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.
- Syed DILSHAD HUSSAIN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 153 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-04Read full judgment →
- Syed BAHAUDDIN AND Others vs DUR MUHAMMAD SHAH AND 2 ANOTHER1982 CLC 1480 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
- Syed AZIZUDDIN vs MESSRS HASHMY CAN CO. AND Other1982 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal against the order of the Industrial Court, which had dismissed his application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. The appellant, a dye-maker employed by the respondent company, was dismissed from service in March 1966 after an inquiry into allegations of working for a rival firm and disclosing trade secrets. His application under section 31 was filed nearly a year later in March 1967 and was dismissed by the Industrial Court on grounds of lack of pending industrial dispute and laches, the latter ground alone being affirmed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the appellant's application under section 31 could be dismissed on the ground of laches despite no explicit statutory limitation period. The Supreme Court held that although no period of limitation is prescribed, such applications must be brought within a reasonable time, and unexplained or unreasonable delay warrants dismissal to prevent disruption in employment arrangements. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 can be dismissed on the ground of laches when no specific period of limitation is prescribed?
- Does pursuing departmental representations constitute a sufficient justification for delay in filing an application before the Industrial Court?
- Syed ARSHAD HUSSAIN vs The GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 38 Other1982 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the validity of municipal elections held in Sukkur and the subsequent conversion of the Municipal Committee into a Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, a voter, alleged that the elections were void due to the failure to publish the final delimitation of constituencies in the official Gazette before the polls and because the elections were conducted by an improperly notified Returning Officer. Furthermore, the petitioner contested the legality of the existing office-bearers continuing as Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the newly constituted Corporation without fresh elections. The Court held that the petition was maintainable as a quo warranto proceeding. On the merits, the Court ruled that the publication of the final delimitation list through display at public offices and other means, necessitated by urgency, satisfied the legal requirements. It further held that procedural irregularities in notifying the appointment of Returning Officers did not invalidate the election absent proof of material prejudice. Finally, the Court affirmed that the conversion of a municipality into a corporation does not mandate fresh elections, as existing office-bearers naturally transition to their new designations.
Questions settled- Does the failure to publish a final delimitation list in the official Gazette before an election render the election void?
- Can an election be invalidated due to procedural irregularities in the notification of a Returning Officer's appointment?
- Does the conversion of a Municipal Committee into a Municipal Corporation necessitate holding fresh elections?
- Is delay a sufficient ground to dismiss a petition in the nature of quo warranto?
- Syed ALI MUMAMMAD (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) vs SETTLEMENT1982 SCMR 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave arises from a long-standing property dispute concerning the transfer of land measuring 36 kanals and 5 marlas. The core legal question was whether an alleged time-bar in filing an appeal against an initial allotment order vitiates subsequent revisional proceedings and remand orders that culminated in a final transfer order in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of proceedings is not circumscribed by any limitation of time, particularly when exercised suo motu, and that a party who submits to remand proceedings and takes a chance on a decision cannot later challenge the remand order on the ground of limitation. The key principles laid down are that revisional powers are not bound by strict limitation periods and that submission to remand proceedings operates as a waiver against challenging the validity of such remand.
Questions settled- Whether the revisional jurisdiction of a Settlement Commissioner is circumscribed by any limitation of time?
- What is the effect of submitting to remand proceedings on a party's right to challenge the initial remand order on the ground of limitation?
- Does an alleged time-bar in an appeal vitiate subsequent revisional proceedings and an ultimate allotment order?
- Syed AJLAL HAIDER vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, BAHAWALPUR CIRCLE BAHAWALPUR AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 90 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed AHMED SAEED KIRMANI vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND OTHER1982 CLC 590 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case dealt with four applications for impleadment as respondents under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a constitutional writ petition challenging the validity of a law. The applicants, including advocate associations and local body representatives, sought to be added as parties to oppose the writ petition. The petitioner opposed the applications on the grounds that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties. The High Court analyzed the legal standards governing impleadment, emphasizing the distinction between a 'necessary party' and a 'proper party'. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that a party can only be impleaded if its presence is necessary for an effectual and complete adjudication, or if its specific legal interest would be directly affected. Persons merely having a general common interest or who might indirectly benefit from the law under challenge do not possess a right to intervene. The High Court accordingly dismissed all the applications for impleadment.
