of the appeal for failure to pay court fees within the prescribed limitation period; and vacation of an existing interim stay order. The Supreme Court held that objections regarding limitation are more appropriately addressed during the final hearing of the appeal rather than through piecemeal applications, which are contrary to judicial practice. Regarding the court-fee issue, the Court ruled that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Registrar pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules, and the application was procedurally misconceived for misjoinder of causes. The Court refused to vacate the stay order but directed that the disputed funds be invested in a deposit account under the Registrar's name to protect the interests of the successful party. The Court emphasized that indiscriminate filing of miscellaneous applications causes unnecessary delays and administrative burdens, urging strict adherence to procedural rules.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a preliminary objection regarding limitation in a miscellaneous application before the hearing of the main appeal?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to adjudicate court-fee disputes directly, or should they be addressed by the Registrar?
- Is the joinder of multiple, distinct causes of action in a single miscellaneous application permissible under Supreme Court practice?
- GHULAM HAIDER AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar. The petitioners were facing prosecution under sections 323, 325, and 393 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 34. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the continued detention of the accused was justified given the significant delay in the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the circumstances, noted that despite the lapse of more than eight months since the registration of the case, not a single prosecution witness had been examined, with adjournments frequently occurring due to the absence of witnesses. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and directed that the petitioners be released on bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to proceed with the trial for a significant period due to the absence of witnesses, such delay constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail to the accused.
Questions settled- Does a significant delay in the examination of prosecution witnesses constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal for final disposal?
- GHULAM GHAUS vs THE STATE1983 PCr. LJ 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2228 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID vs THE S TATE AND OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 777 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID vs MANZUR AHMAD AND Another1983 SCMR 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge of murder. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court's acquittal judgment suffered from any legal infirmity, misreading of evidence, or ignored material aspects justifying interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that no principle of law or material aspect of the evidence or circumstance had been ignored by the High Court and no ground existed for interference. Consequently, the petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when no principle of law or material aspect of evidence has been ignored?
- Does an appeal against acquittal warrant interference if the High Court has properly evaluated the evidence and circumstances of the case?
- GHULAM FARID vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KABIRWALA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 209 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FAREED vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2116 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 196 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 496 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI vs RASAB AND Other1983 SCMR 1026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that modified convictions in a triple murder case. The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court under sections 148 and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murders of three individuals arising from a land dispute. The High Court, upon re-evaluating the evidence, concluded that the disputed land was not in the possession of either party and that the accused had acted in excess of the right of private defense. Consequently, the High Court altered the convictions of two respondents to section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and acquitted the remaining respondents. The petitioner challenged this acquittal, arguing that the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the deceased indicated the participation of more individuals than the High Court acknowledged and questioned the applicability of the right of self-defense given the circumstances of the attack. The Supreme Court, finding that the case required re-examination regarding the vicarious liability of the acquitted respondents and the validity of the self-defense plea, granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the right of private defense can be claimed when the accused party chases and kills the deceased?
- Does the nature and dimension of injuries sustained by the deceased preclude the possibility of exclusive participation by only two accused?
- Can the vicarious liability of co-accused be excluded when the primary assailants are found to have exceeded the right of self-defense?
- GHULAM ALI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 13 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI AND 4 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority dismissing the petitioners' ejectment application filed under section 13 of the West Pakistan (Punjab) Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the lower courts misread the evidence regarding the landlord's bona fide personal need for the shop in dispute, thereby failing to follow settled case law. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate authority's findings suffered from material misreading of evidence and failure to follow the principle that a landlord's assertion on oath regarding personal need, if consistent with pleadings and unshaken in cross-examination, must be accepted as bona fide. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, declared the impugned judgments to be without lawful authority, and remanded the case to the appellate authority for a fresh decision according to law. The key principle laid down is that High Courts under writ jurisdiction may interfere with concurrent findings in rent matters if they suffer from material misreading of evidence or disregard of established case law regarding bona fide personal need.
