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.
- CHUTTAN AND 58 Others vs SUFAID KHAN AND 103 Other1983 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court setting aside a directive of the Board of Revenue for fresh consolidation in a village. A consolidation scheme was initially sanctioned in 1962, but subsequent litigation, lost records, and conflicting administrative and quasi-judicial orders led to prolonged disputes over whether to reconstruct the record or conduct a fresh consolidation. The High Court held that executive authority cannot be exercised to nullify prior judicial decisions. The core legal question is whether the Board of Revenue, in the exercise of its plenary powers, was competent to order fresh consolidation due to the unsatisfactory and unreliable nature of the reconstructed record and the failure of the field staff to demarcate the areas. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the impracticability and unreliability of the reconstructed record needed detailed consideration, and directed that status quo regarding possession be maintained.
Questions settled- Whether the exercise of executive authority can nullify the effect of prior judicial decisions regarding land consolidation?
- Is the Board of Revenue competent in the exercise of its plenary powers to order fresh consolidation when the reconstructed record is found to be dubious and unreliable?
- Whether fresh consolidation can be ordered when field staff fail to demarcate and identify the position of land given to right-holders under an earlier confirmed scheme?
- Choudhry MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1019 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- CHOLISTAN CO OPERATIVE WOOL DEVELOPMENT MARKETING UNION Ltd, BAHAWALPUR vs BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1983 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed an appeal against a land acquisition award on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides for appeals to the High Court, contains a non-obstante clause that excludes the application of the Limitation Act, 1908, specifically Article 156. The Supreme Court examined whether the non-obstante clause in Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, displaces the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court held that the non-obstante clause only displaces provisions in other enactments that are inconsistent with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not provide a specific period of limitation for filing appeals, the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908, remain applicable. Consequently, the Court affirmed that Article 156 of the Limitation Act, 1908, governs the limitation period for appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does the non-obstante clause in Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 exclude the application of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 subject to the limitation period prescribed by Article 156 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- To what extent does the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- DARSHANMAL vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 36 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH SHAH (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs AKHTAR MUNIR AND 251983 PLD Peshawar 223 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH DIN vs BORDER AREA COMMITTEE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 216 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- CHIEF SECRETARY/REFERRING AUTHORITY, AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 95 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 9 OTHERS1983 PLC 1235 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Labour Court, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal against an order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The Authority had directed the petitioners to pay deducted wages and compensation to the respondents. The petitioners appealed this decision but failed to comply with the mandatory proviso to Section 17(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, which requires the filing of a certificate of deposit of the awarded amount along with the appeal. Although the petitioners claimed to have deposited the funds, they failed to produce the required certificate despite being granted an opportunity by the Labour Court. The High Court held that the Labour Court's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with a mandatory statutory condition was legally sound. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding the maintainability of the joint application, noting that the application was filed under Section 15, not Section 16, and that the objection was overly technical without showing prejudice. The petition was dismissed, affirming that statutory conditions for appeals must be strictly satisfied.
Questions settled- Is the filing of a certificate of deposit a mandatory condition precedent for maintaining an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal for failure to produce the required certificate of deposit despite being granted an opportunity to do so?
- Does the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 17(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 justify the dismissal of an appeal?
- CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION), GUDU BARRAGE, SUKKUR AND 2 Other vs RAH1983 PLC 393 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
- CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION), GUDDU BARRAGE REGION AND 2 Other vs ALI1983 PLC 53 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry, Member MOHAMMAD ALAMGIR KHAN vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF1983 PLC (C. S.) 288 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-08-28Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry, Member JULLION MICHAEL GILL vs DIRECTOR, EXCISE & TAXATION, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 448 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-04Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1983 CLC 1678 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-06Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry MEHR DIN vs WEST PAKISTAN ENEMY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT1983 CLC 2363 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry IQBAL HUSSAIN AND Another vs SUB MAJOR MUHAMMAD AMIN1983 SCMR 876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a civil suit for the partition of joint property originally belonging to Mst. Rehmat Jan. The plaintiffs, including a son, a daughter, and heirs of a deceased daughter, sought partition, which was resisted by the defendants claiming ownership through an alleged will and gift in favor of the third daughter's husband. The core legal question concerned the validity and proof of the alleged will and gift, and whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts could be disturbed in second appeal. The Supreme Court held that no ground was made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court, and maintained by the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact on evidentiary matters will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts in a partition suit?