Questions settled- What is the distinction between a necessary party and a proper party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a person generally interested in common with others have a right to be impleaded as a respondent under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the standard for determining an 'aggrieved party' to maintain a writ petition automatically apply to govern the impleadment of a respondent under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can individuals who derive a general benefit from a statute be impleaded as necessary parties in a writ petition challenging the validity of that statute?
- Syed AFZAL ALI vs ASSANDAS AND 4 Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal regarding the validity of land allotments made to a displaced person. The core legal question was whether, following the declaration of the respondents' property as non-evacuee, the prior allotment of said land to the appellant remained protected under Section 19-A of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1949 or Section 24 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957. The Supreme Court held that the allotment was not saved. The Court determined that Section 19-A of the 1949 Ordinance and Section 24 of the 1957 Act were intended to preserve only specific allotments made under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance 1948, not permanent settlements under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. The key principle laid down is that once property is declared non-evacuee, it ceases to be subject to the jurisdiction of Settlement Authorities and is removed from the compensation pool, rendering it ineligible for permanent settlement under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme.
Questions settled- Does the declaration of property as non-evacuee remove it from the jurisdiction of Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities?
- Do Section 19-A of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1949 and Section 24 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957 protect permanent settlements made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Can land declared as non-evacuee property be included in the compensation pool for allotment under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Syed ABID ALI SHAH AND 2 OTHERS vs THE CHAIRMAN SIND ROAD TRANSPORT1982 PLC 161 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUR RAHMAN vs CHARSADDA SUGAR MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 1060 · Labour Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUL RASHEED vs Mst. TAJUNNISA1982 CLC 954 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from concurrent decisions of the lower courts ordering the appellant-tenant's ejectment on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide use by the respondent-landlord. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts misread and misappreciated the evidence regarding the alleged default and the landlord's personal need, particularly where the landlord failed to enter the witness box and subsequently sold the property pending appeal. The Sindh High Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence, as the tenant had been depositing rent in court and the landlord's attorney lacked personal knowledge of the earlier period, while the ground of personal need ceased to exist upon the sale of the property. The court set aside the ejectment orders, establishing that concurrent findings based on misread evidence cannot be sustained and that a bona fide personal need claim abates when the disputed property is sold during litigation.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in second appeal if they are based on a misreading of evidence?
- Does the ground of personal and bona fide use for ejectment cease to exist if the landlord sells the property during the pendency of an appeal?
- What is the evidentiary value of testimony given by an attorney who lacks personal knowledge of the material facts when the principal fails to enter the witness box?
- Syed ABBAS ALI vs THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION ETC.S1982 SCMR 1171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- SWALI AND Other vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sind, which maintained the appellants' convictions for murder and attempted murder while reducing their sentences to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerns whether the convictions were sustainable under the principle of safe dispensation of justice, given contentions regarding the reliability of ocular testimony, the impact of a delay in lodging the First Information Report, and alleged irregularities in the handling of forensic evidence. The Supreme Court held that the convictions were sound. The Court found the ocular testimony of the witnesses to be credible and natural, noting that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's version of the incident. Furthermore, the Court determined that the delay in lodging the FIR and the transmission of forensic articles did not undermine the prosecution's case, as the explanations provided were plausible and the evidence remained reliable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the convictions and sentences as established by the trial court and modified by the High Court.
Questions settled- Does a delay in lodging an FIR necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case when the delay is otherwise explained?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony corroborated by forensic recovery of weapons?
- Does the absence of charring around wounds provide evidence regarding the distance from which a firearm was discharged?
- Is the failure to immediately send forensic articles to a laboratory fatal to the prosecution's case if the delay is not attributable to the investigating officer?
- SUWALI vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 808 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence based on torchlight identification in pitch darkness, the evidentiary value of a ballistic report submitted after a significant delay, and whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. It established the principle that torchlight identification in darkness is inherently suspicious and requires independent corroboration to be credible. Furthermore, the Court ruled that substantial, unexplained delays in transmitting incriminating articles, such as crime empties and weapons, to a ballistic expert deprive the resulting report of its evidentiary value. Additionally, the Court noted that unexplained prior incidents occurring near the scene of the crime cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that the benefit of any doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Questions settled- Is identification of an accused by torchlight in pitch darkness sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in sending crime empties and a weapon to a ballistic expert render the expert's report unreliable?