Questions settled- When can a High Court interfere with findings of fact rendered by rent authorities under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a landlord's un-shaken assertion on oath regarding personal need sufficient to prove bona fide requirement under the rent laws?
- What is the effect of material misreading of evidence by an appellate rent authority on its final judgment?
- GHULAM AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Other1983 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a pre-emption suit on 17-10-1975 with insufficient court-fee. The trial court directed the petitioner to make up the deficiency by 3-1-1976. The petitioner failed to comply within the prescribed timeframe, only rectifying the deficiency by 5-2-1976. Consequently, the trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. After unsuccessful appeals and review proceedings before the District Judge and a subsequent dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the plaint was rightly rejected for failure to make up the court-fee deficiency within the court-ordered time. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, noting that the petitioner neither sought an extension of time from the trial court nor demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay. The Court held that in the absence of a timely application for extension or a valid justification for non-compliance, the rejection of the plaint for failure to pay the requisite court-fee is legally sound and not subject to interference.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaintiff fails to make up the court-fee deficiency within the time granted by the court?
- Does the mere acceptance of a court-fee payment by the court after the deadline without a formal application for extension constitute an implied extension of time?
- GHULAM AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs AZMAT KAMAL KHAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 584 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS vs MEMBER (WATER), WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE1983 PLC (C. S.) 176 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS AND OTHERS vs FAQIR HUSSAIN1983 CLC 99 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent-pre-emptor. During the appellate proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise based on a special oath taken by one of the appellants, leading the lower appellate court to pass a decree accordingly. The appellants challenged this appellate order, contending that one of the appellants, Ghulam Abbas, was a minor, and the lower appellate court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of obtaining court leave for the compromise, as required by law. The core legal question was whether a compromise decree involving a minor appellant is valid without the court's express consideration of the minor's interest. The Court held that the failure to comply with the statutory requirement to protect the minor's interest rendered the compromise void. Consequently, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for lawful disposal. The Court affirmed the principle that any compromise involving a minor must be sanctioned by the court after ensuring it is for the minor's benefit.
Questions settled- Is a compromise decree involving a minor appellant valid if the court fails to record that the compromise is for the minor's benefit?
- Does the abandonment of an issue by a guardian ad litem constitute a compromise requiring court sanction under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a first appeal against an order recording a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 competent?
- Does Article 12 of Schedule I of the Court-Fees Act 1870 apply to a first appeal against an order recording a compromise?
- GHULAB AND 6 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YOUNIS AND 7 OTHERS1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 89 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- GHUFRAN AHMAD SIDDIQI AND 8 OTHERS vs SUBHAN SHEIKH AND 7 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 157 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- GHOUS BUX vs Mir ASHRAF ALI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS)1983 CLC 2244 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
- GHIASUDDIN vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION PINDIBHATTIAN1983 P Cr. L J 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
- GHAZI SHAH ETC. vs The STATE1983 SCMR 727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court rejecting the petitioners' bail application in a case involving the alleged smuggling of gold from Dubai. The core legal question concerns the rule of consistency in bail matters, specifically whether accused persons alleged to be mere carriers of smuggled goods are entitled to bail on the same footing as a co-accused or where the primary beneficiary is not apprehended. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the grant of bail based on the principle established in precedent where paid servants or carriers were released on bail while the principal offender remained untried or differently situated. The key principle laid down is that parity in treatment regarding bail should be extended to co-accused who stand on a similar footing, such as carriers compared to primary beneficiaries or principal accused who have already been granted relief.
Questions settled- Are carriers of smuggled goods entitled to bail on the ground of consistency when the main accused or beneficiary is not in custody?
- Whether petitioners alleged to be paid servants are at par with the principal accused in smuggling cases for the purpose of bail?