- Can a second appeal be maintained against concurrent factual determinations regarding a disputed will and gift?
- Chaudhary WALAYAT KHAN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SADDAR, GUJRAT1983 CLC 743 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- CHANNA N SHAH vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL CELL, SIND,1983 CLC 330 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- CHANGO AND 6 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1246 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
- CHAND BADHSAH AND 23 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2732 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-09Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT EVACUEE TRUST COMMITTEE, RAWALPINDI vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND 8 Other1983 SCMR 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a settlement appeal regarding whether the property in dispute is evacuee property simpliciter or evacuee trust property. The petitioner argued that the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction by not disposing of an application for demarcation of the property to determine its exact Khasra location. Upon requisitioning and examining the High Court record, the Supreme Court discovered that the demarcation application had indeed been taken up and rejected by the High Court on the ground that it was made at a belated appellate stage without prior diligence at the trial stage. Since the core factual assumption of the petitioner regarding the undecided application proved unfounded and the correctness of the High Court's rejection order was unchallenged, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked force and dismissed it.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can reject an application for property demarcation made at a belated stage when the party failed to get the demarcation done at the trial stage?
- Whether the High Court fails to exercise jurisdiction when an application for property demarcation has in fact been considered and rejected on record?
- CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE1983 SCMR 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a respondent's writ petition challenging an order of disqualification passed by the Discipline Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The respondent had been disqualified from appearing in three examinations for alleged copying. The High Court had set aside the Board's order primarily because the Board failed to file a written statement in response to the writ petition, citing the theft of relevant files. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court erred in declaring the Discipline Committee's order to be without lawful authority solely on the assumption that the domestic tribunal failed to act judicially, despite the Board's contention that sufficient material existed to demonstrate that a show-cause notice had been served and a proper inquiry conducted. The Court also sought to examine whether the writ petition was barred by laches. Pending the final decision of the appeal, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the High Court's impugned order.
Questions settled- Can a High Court declare an order of a domestic tribunal to be without lawful authority solely because a written statement was not filed?
- Does the failure of a domestic tribunal to file a written statement in a writ petition automatically imply that it did not act judicially?
- Whether a writ petition challenging a disciplinary action by an educational board is barred by laches?
- CH1RAGH SHAH (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs AKHTAR MUNIR AND 251983 CLC 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
- Ch. ZAHOOR AHMAD vs DADU KHAN AND Other1983 SC M.R 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court regarding the validity of the transfer of a plot. The core legal question is whether the transfer of an open plot to a local individual, Saroon Khan, was legally permissible under the prevailing settlement laws, and consequently, whether that plot remained available for subsequent auction to other respondents. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred in holding that the initial transfer was invalid because the transferee was not a claimant, thereby overlooking the provisions of paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, read with Settlement Scheme VI. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's arguments regarding the validity of the 1960 transfer and the subsequent unavailability of the plot for auction in 1961 raised substantial questions requiring further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directing that the matter be prepared for hearing on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents, noting the significant delay since the case's inception in 1976.
Questions settled- Can an open plot be transferred to a local individual under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does a valid prior transfer of a plot render a subsequent auction of the same property illegal?
- Ch. WALAYAT KHAN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GUJRAT1983 SCMR 1005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding a no-confidence motion. The petitioner, elected as Chairman of the Union Council, challenged the notice issued for convening a meeting to consider a third no-confidence motion against him, contending that he did not receive the mandatory seven clear days' notice under the relevant rules. The core legal question concerned the validity of the notice and the procedural requirements for tabling a no-confidence motion under the applicable local government laws. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the validity of the notice was not raised before the High Court and that under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, a motion could be tabled after six clear months within a prescribed thirty-day period. The petition was found to be without merit and was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that procedural objections not raised before the lower court cannot be entertained for the first time, and the statutory timelines provided under the local government framework for no-confidence motions must be strictly construed.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new factual or legal contention regarding the validity of a notice for the first time before the Supreme Court without having raised it before the High Court?