- Should the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused when the prosecution fails to explain suspicious circumstances surrounding the crime scene?
- SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA, SUKKUR AND 4 OTHETS vs PAKISTAN HYDRO-ELECTRIC, CENTRAL LABOUR UNION1982 PLC 283 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-12Read full judgment →
- SUPERINTENDENT WATCH AND WARD, PAKISTAN RAILWAY vs MUHAMMAD1982 PLC 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MUHAMMAD SHAH vs MAI. FAROUK KHAN AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 650 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MUHAMMAD AHD 3 Other vs NAWAB KHAN AND Another1982 PLD Lahore 568 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the disputed land was purchased by four co-vendees, three of whom were tenants of the land while the fourth was a stranger. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of sinker applied to defeat the pre-emptive rights of the tenant-purchasers due to their association with a stranger in a joint sale. The appellants contended that the sale was divisible because the land purchased by the stranger was separately demarcated in the sale deed. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the sale price was mentioned as a lump sum and there was no indication of how the stranger shared the price, the sale was indivisible. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that where the individual share of the sale price paid by a co-vendee cannot be ascertained from the sale deed, the sale is indivisible, and the tenant-purchasers lose their preferential status by associating with a stranger under the doctrine of sinker.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of sinker apply to defeat the rights of tenant-purchasers who associate with a stranger in a joint land purchase?
- Can a sale deed be considered divisible for pre-emption purposes if the land shares are specified but the sale price is paid in a lump sum without indicating individual contributions?
- Whether the association of a stranger as a co-vendee in an indivisible sale deprives the tenant-purchasers of their preferential pre-emptive status?
- SULTAN MAWJEE AND Other vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, KARACHI AND 3 Other1982 PLD Karachi 889 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-27Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MAWJEE AND 3 Others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE1982 PLD Supreme Court 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the election of the President of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry for the year 1981-82. The core legal question was whether the Government of Pakistan, through the Director of Trade Organizations, possessed the authority under Section 9(1) of the Trade Organisations Ordinance, 1961, to issue a directive earmarking the presidency for a candidate from a specific province, thereby overriding the election mechanism established in the Federation's Articles of Association. The Supreme Court held that the directive was ultra vires and of no legal effect. The Court ruled that Section 9(1) confers only supervisory powers, which do not extend to overriding the Articles of Association or unilaterally altering election procedures. The Court established that where a statute prescribes a specific procedure for modifying a trade organization's constitution—such as the mechanism provided in Section 8 of the Ordinance—that procedure must be strictly followed. Consequently, the Court declared the directive invalid and ordered the election to proceed according to the established Articles of Association.
Questions settled- Does Section 9(1) of the Trade Organisations Ordinance, 1961, empower the government to issue directives that override the Articles of Association of a registered trade organization?
- Is the power of supervision under Section 9(1) of the Trade Organisations Ordinance, 1961, a plenary power to administer a trade organization?
- Must the government follow the procedure in Section 8 of the Trade Organisations Ordinance, 1961, to modify the Articles of Association of a trade organization?
- SULTAN ALI AND Others vs E. A. C. O. AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2637 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- SULTAN ALI AND Others vs E. A. C. O. AND OTHER1982 CLC 2637 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD ETC. vs Ch. FEROZE KHAN1982 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a pre-emption suit which was decreed in their favour. During the pendency of the suit, their application for amendment of the plaint to correct the description of the land was dismissed by the trial court, and a revision against that order was subsequently dismissed by the High Court. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court via a petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of the petition and the proper recourse regarding the amendment and the identity of the land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners had adequate alternative remedies to seek rectification of the decree during execution proceedings or by filing an appeal against the main decree, wherein questions regarding the identity of the land and extension of time for depositing the pre-emption price could be appropriately addressed. The court laid down the principle that an interlocutory order refusing amendment merges into the final decree, and matters concerning decree execution or pre-emption price deposits should be agitated in the substantive appeal against the decree.
Questions settled- Whether an order disallowing the amendment of a plaint merges into the final decree of the suit?
- Can a petitioner seek rectification of a decree or extension of time for depositing the pre-emption price in an appeal against the main decree?