- GHAZANFAR IQBAL vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.1983 PLC 1061 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
- GHAZANFAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER--1983 P Cr. LJ 2000 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- GHAYOOR ALAM vs MUHAMMAD JAMIL1983 CLC 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
- GHARIB GUL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-.Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 1657 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
- GHAFOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION1983 CLC 3214 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
- GH U LAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs Malik ABDUL QADIR KHAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision petition regarding a land dispute involving a waqf (dedication for a graveyard). The petitioners challenged the lower court's decree, primarily arguing that the suit was time-barred. The core legal question was whether the High Court was legally obligated to adjudicate a plea of limitation that had been raised in the pleadings but was not pressed or argued during the hearing of the revision petition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not under a legal obligation to examine the limitation plea if it was not pressed during the hearing. The Court affirmed that if a party raises a point in the memorandum of appeal or revision but fails to argue it at the hearing, it is presumed to have been abandoned. The key principle laid down is that while an appellate court must ensure proceedings before it are within limitation, it is not required to adjudicate limitation pleas regarding the trial court proceedings if those pleas are not actively pursued by the parties during the appellate hearing.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court legally obligated to decide a plea of limitation if it was raised in the pleadings but not pressed during the hearing?
- Does the failure to argue a point raised in a memorandum of appeal or revision create a presumption that the point has been abandoned?
- Can a party challenge a judgment on the basis of a limitation plea that was not argued before the High Court?
- GH I JLAM ALI vs RASAS AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-appeals arising from a land dispute where the complainant challenged the acquittal of several respondents, while two convicted appellants challenged their conviction under Section 304(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court correctly acquitted the respondents due to a lack of corroboration for interested ocular testimony and whether the convicted appellants had exceeded their right of private defense. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly applied the principle that interested and inimical witnesses require strong, independent corroboration, which was absent for the acquitted respondents. Regarding the convicts, the Court held that while they initially possessed a right of private defense against the complainant party's intrusion, their subsequent disproportionate, retaliatory, and punitive violence demonstrated a lack of good faith and restraint. Consequently, the Court affirmed the convictions and sentences for exceeding the right of private defense, while enhancing the imposed fines and compensation to better meet the ends of justice. The principle established is that the right of private defense is not available to trespassers who fail to cease their trespass, and a response lacking restraint and good faith constitutes an excess of that right.
Questions settled- Does the right of private defense of person and property accrue to a trespasser who has not ceased the act of trespass?
- Is strong corroboration required for the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses in a criminal trial?
- Can a response to a threat be considered an exercise of the right of private defense if it is disproportionate, retaliatory, and punitive in nature?
- GENERAL MANAGER, CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT, KARACHI vs ABDUL RASHID AND Another1983 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside the termination of the respondent's services from the Canteen Stores Department (CSD). The core legal questions were whether the CSD constituted a government department and whether the respondent, as an employee, was entitled to constitutional protection under Article 177 of the Constitution of 1962. The Supreme Court examined the historical status of the CSD, noting that while it originated as a government undertaking, it was later treated as a non-government commercial concern. The Court held that the respondent’s employment, being connected with the defence of the country—as the CSD was established to support the Armed Forces—placed him outside the category of civil servants entitled to the constitutional safeguards against summary dismissal. The Court determined that the respondent held a post connected with defence, not a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation. Consequently, the constitutional protection under Article 177 did not apply to him. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order reinstating the respondent was set aside, establishing that employees in posts connected with defence are excluded from the constitutional protections afforded to civil servants.
Questions settled- Is the Canteen Stores Department a government department for the purpose of conferring civil servant status on its employees?
- Does an employee holding a post connected with defence enjoy the constitutional protection against dismissal provided to civil servants?
- Can an employee of a non-government commercial concern under the Ministry of Defence claim constitutional guarantees applicable to civil servants?