- Within what timeframe can a subsequent no-confidence motion be tabled under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- What is the consequence under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 if no motion is tabled within the stipulated thirty-day period after six clear months?
- Ch. TAWANGAR HUSSAIN vs DIRECTOR, MANPOWER AND TRAINING, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1011 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- Ch. SHAH MUHAMMAD vs WAJAHAT ALI AND 6 OTHERS1983 CLC 3013 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
- Ch. RIAZ AHMAD AND 2 Other vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 462 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
- Ch. REHMAT ALI vs Haji JAN MUHAMMAD AND Other1983 SCMR 1109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court arising from a dispute over the inheritance of evacuee agricultural land allotted to a displaced person who died in 1955. The core legal questions involved whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging inheritance mutations sanctioned by rehabilitation authorities, and whether a subsequent civil suit is barred by res judicata when the validity of the same orders was previously upheld by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent civil suit was barred by the general principles of res judicata, as the validity of the mutations had already been conclusively determined by the High Court in a prior writ petition. Furthermore, decisions of the High Court on questions of law are binding on subordinate courts. The key principles laid down are that a party cannot reagitate the validity of orders of statutory authorities in a civil suit after an unsuccessful challenge in a constitutional petition, and that prior High Court judgments bind subordinate courts.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent civil suit to challenge orders of statutory authorities is barred by res judicata after an unsuccessful constitutional petition?
- Is a decision of the High Court rendered in constitutional jurisdiction binding on subordinate civil courts?
- Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to question inheritance mutations already upheld by the High Court?
- Ch. RAJ MUHAMMAD vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 75 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Ch. NAZIR AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND Other1983SCMR782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an auction sale of a property. The core legal question was whether a property, for which a Provisional Transfer Order (PTO) had already been lawfully issued to an occupant, could be validly auctioned by the Settlement Department without first issuing a notice of demand or passing formal orders of resumption upon the occupant's failure to pay. The Supreme Court held that once a Provisional Transfer Order was lawfully issued in favor of the occupant, the property could not be put to auction unless the department had issued a notice of demand and subsequently passed proper orders of resumption, with due notification to the occupant. As these procedural requirements were not met, the auction was deemed to be without lawful authority. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the petitioner had no valid claim over the property, and dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a property subject to a Provisional Transfer Order be auctioned without issuing a notice of demand to the transferee?
- Is an auction of property valid if the department fails to pass formal orders of resumption after a Provisional Transfer Order has been issued?
- Does the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order preclude the subsequent auction of the same property by the Settlement Department?
- Ch. NAIMAT ULLAH KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB LABOUR DEPARTMENT1983 PLC (C. S.) 230 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood vs Haroon-Ur-Rashid Cheema, District Attorney For Respondent1983PLC(C.S.) 910 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ch. MUNAWAR HUSSAIN BHATTI vs WAPDA1983 PLC (C. S.) 86 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM HASSAN1983 CLC 800 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs DIRECTOR, CIVIL DEFENCE, PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 898 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MULTAN1983 CLC 2956 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER vs REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MULTAN AND 3 OTHERS s1983 CLC 1137 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs SECRETARY, SERVICES GENERAL1983 PLC (C. S.) 1026 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
- Ch. MASOOD AHMED vs MESSRS PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY1983 PLC 756 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-22Read full judgment →
- Ch. M. SHARIF MUMTAZ vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUJRANWALA AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2417 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. KHADIM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 CLC 1200 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-04-27Read full judgment →
- Ch. HASHMAT ALI vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SIALKOT1983 CLC 1940 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
- Ch. GHULAM SARWAR AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. GHULAM RASOOL vs MAHMOOD KHAN AND Other1983 SCMR 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a local election dispute where the petitioner and respondent No. 1 tied for the chairmanship, leading to the respondent's victory via drawing of lots. The petitioner challenged this result, alleging that a voter, Rehmat A.I, was disqualified by a stay order and that his vote for the respondent should be excluded. The Election Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the High Court overturned this, holding that the stay order did not preclude the voter's participation and that inquiring into his vote violated the secrecy of the ballot. The Supreme Court addressed whether the stay order effectively disqualified the voter and whether the petitioner had established the necessary facts. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to substantiate the validity or scope of the stay order and failed to present complete evidence. The Court emphasized that the grant of leave to appeal is discretionary and denied the petition because the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands.