- Does the dismissal of a revision petition against an interlocutory order bar the challenge to the decree in substantive appeal proceedings?
- SULPMAN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 575 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN vs KHURSHID1982 CLC 2511 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN vs Kazi MUHAMMAD MIAN (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1071 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN vs Kali MUHAMMAD MIAN (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1071 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN ETC. vs The STATE1982 SCMR 253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' criminal revision petition regarding their conviction for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, along with others, were originally convicted by a trial Magistrate for offences involving rioting and attempted murder, receiving sentences of rigorous imprisonment. While the appellate court acquitted some co-accused, it maintained the convictions of the petitioners, albeit with reduced sentences. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that their case was identical to the acquitted co-accused and argued that the evidence was unreliable. Furthermore, they sought a reduction of their sentences to the period already undergone, citing the passage of eleven years since the initial sentencing. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the prosecution evidence, noted that the complainant had sustained thirty-seven injuries, including grievous ones. Finding no merit in the contentions regarding the reliability of the evidence or the appropriateness of the sentences, the Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the reliability of prosecution evidence in a criminal revision petition?
- Does the mere passage of time since the imposition of a sentence constitute sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone?
- Can an appellate court maintain convictions for rioting and attempted murder while acquitting co-accused in the same incident?
- SULEMAN AND Others vs BAGH ALI1982 SCMR 938 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of a civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing the respondent's suit for a declaration of ownership based on a registered sale-deed. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision in limine when the dispute involved the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the trial and appellate courts. The Supreme Court held that since the lower courts' concurrent findings were amply supported by evidence and the dispute turned solely on the appreciation of evidence, the High Court rightly dismissed the revision in limine. The key principle laid down is that where concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are supported by evidence and the matter involves pure appreciation of evidence, a revisional court is justified in dismissing the revision summarily.
Questions settled- Whether a civil revision can be dismissed in limine when it turns solely on the appreciation of evidence?
- Are concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence open to interference in revision?
- SULEMAN AND OTHERS vs ALIF DIN1982 CLC 1851 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
- SULE MAN vs KHURSHID1982 CLC 2511 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- SULE M AN vs THE S. H. O., P. S. MITHA TIWANA, DISTRICT SARGODHA AND 21982 P Cr. L J 125 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
- SUHRAB vs DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD AND 4 OTHERS1982 CLC 725 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
- SUHRAB vs DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 725 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
- SUGNOMAL vs ZILLE ABBAS1982 CLC 2305 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- Sufi WASSAN MUHAMMAD vs PUNJAB PROVINCE1982 CLC 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-02Read full judgment →
- SUFI MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS ETC.1982 PLC 413 · Labour Court · 1981-11-27Read full judgment →
- Sufi MEHDI HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND Other1982 SCMR 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition filed by Sufi Mehdi Hassan seeking review of an earlier order refusing leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns whether settled litigation regarding property allotments and verified claims can be reopened de novo upon an allegation of fraud raised by a party whose own claim stands satisfied, particularly after the repeal of evacuee laws in 1974. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the petitioner lacked any tangible interest as his claim was already satisfied, and that the scope of remand in earlier proceedings was strictly limited to hearing affected transferees rather than reopening the entire verification of claims afresh. The Court laid down the principle that after the repeal of evacuee laws, concluded litigation and finalized allotments cannot be permitted to be restarted ab initio at the behest of a third party who has no subsisting unsatisfied claim.
Questions settled- Whether a party whose claim stands satisfied can seek the reopening of concluded settlement proceedings?
- Can settled property litigation be restarted ab initio upon allegations of fraud after the repeal of evacuee laws?
- Whether the scope of a remand order by a constitutional court can be expanded to re-examine matters already finalized?
- SUBHASH CHANDRA SARVESH KUMAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER45 TAX 107 · Allahabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Subedar MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KAHUTA AND 101982 PLD Supreme Court 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner, a Chairman of a Union Council, against a successful no-confidence motion. The core legal questions were whether a single notice for a no-confidence motion against both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman was legally sufficient, and whether the motion violated the statutory time restrictions regarding the interval between such motions. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the single notice effectively served its purpose of informing members and did not violate any legal provision. Regarding the timing, the Court clarified that Section 31(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, mandates a six-month interval between the first and second motions, or between subsequent motions, but does not impose a six-month waiting period before the first motion can be moved. The Court affirmed that the motion was competent and dismissed the petition, establishing that statutory notice requirements are satisfied if the object of the notice is achieved and that the six-month restriction applies only to subsequent motions.