- GAULAM HUSSAIN AND Othsrss vs MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND Another1983 SCMR 1114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition directed against orders of the settlement authorities regarding the transfer and auction of property comprising shops and a residential portion. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the parties entered into a compromise settling their conflicting claims over portions of the property already transferred to them. However, the compromise also sought to set aside the settlement department's order to auction a portion of the commercial property. The Supreme Court summoned counsel for the Settlement Department, who stated that the department could not accept the compromise insofar as it sought to set aside the auction order, but had no objection to the mutual adjustment of portions already transferred. The parties conceded that the auction order could not be set aside merely by private compromise. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the lawful compromise regarding the mutual adjustment of transferred portions, and directed the Settlement Department to issue fresh transfer orders accordingly, while leaving the un-auctioned double shop open for consideration of transfer in the light of current instructions.
Questions settled- Can parties to a litigation set aside an administrative auction order of settlement authorities merely by entering into a private compromise?
- Whether the Settlement Department can object to a private compromise between parties regarding the mutual adjustment of property portions already transferred to them?
- How should settlement authorities deal with property available for transfer when parties reach a partial lawful compromise?
- GANGOOMAL vs JAMIATMAL1983 CLC 955 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- GAMAN vs THE STATE--1983 P Cr. L J 2221 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- G. T. S. ALFATEH LABOUR UNION vs PUNJAB ROAD1983 PLC 276 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
- G. P. SHAHANI AND 2 OTHERS vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1971 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
- G. FRANCIS JACOB vs BASHIR AHMED KHAN1983 CLC 1535 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
- FTAB AHMAD KHAN ETC. vs MUHAMMAD JAMIL ETC.1983 PLD Rev. 36 · Board of Revenue · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- FRADEEP PICTURES vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1983 PTD 339 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1980-10-15Read full judgment →
- FIRDOUS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 962 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- FIRDAUS OIL MILLS vs WAPDA AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 3315 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two identical writ petitions challenging detection bills issued by WAPDA to electricity consumers for alleged theft of electric energy, followed by the disconnection of electricity supply upon non-payment. The core legal question concerns the legality of issuing exorbitant detection bills and disconnecting electricity supply without affording a prior opportunity of hearing or serving the mandatory notice to the consumers. The Lahore High Court held that under clause (vi) of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, as well as the principles of natural justice, it was incumbent upon the licensee to serve a notice and afford the consumers an opportunity to meet the charge of theft before billing them and discontinuing the supply. Since no such notice was served, the demands were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with directions to restore the electric supply while permitting the licensee to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether electricity supply can be disconnected for non-payment of a detection bill without serving prior notice?
- Is it necessary to afford the consumer an opportunity to meet the charge of theft before billing them for allegedly stolen electric energy?
- Are detection bills issued without observing statutory notice requirements and principles of naturaljustice without lawful authority?
- FIDA MUHAMMAD RATHORE vs AZAD GOVERNMENT1983 PLC (C. S.) 256 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
- FEROZUDDIN vs CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, KARACHI1983 CLC 3211 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-23Read full judgment →
- FEROZ MUHAMMAD SHAH AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1944 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
- FEROZ KHAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 482 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
- FEROZ AHMAD vs Mst. ASIFA KHATOON1983 CLC 1247 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs HAZOOR BUKHSH AND 2 mums1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 255 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION vs AMJAD AHAD SHEIKH1983 SCMR 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Services Tribunal judgment that set aside the compulsory retirement of a civil servant. The core legal questions concerned whether the absence of a formal order from a competent authority invalidated the retirement, and whether 'general reputation' constitutes a valid basis for administrative action against public servants. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the respondent, confirming that the failure of the Establishment Division to produce a valid order from a competent authority was a fatal jurisdictional defect. However, the Court clarified the legal principle regarding 'general reputation,' holding that information concerning a public servant's reputation—such as allegations of corruption or living beyond known means—is a legitimate factor for administrative authorities to consider. The Court noted that such administrative assessments need not meet the strict evidentiary standards required in a court of law, thereby correcting the Tribunal's observation that general reputation should not outweigh recorded performance.