Questions settled- Does the failure to provide complete evidence regarding the nature of a stay order preclude a petitioner from challenging an election result?
- Is the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court a discretionary power?
- Can an election result be challenged based on the alleged disqualification of a voter where the validity of the disqualifying order is not established?
- Ch. FATEH MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SARGODHA AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 899 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-26Read full judgment →
- Ch. FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs C. W. SCOTT1983 PLD Karachi 606 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →
- Ch. ALTAF HUSSAIN AND Others vs MIRZA AZAM BEG1983 SCMR 643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought a stay of execution of a money decree passed by the High Court against them, pending the disposal of their appeal before the Supreme Court. The underlying dispute arose from an agreement to sell a house, which was subsequently rescinded, with the petitioners agreeing to refund a specific sum to the respondent. A clause in the rescission agreement stipulated that the respondent would forfeit the unpaid amount if he initiated legal proceedings against the petitioners. The respondent later filed a complaint against petitioner No. 1 with Martial Law authorities, which was ultimately found to be incorrect. The Supreme Court declined to grant an unconditional stay of execution, reasoning that the petitioners would not suffer irreparable loss by paying the decretal amount. Relying on the principle that a party appealing a money decree may obtain a stay by lodging the amount in court unless the decree-holder provides security for restitution, the Court held that the decretal amount could be paid to the respondent only upon his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the execution court for the potential restitution of funds should the appeal succeed.
Questions settled- Can a stay of execution be granted against a money decree without the appellant lodging the decretal amount in court?
- Under what conditions may a decree-holder receive payment of a decretal amount while an appeal against the decree is pending?
- Is the provision of security for restitution a prerequisite for the execution of a money decree pending appeal?
- Ch. ABDUR RASHID AND ANOTHER vs REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 744 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL SHAKOOR vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 404 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL HAMID vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1968 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL HAMEED vs UNITED BANK LTD.1983 PLC 1180 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-09Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL HAMEED AND COMM vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 61 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL AZIZ vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR1983 PLC (C. S.) 628 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL COTTON MILLS LTD. vs ABDUL AZIZ1983 PLC 1010 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND Another vs MESSRS KAGHAN IMPEX AND Other1983 SCMR 316 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Central Board of Revenue against Messrs Kaghan Impex. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan involves the interpretation, scope, and legal effect of paragraph 7(5) of the Import Policy Order dated 1-7-1979, specifically in light of the subsequent amendment introduced by S.R.O. 1040(1)/80, dated 13th October 1980. Upon hearing the parties, the Court determined that the case presented substantial questions of law worthy of further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the ambiguity surrounding the regulatory provisions governing imports. As an interim measure to preserve the subject matter of the dispute pending final adjudication, the Court ordered that the operation of the impugned judgment be suspended. The Court further directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record, with liberty for the parties to submit additional documentation, and prioritized the matter for an expedited hearing within the calendar year to ensure timely resolution of the regulatory dispute.
Questions settled- What is the scope and effect of paragraph 7(5) of the Import Policy Order dated 1-7-1979?
- What is the legal effect of the amendment introduced by S.R.O. 1040(1)/80 dated 13th October 1980 on the Import Policy Order?
- CBE PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD AND ANOTHER s vs Mst. NAZIRAN BIBI1983 PLD Supreme Court 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, Punjab Road Transport Board and its driver, sought leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts which decreed a suit for damages amounting to Rs. 30,000 in favour of the widow and minor daughter of a deceased individual killed in a traffic collision involving a Board bus. The core legal question was whether the civil court improperly based its findings on the judgment of a criminal court that had convicted the driver for rash and negligent driving. The Supreme Court held that the civil court had independently decided the matter based on ocular and local evidence produced before it, with only a passing reference made to the criminal conviction. The Court dismissed the petition, observing that the damages awarded were already derisory and deplored the conduct of a public body in prolonging the litigation against an unfortunate family. The key principle laid down is that a civil court's judgment in a damages suit is sustainable when founded on independent evidence adduced during the trial, notwithstanding incidental references to related criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a civil court decree a suit for damages based on a criminal court conviction without independent evidence?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact on the adequacy of damages in a fatal accident case?