Questions settled- Is a single notice for a no-confidence motion against both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman legally valid?
- Does the six-month restriction under Section 31(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, apply to the first no-confidence motion?
- What is the effect of a no-confidence motion not being moved within thirty days after the expiry of the six-month interval?
- SUB DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER ETC. vs FAZAL AHMED Etc1982 CLC 59 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
- SU GNOMAL vs ZILLE ABBAS1982 CLC 2305 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- STATE vs UMAR DRAZ AND 4 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 6 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-12Read full judgment →
- STATE vs SAEED BUTT1982 P Cr. L J 439 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
- STATE vs RAZA KHAN AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 1075 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD SALEH SONO AND ANOTHER.1982 P Cr. L J 937 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ASFANDYAR WALI AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of respondents Asfandyar Wali, Nisar Khan, and Farooq by the Peshawar High Court for charges including murder and conspiracy arising from a bomb explosion that killed Minister Hayat Muhammad Khan Sherpao on February 8, 1975. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the admissibility and voluntariness of their retracted confessions, the reliability of corroborative witness testimony, and evidence gathered through illegal detentions and torture. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the retracted confessions were involuntary, having been extracted through severe coercion in medieval dungeon cells without proper judicial remands, and that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were fundamentally tainted by prolonged illegal police custody and contradicted by official surveillance diaries. The Court laid down that a retracted confession of an accused or a co-accused cannot form the foundation of a conviction without strong, independent corroboration, and that evidence obtained through unlawful detention and torture is entirely inadmissible.
Questions settled- Can a retracted confession of an accused be made the sole foundation of a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Whether the confession of a co-accused can be used as substantive evidence or only to lend support to other evidence under Section 30 of the Evidence Act?
- Does prolonged illegal detention and torture of accused persons and witnesses vitiate confessions and testimonies procured during such custody?
- Whether intelligence reports spoken to by police officers who are not the authors of those reports are admissible in evidence?
- STATE vs ALLAH BACHAYO1982 PLD Karachi 291 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-25Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ABDUL FATTAH AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 781 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATIONOF PAKISTAN vs NASIM AHMAD AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1993 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs Sardar GHULAM FARID, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SARGODHA AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-10Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs Sardar GHULAM FARID, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SARGODHA AND OTHER1982 CLC 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-10Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs NASIM AHMAD AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1993 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs KAUSAR JEHAN1982 CLC 1658 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-14Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs K. A. MARKER AND Another1982 PLD Quetta 94 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ1982 CLC 2223 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- STATE BANK OF INDIA, KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1982 PLC 65 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-18Read full judgment →
- STATE AND Another vs KARIMDINO AND 12 OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 1325 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
- STAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD YASEEN1982 PLC 815 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-06Read full judgment →
- SOUTH ASIA INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DELHI45 TAX 67 · Delhi High CourtRead full judgment →
- SOIL CONSERVATION WORKERS' UNION vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS'1982 PLC 441 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
- SOHRAB BUTT vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1982 PLD Lahore 42 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-03Read full judgment →
- SOHNI AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 642 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-08Read full judgment →
- SOHNA MASIH vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HEALTH1982 PLC (C. S.) 735 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-07-23Read full judgment →
- SOBHO AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 243 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-18Read full judgment →
- Smt. SUNDRI BAI vs GHULAM HUSSAIN1982 CLC 2441 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
- SMITH KLINE & FRENCH OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs ABDUL RASHID PAI AND OTHERS1982 PLC 580 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
- SKY ROOMS LTD., KARACHI vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, KARACHI1982 PLD Karachi 244 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs confirming a demand for central excise duty and additional duty against a hotel operated as a subsidiary of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation. The core legal question was whether differential room rates and discounts offered to specific categories of customers, such as airline crew and long-term guests, constituted 'concessional rates' under section 4(3)(a) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, attracting excise duty based on normal unreduced rates. The court held that different rates fixed for distinct classes of customers or categories of stay do not amount to 'concessions' unless a favour or reduction is granted to customers within the exact same class. The key principle laid down is that a concessional rate imports a reduction or rebate from a fixed price for a specific class, whereas a legitimate differential rate structure applied across different classes of customers in trade and commerce does not attract penal assessment under excise law.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternate remedy of appeal when the appellate authority has already prejudged the matter?