Questions settled- Can a public servant be compulsorily retired without an order from a competent authority?
- Is 'general reputation' a valid consideration for administrative action against a public servant?
- Does the absence of a formal order from a competent authority render an order of compulsory retirement void?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 2 Others vs ABDUL RAZZAQ1983 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which accepted the respondent employee's appeal against his removal from service. The respondent, initially joining as a Lower Division Clerk and later promoted as an Assistant, faced disciplinary proceedings involving adverse Annual Confidential Report entries and a departmental inquiry. Although an inquiry was conducted, a copy of the inquiry report was not provided to the respondent before adverse action was taken against him. The core legal question was whether failing to supply a copy of the inquiry report to the accused employee violates the principle of a reasonable opportunity of defense. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly found that the mandatory requirement of providing the inquiry report had been ignored, thereby denying the employee a reasonable opportunity of defense. The Court affirmed the reinstatement order with the option for the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with the law, upholding the established principle that failure to furnish an inquiry report vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the failure to provide a copy of the inquiry report to an employee violate the requirement of a reasonable opportunity of defense?
- Can authorities initiate fresh departmental proceedings after a removal order is set aside due to procedural non-compliance?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is justified in reinstating an employee when mandatory legal requirements of an inquiry are ignored?
- FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION vs Mst. GUL BIBI AND Other1983 SCMR 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federal Land Commission against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had accepted a constitutional petition and declared an order of the Commission in suo motu revision to be without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether agricultural land gifted by a brother to his sister could be deemed to be the property of her husband, a retired government servant, under paragraph 10 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, in the absence of evidence showing a benami transaction. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact based on no evidence or resulting from a misreading of evidence are open to correction by the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction, and that confiscatory provisions of law taking away private property without compensation must be strictly construed. The Court laid down the principle that the Federal Land Commission cannot interfere with plausible appellate findings without proper evidence or valid grounds, and that statutory provisions regarding the resumption of excess land require a clear nexus between the government servant and the disputed property.
Questions settled- Are findings of fact based on no evidence or misreading of evidence open to correction by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Whether confiscatory provisions of law regarding the resumption of land require strict construction?
- Can the Federal Land Commission interfere with plausible appellate findings without proper evidence or legal grounds?
- FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION vs Mian GHULAM QADIR AND 10 Other1983 SCMR 867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment interpreting paragraph 12(1)(b) of Martial Law Regulation 115. The core legal question concerned the obligation of landowners to file declarations under the Regulation. Specifically, the dispute centered on the interpretation of the phrase "whichever shall be greater" regarding the two thresholds for land ownership: 12,000 Produce Index Units (PIUs) or 150 acres of irrigated land. The petitioner argued that landowners were required to file declarations even if their holdings exceeded only one of these limits. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the statutory language is unambiguous. The Court affirmed that the phrase "whichever shall be greater" implies that a landowner is only required to file a declaration if their holdings exceed both the 12,000 PIU limit and the 150-acre irrigated land limit. Furthermore, the Court established that as a penal provision, the Regulation must be construed strictly and in favor of the subject, thereby dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'whichever shall be greater' in paragraph 12(1)(b) of Martial Law Regulation 115 require a landowner to file a declaration if their holding exceeds only one of the two specified limits?
- Should a penal provision in a statute be construed strictly in favor of the subject when ambiguity exists?
- Are landowners required to file declarations under Martial Law Regulation 115 if their land holdings do not exceed both the 12,000 Produce Index Units limit and the 150-acre irrigated land limit?