- Is a public transport board justified in challenging modest compensation awarded to the dependents of a traffic accident victim?
- CAPTAIN DR. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL HAYEE1983 CLC 237 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
- CAPT. HIDAYAT ALI vs ALI MUHAMMAD AND Other1983 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim for the transfer of servant quarters associated with a larger bungalow. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in upholding the Settlement Commissioner's finding that the servant quarters constituted a distinct and separate property unit, given they were situated on a different Khasra number, separated by a dead wall, and accessed via a separate lane. The Supreme Court examined the site plan and relevant documents and concluded that the High Court's decision to uphold the Settlement Commissioner's finding of fact was just and fair. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the finding regarding the distinct nature of the property units was not subject to interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, affirming that findings of fact based on spot inspections by competent authorities, when reasonable, are generally uninterferable by the High Court.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a Settlement Commissioner after a spot inspection?
- Does a property separated by a dead wall and situated on a different Khasra number constitute a distinct unit for the purpose of transfer?
- CAPT. HASHMAT KHAN vs MRS. ZOHRA1983 CLC 3276 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-09Read full judgment →
- CAPT. Ch. GHULAM RASOOL RANDHAWA AND ANOTHER vs ALI MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 901 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION, KARACHI vs CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT AND Other1983 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether employment in the Canteen Stores Department (C.S.D.) is a service connected with the defence or with the Armed Forces and hence excluded under section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance from the purview of that Ordinance. The appellants contended that the C.S.D. operated as a commercial organization funded privately rather than a service connected with the defence or armed forces. The Supreme Court held that the objective of the C.S.D., both as a government undertaking and subsequently, is to supply daily use articles and to form the basis of an efficient canteen organization for troops in peace and war, thereby connecting it indispensably with the Armed Forces. Consequently, the C.S.D. falls within the exclusion under section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, rendering the Ordinance inapplicable to its employees. The appeal and petition were dismissed by the Court.
Questions settled- Whether employment in the Canteen Stores Department is a service connected with the defence or with the Armed Forces?
- Does the Canteen Stores Department stand excluded from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance under section 1(3)?
- Is the registration of a trade union for Canteen Stores Department employees lawful under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- C. D. WILSON vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 207 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
- BUTA KHAN vs FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 314 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-08-05Read full judgment →
- BURSHANE (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD OF KORANGI CREEK, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 517 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the business of supplying liquefied petroleum gas (L.P.G.), challenged the authority of the Cantonment Board of Korangi Creek to repeatedly levy octroi duty on empty L.P.G. cylinders brought back to its plant for re-filling. The petitioner argued that octroi was payable only upon initial import and that repeated levies on returned cylinders were unlawful. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the validity of the amending notification dated 31-5-1979 on the grounds of non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of sections 61 and 62 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The High Court of Sindh held that while the process of re-filling empty cylinders constitutes 'use' within the cantonment limits, making them repeatedly liable to octroi under ordinary circumstances, the impugned notification itself was invalid. The Court ruled that the statutory procedures under sections 61 and 62 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, are mandatory for both the initial imposition and any subsequent modification or enhancement of taxes, and failure to comply with them invalidates the levy.
Questions settled- Does the re-filling of empty gas cylinders within cantonment limits constitute 'use' for the purpose of levying octroi duty?
- Are the procedural requirements under sections 61 and 62 of the Cantonments Act 1924 mandatory for the modification or enhancement of an existing tax?
- What is the legal effect of a Cantonment Board's failure to publish a notice inviting public objections before revising a tax rate?