- Do differential room rates charged to different classes of hotel customers constitute concessional rates under section 4(3)(a) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944?
- What constitutes a concessional rate or rebate in the context of trade and commerce for the assessment of central excise duty?
- SIRAJUDDIN vs LARK ANA MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE1982 CLC 1979 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-28Read full judgment →
- SIRAJUDDIN vs LAIZKANA MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE1982 CLC 1979 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-28Read full judgment →
- SIRAJUDDIN AND Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 860 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-01Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ DIN vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 4 Other1982 SCMR 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition relating to the dispute over the allotment of a plot in a Co-operative House Building Society. The core legal questions involve whether the Registrar was bound to make a reference to arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Act, whether the Managing Committee's failure to regularize the petitioner's possession rendered the impugned orders without lawful authority, and whether the petitioner had an enforceable right to the allotment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly addressed the arbitration issue, that the petitioner had no inviolable right to the specific plot, and that the refusal to allot did not constitute an act without lawful authority. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, while endorsing observations that the authorities might consider the petitioner's general case for a plot. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized occupation of society land does not confer an inviolable right to allotment, and discretionary refusal to allot by the competent committee is not reviewable as without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether the Registrar is bound to make a reference to arbitration under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act upon an application regarding a plot dispute?
- Does a person entering upon a plot without permission acquire an inviolable right to its allotment or regularization by the Managing Committee?
- Can a new factual contention not raised in the writ petition or before the High Court be permitted to be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- SIRAJ DIN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND Other1982 SCMR 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision application and upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for an injunction and decreeing Rs. 10,000 against him. The core legal question involved whether a counsel engaged by a party is competent to enter into a binding compromise statement on behalf of the client, and whether an appeal is competent against such a consent decree. The Supreme Court held that the counsel was fully competent to enter into the compromise statement as no power of attorney had been withdrawn or superseded at the relevant time, and that the resulting decree was a consent decree against which no appeal lay. The key principle laid down is that a duly engaged counsel possesses the implied authority to bind the client through statements and compromises made in court unless the power of attorney has been formally revoked or superseded before the court.
Questions settled- Is a counsel competent to enter into a compromise statement on behalf of a client when the power of attorney has not been formally revoked or superseded?
- Whether an appeal is competent against a consent decree passed on the basis of a statement made by the parties or their counsel?
- Does a party's failure to deposit a mutually agreed financial security as per a conditional in-court compromise justify the dismissal of the suit and decreeing of compensation against that party?
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs ZAMIR KHAN1982 PLC 921 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs Syed ABID ALI SHAH1982 PLC 977 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-21Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs ALTAF ALI1982 PLC 503 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs ABDUL KHALIQUE MANGI1982 PLC 97 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
- SIND MADRASATUL ISLAM BOARD SOCIETY vs SHAMIM1982 CLC 2242 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-17Read full judgment →
- SIND MADRASATUL ISLAM BOARD SOCIETY vs SHAM IM1982 CLC 2242. · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-17Read full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, Karachis vs SOCIAL1982 CLC 939 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, KARACHI vs SOCIAL SECURITY1982 CLC 939 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION vs SILVA INDUSTRIES LTD.1982 PLC 1062 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind Social Security Court No. 1, Karachi, which partly allowed an appeal against the assessment of arrears of social security contribution and a 50% increase thereon regarding canteen allowance and Eidi. The core legal question was whether the imposition of a statutory increase for unpaid contributions under section 23 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is automatic, or whether it requires inexcusable neglect, default, or omission by the employer, particularly when non-payment resulted from a clarification letter issued by the institution's Director. The Sindh High Court held that the word 'fail' in section 23 implies an inexcusable neglect or omission by the employer and does not apply where non-payment is attributable to an act, omission, or representation of the institution itself. The court laid down the principle that a penal increase for delayed contributions cannot be levied if the employer's failure to pay on the due date was induced by the institution's own conflicting clearance or clarification relied upon by the employer.