- GHULAM RASUL vs JAVAID SAYYED AND Other1983 SCMR 1256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application for the transfer of Evacuee Trust Property No. S-38-R-201, Lahore. The petitioner challenged the administrative decision on the grounds that the Federal Government, having received his initial application, could not delegate its authority to the Evacuee Trust Property Board, and that the subsequent disposal of the property by the Board's authorities was legally invalid. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Evacuee Trust Property Board is statutorily empowered to manage and dispose of evacuee trust property under the direction of the Federal Government. The Court further held that the petitioner, having actively participated in the proceedings before the Board's authorities without objection, was estopped from subsequently challenging their jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that where a party submits to the jurisdiction of a statutory body and participates in its proceedings, they cannot later challenge the validity of that body's authority, particularly when the body acts within its statutory mandate.
Questions settled- Can a party who participates in proceedings before the Evacuee Trust Property Board later challenge the jurisdiction of that body?
- Does the Evacuee Trust Property Board have the authority to manage and dispose of evacuee trust property under the direction of the Federal Government?
- Is a petitioner estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of an administrative authority after having submitted to its proceedings?
- FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION vs DEWAN GHULAM ABBAS BOKHARI AND Other1983 SCMR 894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partially set aside an order of the Federal Land Commissioner regarding the validity of land alienations under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The core legal question was whether the Federal Land Commissioner correctly declared certain land mutations void as mala fide transactions intended to evade land reform limits, particularly regarding alienations to family members. The High Court had upheld the validity of several mutations, finding the transactions bona fide based on evidence of consideration and market conditions, despite the Federal Land Commissioner's contrary finding. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not err in its assessment of the bona fides of the transactions. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the High Court improperly considered new material, noting that the petitioner failed to dispute the bona fides of the transactions in light of the High Court's reasoning. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that the High Court's findings on the validity of the mutations were sound.
Questions settled- Can the High Court uphold the validity of land mutations based on evidence of consideration and market conditions despite a contrary finding by the Federal Land Commissioner?
- Does the deletion of an explanation in a statute regarding alienations to family members affect the validity of prior land transactions?
- Is it an error for a High Court to consider material produced during a hearing rather than remanding the case to the Federal Land Commissioner?
- Federal Land Commission STATE vs Syed JAMIL HUSSAIN SHAH1983 PLD Rev. 20 · Board of Revenue · 1983-01-19Read full judgment →
- Federal Land Commission STATE vs Mst. ANWAR KHATOONPLD 1983 Rev. 26(2) · Board of Revenue · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD USMAN1983 SCMR 1277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from cross-petitions challenging an order of the Lahore High Court concerning the calculation of compensation for shares of an establishment taken over under the Economic Reforms Order, 1972. The core legal question was whether, in computing the 'Break Up Value' of shares under rule 8(2)(c) of the Wealth Tax Rules, the cumulative depreciation for years prior to the latest audited balance sheet—specifically during a tax holiday period—could be deducted by auditors from the company's total wealth. The Supreme Court held that the calculation must strictly follow the statutory formula provided in the Wealth Tax Rules, which relies on specified items such as paid-up capital, debentures, reserves, and the profit and loss account balance, without permitting auditors to go behind the accounts to deduct unprovided historical depreciation. The key principle laid down is that where the legislature prescribes a uniform, explicit formula for computing share value based on specific balance-sheet items, external adjustments not sanctioned by the text, such as retroactive depreciation calculations, cannot be imported into the computation.
Questions settled- Whether the entire depreciation worked out cumulatively has to be taken into account in computing the Break Up Value of shares under the Wealth Tax Rules?
- Can auditors go behind the audited annual balance sheet to deduct depreciation not claimed during a tax holiday period when calculating share compensation?
- Does rule 8(2)(c) of the Wealth Tax Rules permit factors outside the specified items of paid-up capital, debentures, reserves, and profit and loss balance to be factored into the Break Up Value?
- FAZLUR RAHMAN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1983 SCMR 1189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding the ejectment of the tenant from a commercial shop. The appellant, a goldsmith, sought the respondent's eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement of the premises. While the Rent Controller initially ordered ejectment based on the personal requirement ground, the District Judge reversed this decision, finding the landlord's claim of personal need lacked genuineness, particularly noting that the landlord had previously sold the business fixtures and instruments upon renting the shop. The Sind High Court upheld the District Judge's findings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts correctly applied the law regarding the concept of personal need for commercial premises and whether the landlord was estopped from reviving a business he had previously abandoned. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlord failed to establish a bona fide personal requirement. The Court affirmed that findings of fact regarding the genuineness of a landlord's personal need, when cogent and legitimate, are not subject to interference.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord's claim of bona fide personal requirement for a commercial shop is established when the landlord had previously sold the business fixtures and instruments?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the lower appellate courts regarding the genuineness of a landlord's personal requirement?
- Is a landlord estopped from seeking eviction on the ground of personal requirement if they have previously abandoned the business for which the premises were rented?
- FAZIL KHAN vs Syed MUHAMMAD IDREES1983 CLC 2359 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- FAZALUR REHM AN vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 417 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- FAZAL,KARIM KHAN vs PROJECT MANAGER, PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT1983 PLC 1072 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- FAZAL SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX1983 PTD 44 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct reference under the Sales Tax Act, 1951 arose from an order of the Income-tax Tribunal disallowing the assessee's claim for sales tax exemption under section 4(a) of the Act on sales made to a licensed manufacturer, Messrs Amin Weaving Mills, on the ground that the purchasing party was bogus. The core legal question was whether the assessee was entitled to the sales tax exemption for sales made to a licensed manufacturer prior to the cancellation of that manufacturer's license. The Sindh High Court held that since the sales in question occurred before the cancellation of the purchaser's manufacturing license and the purchaser held a valid license at the time of the transactions, the assessee was legally entitled to the claimed exemption. The court laid down the principle that a licensed manufacturer's transactions are entitled to statutory exemptions under section 4(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 if the purchasing entity held a valid manufacturing license at the time the sales were executed, and subsequent cancellation of the license cannot retrospectively invalidate exemptions for prior sales.
Questions settled- Whether an assessee is entitled to sales tax exemption under section 4(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 on sales made to a licensed manufacturer prior to the cancellation of that manufacturer's license?
- Whether sales made to a party holding a valid manufacturing licence at the time of transaction can be disallowed for exemption on the ground that the licence was subsequently cancelled?
- FAZAL RAHIM KHAN vs MRS. SULTANA YASMEEN AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1600 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, L. C. C. (WEST), FAISALABAD1983 CLC 782 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs DAULAT KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1141 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-11Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND 13 OTHERS vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1983 PLD Lahore 37 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MAHMOOD vs KHALIL-UR-REHMAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 1 · Labour Court · 1982-08-21Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SADAR DIVISION, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1170 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- FAZAL KHAN AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM RABBANI1983 PLD Supreme Court 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a second appeal dismissed in limine by the Lahore High Court, affirming pre-emption decrees against the vendee-appellants. The appellants purchased suit land via a registered sale deed on 12-7-1971 while allegedly occupying it as tenants. The respondent filed a pre-emption suit on 2-7-1972 based on collateral kinship. The appellants argued that they had improved their status before the suit was instituted due to the first right of pre-emption conferred on tenants under Paragraph 25(3) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115), which took effect from Kharif 1972. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the doctrine of merger recognized in Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, the appellants' tenancy rights merged into ownership on 12-7-1971. Consequently, they ceased to be tenants prior to the enforcement of the Regulation and did not possess tenancy status when Paragraph 25(3) took effect, thereby failing to acquire or improve any superior right of pre-emption thereunder.
Questions settled- Can a vendee who acquired ownership of land prior to the enforcement of Paragraph 25(3) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 claim a superior right of pre-emption as a tenant under that provision to defeat a pre-emption suit?
- Does a tenant's tenancy right merge into ownership upon purchasing the demised property under Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, extinguishing their status as a tenant?
- Whether a defendant-vendee is permitted under pre-emption law to improve their status after the date of sale but before the institution of a pre-emption suit?