- BURMA OILS MILLS LTD. vs AMIR ALI AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1990 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
- BRIG. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 6 OTHERS vs PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH COLLECTOR AND OTHERS1983 CLC 520 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
- BRIG. (RETD.) MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN vs THE AZAD GOVENMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, MUZAFFARABAD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1204 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
- BRIG. (RETD.) MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN vs GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 661 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
- BOOTA vs THE STATE1983 PCr. LJ 2110 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- BOGA KHAN vs REHMAT ALI AND Other1983 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal examines whether the Lahore High Court lawfully set aside a Settlement Commissioner's order regarding the transfer of a disputed plot to the appellant. The appellant claimed possession and permanent construction on a portion of the plot since 1952, while respondents held a transfer and Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) for the whole plot. Following earlier remand proceedings that became final, the Settlement Commissioner had awarded the occupied portion to the appellant. The High Court set this aside, holding that the issuance of the P.T.D. barred belated claims. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant was in possession and had raised permanent construction before the target date, the respondents were not entitled to that portion, and the High Court erred in interfering with the Settlement Commissioner's decision in its constitutional jurisdiction. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the Settlement Commissioner's order restored, with a recorded compromise between the parties incorporated for complete justice.
Questions settled- Whether a permanent transfer deed bars a party in prior possession and construction from claiming a portion of the plot?
- Can the High Court interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with a factual determination of property entitlement made by a Settlement Commissioner after a final remand order?
- Whether parties can adjust their property possession through a mutual compromise recorded before the Supreme Court to do complete justice?
- Board of Revenue SOOBA KHAN vs THE STATE1983 PLD Rev. 43 · Board of Revenue · 1982-07-05Read full judgment →
- Board of Revenue NAZIR MUHAM MAD vs COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY1983 PLD Rev. 8 · Board of Revenue · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
- Board of Revenue ABDUL MAJEED AND OTHERS vs SHAH WALI1983 PLD Rev. 10 · Board of Revenue · 1979-09-26Read full judgment →
- BLACKWOOD HODGE (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs HAKIMSONS (IMPEX) LTD.1983 CLC 1251 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- BILQUIS NARGIS vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,1983 PLC (C. S.) 1141 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- BILQUEES BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS vs LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 21983 PLD Lahore 113 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- BILAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE--1983 P Cr. LJ 2046 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
- BILAL AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ADMN.), LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1138 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- BHUREY KHAN AND Others vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND Other1983SCMR 1033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1578-R of 1976. The core legal question concerns the proper implementation of the Settlement Commissioner's order dated 25-8-1976, which allowed the respondents to retain 288 P.I. Units previously excluded by subordinate authorities, and whether this implementation prejudices the petitioners by encroaching upon land not covered by the cancellation orders. The Supreme Court held that the orders of the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court are clear to the effect that the respondents are only to be restored the specific area that was cancelled from their names by the lower authority and subsequently set aside by the Settlement Commissioner, and no other area is to be taken from the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that execution and implementation of administrative or quasi-judicial settlement orders must strictly adhere to the explicit metes and bounds of the original cancellation and restoration orders without extending to extraneous properties.
Questions settled- Whether the respondents are entitled to be restored land beyond the specific area cancelled by the lower settlement authorities?
- Can settlement authorities encroach upon land not covered by cancellation orders to make up allotted P.I. Units?
- BHAI KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1152 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-04-22Read full judgment →
- BHAI KHAN AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2498 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
- BEHRAM KHAN AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P., LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR AND 10 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- BEGUM ALI AL-HASHMI- vs Mst. AMATUL SHAKOOR AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 762 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
- BEGAAN vs ABDUL HAMID1983 P Cr. L J 1470 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
- BAWANY SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs MARKET COMMITTEE, BADIN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the validity of notifications issued under the West Pakistan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, and the subsequent levy of market fees on sugar and sugarcane. The core legal questions concerned the procedural validity of notifications issued under Sections 3 and 4, the legality of appointing an Administrator under Section 25-A in the absence of a pre-existing market committee, and whether the market fee constituted an unauthorized tax or a valid fee for services. The Court held that the notifications were validly issued, as they must be read in conjunction with the initial declaration of intent. It further held that Section 25-A grants emergency powers to the Government to appoint an Administrator even where no market committee previously existed. Regarding the fee, the Court ruled that while the levy is a valid fee for services rendered under the Act, the Market Committee cannot charge fees on both sugarcane and the sugar manufactured therefrom, as this constitutes impermissible double taxation. The judgment establishes that administrative notifications under the Act are valid if they substantially comply with statutory requirements and that double levy on raw and finished products is prohibited.
Questions settled- Can the government appoint an Administrator under Section 25-A of the West Pakistan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, in the absence of a pre-existing market committee?
- Is a market fee levied by a market committee considered a tax or a fee for services rendered?
- Does the levy of market fees on both sugarcane and the sugar manufactured from it constitute impermissible double taxation?
- Does the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950, impliedly repeal the West Pakistan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939?
- BAWA ISARDAS CHELA OF KISHINDAS vs KISHINDAS AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Quetta 100 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- BATA (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs MAQBOOL HUSSAIN1983 PLC 848 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- BASHIR vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1084 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner Bashir under sections 10(3) and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, while acquitting his co-accused brother on the benefit of the doubt. The core legal questions involved whether the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix could be relied upon despite the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence, and whether an acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt establishes the innocence of the co-accused so as to exonerate the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of a co-accused on the benefit of the doubt does not amount to a positive finding of non-participation or render the prosecutrix's testimony untruthful as to other accused, and that no corroboration was required in the absence of previous enmity. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix can be relied upon for conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the ground of benefit of the doubt automatically entitle another co-accused to an acquittal?
- Does an acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt constitute a positive finding that the acquitted accused did not participate in the crime?
- BASHIR vs THE STATE---1983 P Cr. LJ 2027 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
- BASHIR HUSSAIN vs MESSRS KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.1983 PLC 633 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-10Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2149 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AID MAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1432 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs THE STATE AND Other1983SCMR633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which upheld the dismissal of the appellant, a civil servant, from service. The appellant, a Kanungo, was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings where charges were found proven against him. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant was prejudiced in his defense because he was allegedly not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report prior to the issuance of a show-cause notice. Upon examining the record, the Supreme Court found that the Collector had explicitly ordered the issuance of the show-cause notice along with the enquiry report. Furthermore, the case diary indicated that the appellant had participated in the proceedings over numerous dates without ever raising an objection regarding the non-receipt of the enquiry report. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant had been duly provided with the report and dismissed the appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that in the absence of a contemporaneous objection on the record, it is presumed that official proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant is prejudiced in their defense if an enquiry report is not supplied along with a show-cause notice?
- Can a court presume that an official order directing the supply of an enquiry report was complied with in the absence of an objection on the record?
- BASHIR AHMED vs Mst. ZUBEDA KHATOON1983 CLC 390 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant on the ground of default. The core legal question is whether the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1979 applies to a tenancy involving a saw machine let out with a portion of land, thereby granting the Rent Controller jurisdiction over the matter. The appellant argued that such a composite letting of machinery and land falls outside the scope of the Ordinance. The Court held that the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1979 does not cover a factory or premises comprising machinery and land. Relying on established precedents regarding the interpretation of similar definitions in the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the Court determined that the definitions of 'building', 'land', and 'premises' in the current Ordinance do not encompass a factory. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the ejectment order for lack of jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that the scope of rent control legislation is strictly governed by its statutory definitions, and a preamble cannot expand these definitions to include subjects not explicitly covered by the operative provisions.
Questions settled- Does the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1979 apply to a tenancy involving a saw machine installed on a piece of land?
- Can a preamble to an enactment control or regulate the main provisions of that enactment?
- Does the definition of 'premises' under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1979 include a factory?
- Can a question of jurisdiction be agitated at the appellate stage if it involves no investigation of facts?
- BASHIR AHMED vs KHURSHIDUL HAQ AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 652 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs HASSAN DIN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 455 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED SALIK vs THE DIRECTOR, RAPID SOIL FERTILITY SURVEY AND1983 PLC (C. S.) 1192 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED PIRACHA vs CHIEF ENGINEER (S&GA), WAPDA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1079 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-08-28Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD ZAFAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 143 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1980-04-14Read full judgment →