Questions settled- Whether an employer is automatically liable to pay a penal increase on delayed social security contributions under section 23 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, regardless of the reason for non-payment?
- Does the word 'fail' in section 23 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 require inexcusable neglect or omission on the part of the employer to attract the penalty?
- Can an employer be held liable for a statutory increase on unpaid contributions when the non-payment resulted from a clarification or representation issued by the institution itself?
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION vs R. C. D. BALL BEARING LTD.1982 PLD Karachi 829 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION vs LIPTON (PAKISTAN) LTD.1982 PLC (C. S.) 674 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR ALI vs SELECTION BOARD, LIAQUAT MEDICAL COLLEGE, JAMSHORO1982 CLC 2658 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQUE SULEMAN vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMEMT DIVISION AND ANOTHER , . (1982 PLC (C. S.) 431 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SIDDIQ AND 23 Other vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EAST, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 147 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-13Read full judgment →
- SIBGHAT ULLAH AND Others vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND Other1982 SCMR 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ and review petition by the High Court concerning the cancellation of excess land allotment to displaced persons. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was originally allotted agricultural land verified for 11144 produce index units. Following information laid by an informer alleging excess allotment, the authorities determined the petitioners held land in excess of their entitlement. After appeals and revisions through the settlement hierarchy, the excess land was allotted to the respondents, and the petitioners' subsequent challenges were dismissed by the High Court. The core legal question addressed whether the points raised in the subsequent writ petition could be re-opened after being conclusively disposed of in earlier settlement revision proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition as the matters had already been adjudicated and could not be re-opened, and further found the review petition without substance as no new points were raised. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether points already disposed of in settlement revision proceedings can be re-opened in a subsequent writ petition?
- Does a review petition have any substance when it fails to raise any new points not previously within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition?
- SIALKOT RURAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE TRUSI LTD vs JEHANIAN & SONS1982 CLC 1675 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25Read full judgment →
- SIALKOT RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE TRUST LTD. vs JEHANIAN &1982 CLC 1675 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-26Read full judgment →
- SHUJAAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 106 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
- Shri MAHANT BAWA MANOBHAGIR MANGALGIR vs DIVISIONAL EVACUEE TRUST1982 CLC 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
- SHITAB KHAN vs WALI MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 554 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
- SHIN MUHAMMAD vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, GOJRA AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 847 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-30Read full judgment →
- SHERSHAH INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI Petitioner vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND 4 Other1982 PLD Quetta 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-07-15Read full judgment →
- SHERSHAH INDUSTRIES LTD. vs THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 4 Other1982 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition, along with 129 connected matters, challenged the demand by the Karachi Municipal Corporation (KMC) for octroi duty at 2% ad valorem on vessels imported for scrapping. The petitioners argued that the vessels were dismantled at Gadani, Baluchistan, outside KMC limits, and thus not subject to octroi for "consumption, use or sale" within Karachi. The KMC contended that the vessels entered its limits, triggering the tax liability. The Court addressed preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of writ petitions where alternative remedies exist and where disputed questions of fact arise. The Court held that while ordinarily alternative remedies should be exhausted, the constitutional jurisdiction remains available where the impugned order is challenged as being without jurisdiction or where the alternative remedy is not efficacious. On merits, the Court ruled that since the vessels were imported for scrapping and were dismantled outside the KMC limits, they were not "consumed" within the municipality. Consequently, the demand for ad valorem octroi on the vessels was declared without lawful authority, though the petitioners remained liable for octroi on the scrap brought into Karachi by road.
Questions settled- Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition when an alternative statutory remedy is available?
- Does the levy of octroi on goods imported by sea into a municipality constitute an encroachment on the Federal legislative field of customs duties?
- Is octroi leviable on a vessel imported for scrapping if the scrapping occurs outside the municipal octroi limits?
- Does the High Court have the discretion to entertain a writ petition despite the existence of disputed questions of fact?
- SHERMAT KHAN vs MESSRS SABINA COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI1982 PLC 603 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
- SHERIN AND 2 Others ZARIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE SHERIN AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 1062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
- SHER WALI vs MESSRS KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.1982 PLC 266 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD Alias SHERU vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1303 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →